RELEASE THE MEMO: CAN A CHARGE OF TREASON BE BROUGHT TO BEAR AGAINST DOJ AND FBI OFFICIALS WHO HAVE MISUSED THE POWER AND AUTHORITY OF THEIR OFFICE TO UNDERMINE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

PART FOUR

THE CHARGE OF TREASON AGAINST THE DOJ AND FBI OFFICIALS, WHO MAY HAVE UNLAWFULLY CONSPIRED TO TOPPLE THE U.S. PRESIDENT, DONALD TRUMP, IS UNAVAILABLE, ON THE FACTS, AS WE PRESENTLY KNOW THEM.

One would think that those Government Officials responsible for attempting a coup of the Executive Branch of Government should also be charged with treason--the most serious federal offense--that the founders of our Republic and framers of our Constitution specifically set down in Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, and which is one crime the conviction of which does allow for a death penalty sentence upon conviction.Senior officials of the DOJ and FBI committed several heinous acts against this Nation, this Nation’s Constitution and laws, and against this Nation’s institutions.

• REFUSAL OF THE FBI TO RECOMMEND INDICTMENT AND THE REFUSAL OF THE DOJ TO INDICT HILLARY CLINTON ON MULTIPLE COUNTS OF MULTIPLE FELONIES, EVEN THOUGH THERE EXISTS AMPLE EVIDENCE OF CRIME, INCLUDING THE MISHANDLING OF CLASSIFIED DATA, BRIBERY, DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, LYING TO FEDERAL OFFICIALS, MONEY LAUNDERING, RACETEERING, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, AND PUBLIC CORRUPTION AMONG MANY OTHERS, SO THAT A LIKELY CRIMINAL MAY CONTINUE HER BID FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; AND, HAD SHE WON THE ELECTION, THIS WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN A LIKELY SERIAL FELON OCCUPYING THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND, ENABLING A THOROUGHLY DISREPUTABLE INDIVIDUAL, ALONG WITH HER HENCHMEN TO TAKE THIS NATION DOWN TO UTTER AND IRRETRIEVABLE RUINATION;

• CONDUCTING A CLANDESTINE OPERATION AGAINST THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CANDIDATE FOR U.S. PRESIDENT, DONALD TRUMP, TO UNFAIRLY, AND UNETHICALLY, ASSIST A LIKELY SERIAL FELON, HILLARY CLINTON, IN HER BID FOR U.S. PRESIDENT;

• IN FAILING TO INDICT HILLARY CLINTON ON MULTIPLE COUNTS OF MULTIPLE FEDERAL FELONIES, SENIOR FBI AND DOJ OFFICIALS ENABLED HILLARY CLINTON, A RUTHLESS, CUNNING, UNETHICAL, DISREPUTABLE INDIVIDUAL AND LIKELY SERIAL FELON, TO MISUSE THE MACHINERY OF THE DNC TO UNDERCUT THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL BID OF ANOTHER DEMOCRATIC PARTY HOPEFUL, BERNIE SANDERS; AND, AFTER, HILLARY CLINTON SECURED THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOMINATION FOR U.S. PRESIDENT THROUGH TREACHERY, SHE COMPOUNDED HER IGNOBLE CONDUCT AND MISDEEDS BY ORCHESTRATING OPPOSITION RESEARCH SCHEMES TO OBTAIN FALSE AND SCANDALOUS INFORMATION AGAINST HER REPUBLICAN PARTY OPPONENT, DONALD TRUMP, IN AN UNETHICAL ATTEMPT TO ENHANCE HER CHANCES TO PREVAIL AGAINST HER OPPONENT;

• CLINTON LOST, BUT, ONCE, TRUMP PREVAILED IN THE 2016 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, SENIOR OFFICIALS OF THE FBI AND DOJ PRESENTED FALSE DOCUMENTS TO THE FISA COURT IN ORDER TO SECURE, ILLEGALLY, A WARRANT TO INVESTIGATE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS;

• THESE SENIOR FBI AND DOJ OFFICIALS SET IN MOTION THE MACHINERY FOR APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL, UNDER FALSE PRETENSES, TO INVESTIGATE FALSE CLAIMS OF RUSSIAN COLLUSION WITH TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS, ALL IN AN EFFORT TO UNDERMINE THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY, WHEN THERE EXISTS NO TENABLE BASIS TO SUPPORT SUCH INVESTIGATION.

The Constitution sets forth:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.The U.S. Supreme Court, in Hanauer v. Doane, 79 U.S. 342, 20 L. Ed. 439, 12 Wall 342 (1879) stated, clearly, succinctly, and categorically: “No crime is greater than that of treason.” The crime of treason is also codified in federal statute, Chapter 115, Treason, Sedition, and subversive activities.Chapter 115 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 USCS § 2381 (Treason) states, in total:Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $ 10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court pointed out that the crime of treason comprises two elements: one, adherence to enemy; and two, rendering aid and comfort to him. Cramer vs. United States, 325 U.S. 1, 65 S. Ct. 918, 89 L. Ed. 1441 (1945).The expression, ‘enemy’ is a legal term of art. It has specific meaning in law.In Stephan v. United States, 133 F.2d 87 (1943), cert. den., 318 U.S. 781, 87 L. Ed. 1148, 638 S. Ct. 858 (1943), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said that ‘enemy’ refers to a party who is the subject of a foreign power whom the United States is in open hostility with.  The Arbalest Quarrel has written about the crime of treason in an article, titled, “'Treason'— A Timely Issue in the 2016 Presidential Election.” It would seem at first glance that senior DOJ and FBI Officials’ treacherous conduct should support a charge of treason, but, on close examination, the actions of these senior FBI and DOJ officials do not satisfy the predicate elements to support a charge of treason.Since, there is no evidence—at least as yet—that senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI that have machinated against Donald Trump have done so as the subject of a foreign power, with whom we are at war, these senior Officials of the FBI and DOJ cannot be charged with treason. A charge of treason against these individuals simply cannot gain traction.

IF TREASON IS UNAVAILABLE, ARE THERE ANY OTHER NATIONAL SECURITY CRIMES THAT SENIOR FBI AND DOJ OFFICIALS CAN FEASIBLY BE CHARGED WITH THAT INVOLVE A DESIGN TO ATTACK THE INSTITUTIONS OF THIS COUNTRY, INCLUDING, AND PRIMARILY, THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THIS NATION?

Before we attempt an answer to this question, let us step back for a moment, and take a closer look at two principal defilers of our Nation. One of them is Peter Strzok, a staunch supporter and defender of Hillary Clinton, who once served as Chief of the Counterespionage Section of the FBI, and who is still working for the FBI but has been demoted. Peter Strzok was a principal player in the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s criminal activities, pertaining to her mishandling of classified information during her tenure as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration. The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively about this and about other crimes that Hillary Clinton likely committed during her tenure as Secretary of State and since then.  See, for example, the article titled, “Pay to Play: The Clinton Foundation’s Open Secret and Silent Purpose.”Strzok was also a member of Special Counsel, Robert Mueller’s team, ostensibly investigating collusion between Trump campaign officials and the Russian Government, until Mueller was forced to remove him—almost certainly, reluctantly—once evidence of Strzok’s strong bias against Trump came to light, after publication of a series of ominous text messages between Strzok and Strzok’s mistress, Lisa Page. Lisa Page is, for her part, a principal defiler of our Nation, as well. Lisa Page is an FBI attorney, whose animus against Trump is as strong as Strzok’s. The two of them exchanged text messages referring to a “secret society,” apparently composed of high ranking officials in the DOJ and FBI who had conspired to spare Hillary Clinton from felony indictments so that she could continue her bid for U.S. President in the 2016 election.Having lost the election to Trump, the betrayers of our Nation, Strzok and Page and other senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI, conspired to destroy the Trump Presidency.On January 23, 2018, Fox News reported,"Two top FBI officials under fire for exchanging anti-Trump text messages during the 2016 election spoke of a “secret society” the day after President Trump's victory, according to two lawmakers with knowledge of the messages.Peter Strzok—a top counterintelligence official involved in both the Hillary Clinton email probe and FBI Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe—exchanged more than 50,000 messages with senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom he was romantically involved.House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., and Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, said Monday that among the messages the pair exchanged are references to a ‘secret society’ within the Department of Justice and the FBI.‘We learned today about information that in the immediate aftermath of [Trump’s] election, that there may have been a secret society of folks within the Department of Justice and the FBI—to include Page and Strzok—that would be working against him,’ Ratcliffe said Monday on Fox News’ ‘The Story with Martha MacCallum.’”Further, in a New York Post article, posted on the same date, the American public learns that:“. . . each day brings credible reports suggesting there is a massive scandal involving the top ranks of America’s premier law enforcement agency. The reports, which feature talk among agents of a “secret society” and suddenly missing text messages, point to the existence both of a cabal dedicated to defeating Donald Trump in 2016 and of a plan to let Hillary Clinton skate free in the classified email probe. If either one is true — and I believe both probably are — it would mean FBI leaders betrayed the nation by abusing their powers in a bid to pick the president.More support for this view involves the FBI’s use of the Russian dossier on Trump that was paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. It is almost certain that the FBI used the dossier to get FISA court warrants to spy on Trump associates, meaning it used the opposition research of the party in power to convince a court to let it spy on the candidate of the other party — likely without telling the court of the dossier’s political link.Even worse, there is growing reason to believe someone in President Barack Obama’s administration turned over classified information about Trump to the Clinton campaign.” Congressional Democrats are craven apologists for these individuals, in the DOJ and FBI who have misused the power and authority of their Office to promote their own political biases. It is one thing to hold political viewpoints. That is, of course, every citizen’s right. Under 5 USCS § 7321, “It is the policy of the Congress that employees should be encouraged to exercise fully, freely, and without fear of penalty or reprisal, and to the extent not expressly prohibited by law, their right to participate or to refrain from participating in the political processes of the Nation.” But, under 5 USCS § 7323, the so-called “Hatch Act”: “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—use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.” This is precisely what Senior FBI and DOJ officials did when they used their influence to assist Hillary Clinton in her U.S Presidential; bid. They violated the Hatch Act. But, having failed on that score, they went further, much further, as they sought and even now seek to undermine—and more—to destroy the Trump Presidency. There are many serious national security crimes, apart from treason. A few of them fall into the broad categories of espionage, sabotage, sedition, terrorism, rebellion or insurrection, and advocating overthrow of the Government. When we look at the specific legal elements of each of these horrific crimes against this Nation, we see that none of the actions of Strzok and Page, and other senior officials in the DOJ and the FBI—that at the moment have come to light—serious as they are, constitute the most damning crimes of all, namely, national security crimes falling into the aforementioned categories.Senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI clearly misused the power of their Office to enable a likely criminal, Hillary Clinton, to run for President of the United States when she should, instead, have faced indictment on serious felony charges.  Once they failed to seat Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office, these senior Officials have continued to misuse the power of their Office to undermine the President. It is clear that national security violations are taking place. Consider: Had Hillary Clinton won the election, we would see, for the first time in our Nation’s history, a person elected to the highest Office in the Land who had likely committed federal felonies—many of them, and, as U.S. President, she would not only have continued to conceal her felonies, she would have continued to commit them. All of this treachery would have remained hidden, buried, if Hillary Clinton had won the 2016 general election for U.S. President.Having failed to seat Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office, these same betrayers of our Nation are still machinating—this time to undermine the Trump Presidency. Yet, there is no national security crime, codified in Statute, into which the actions of these betrayers of the Nation can be charged. But, there should be.It is deeply troubling that senior officials can so blithely skirt the law, undermining the Office of the U.S. President as clearly and as effectively as would be the case were these individuals actually working for a foreign sponsor.We therefore call on Congress to take a renewed look at our National Security crimes and consider enacting a new Statute or set of Statutes that would allow for indictment, in the future, of those individuals, who, like Strzok, and Page and others, have committed serious national security breaches, tantamount to treason, for having misused their powerful positions in Government to undermine the Office of the President of the United States, grounded on the ludicrous notion that they, alone, know what is best for this Nation, and therefore dare to thwart the will, of the people, and do so, insidiously, surreptitiously, cavalierly, audaciously, under cover of darkness.The American citizenry should be appalled. Please contact your House Representative. Demand release of the House Intelligence Committee Memorandum that Representatives Jordan and Gaetz refer to, at once. The phone number is: 202-224-3121._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

RELEASE THE MEMO: SENIOR DOJ AND FBI OFFICIALS LIKELY COMMITTED SERIOUS FEDERAL CRIMES IN THEIR UNLAWFUL ATTEMPT TO TAKE DOWN PRESIDENT TRUMP.

PART THREE

THE SWAMP MUST BE DRAINED; CONSPIRATORS’ HEADS MUST ROLL; THE GUILTY MUST BE HELD FULLY ACCOUNTABLE.

As intimated in the account of the contents of the House Intelligence Committee Memo that Representatives Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Matt Gaetz (R-FL) have alluded to on Fox News, it is not enough that Senior DOJ and FBI Officials, whose names appear in the House Intelligence Memo, simply lose their jobs (which would allow them to collect retirement benefits). The fact that DOJ and FBI senior officials like Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, and undoubtedly many others, continue to hold onto jobs in the DOJ and FBI, is reason for consternation.Clearly, other senior Officials of the Deep State are protecting them. How high up the Government ladder does this insidious subterfuge extend? The President’s call to drain the swamp now takes on immediate and critical urgency.The “swamp” of the Federal Government is, it is now evident, more than mere metaphor—much more. The expression takes on literal meaning. Why are these senior DOJ and FBI officials still holding positions in the Federal Government? Why are they still receiving paychecks, courtesy of the American taxpayer? Why do they still hold top secret security clearances? These people and others should be fired immediately, and they should be investigated for serious crimes against this Nation and the American people. Why hasn’t Attorney General Jeff Sessions acted against these individuals? After all, Jeff Sessions holds the highest position in the Department of Justice? Why hasn’t Sessions cleaned house? Is he unable to do so, notwithstanding that he holds the top position in the DOJ? If that is the case, then, do high-ranking officials in the DOJ, and in the FBI, and in other Cabinet-level Departments, and in the Military, and in the Intelligence Community, and in Congress too, hold sway over the entirety of the Federal Government. If these high-ranking senior Officials, these Conspirators who have betrayed their oath of Office, who have betrayed the U.S. Constitution, who have betrayed this Nation, and who have betrayed the American people, do hold sway over the Federal Government, then, we must conclude that this Shadow Government—this Deep State within the Federal Government—these Conspirators hold sway over the American people as well. Has a coup d’état of the Government already taken place notwithstanding their failure to seat the shrew and puppet of the trans-nationalist, internationalist, globalist “elite,”—Hillary Clinton?If Attorney General Jeff Sessions does muster the strength to exercise the authority vested in him and hold to account those officials of the DOJ and FBI, who have betrayed this Nation, who have betrayed our Constitution, and who have betrayed the American people, then we should see investigations commencing at once. If the Attorney General does not have the courage to assert his authority, then he should resign; and, if Sessions does not voluntarily step down, then President Trump should demand his resignation, or otherwise, simply fire him, and appoint a person who has the stomach to clean house!In the interim, these Betrayers of our Nation, of our Nation’s Constitution, and of our Nation’s citizenry must be prevented from doing further harm to our Nation, to our Nation’s President, and to our Nation’s people. Accordingly:

• THEIR EMPLOYMENT WITH THE DOJ OR FBI SHOULD BE TERMINATED AT ONCE!
• THEIR SALARIES SHOULD BE SUSPENDED!
• THEIR SECURITY CLEARANCES SHOULD BE REVOKED!
• THEIR MISCONDUCT SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED!

Once evidence of the serious federal crimes--that these senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI committed and are even now still committing--has been systematically collected, collated, and analyzed by prosecutors—and it is certainly clear that a plethora of such evidence exists—then legal action must commence forthwith:

• THESE BETRAYERS OF THE NATION SHOULD BE INDICTED!
• THESE BETRAYERS OF THE NATION SHOULD THEN BE TRIED IN A COURT OF LAW FOR THEIR CRIMES!
• IF CONVICTED, THESE BETRAYERS OF THE NATION SHOULD RECEIVE NO LENIENCY IN THE METING OUT OF THEIR SENTENCES.
• AND, THESE BETRAYERS OF THE NATION SHOULD BE DENIED RECEIPT OF PENSIONS AND BENEFITS!

IF SENIOR OFFICIALS OF THE DOJ AND FBI HAVE COMMITTED SERIOUS FEDERAL CRIMES AGAINST THIS NATION, AGAINST THIS NATION’S CONSTITUTION, AND AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AS IS NOW MANIFEST AND CLEARLY CERTAIN, WHAT WOULD THE NATURE OF THOSE CRIMES BE? WE PERCEIVE AND ANTICIPATE THE FOLLOWING: CONSPIRACY; PERJURY; SUBORNATION OF PERJURY; DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW; AND OBSTRUCTION OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES, AND COMMITTEES.

One serious crime falls under Title 19 of the United States Code: Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Part I, Crimes, Chapter 19, Conspiracy.19 USCS § 371 (Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States) sets forth in principal part:  If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. A second serious federal crime falls under Chapter 79 of the United States Code. Chapter 79 of Title 18 of the United States Code. 18 USCS § 1621 (Perjury generally) sets forth in principal part: Whoever—(1)  having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or(2)  in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.Since the Fusion GPS Dossier is a lie, those DOJ Officials who presented it to the FISA Court, swearing to the authenticity of the contents have committed perjury before the Court; and, since they did this to secure a warrant from the FISA Court that would allow Special Counsel Mueller to undertake an investigation of Trump Campaign Officials, predicated on presumptive collusion between Russian officials and Trump, those DOJ Officials who lied before the FISA Court to affect or influence the FISA Court to issue a warrant have committed a third serious federal crime, that these senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI have likely committed is subornation of perjury.A third serious federal crimes falls under Chapter 79 of  Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 USCS § 1622 (Subornation of perjury). 18 USCS § 1622  (Subornation of perjury) sets forth in principal part:Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.A fourth serious federal crime falls under Chapter 13 of Title 18 of the United States Code. 18 USCS § 242 (Deprivation of rights under color of law). 18 USCS § 242 (Deprivation of rights under color of law) sets forth in principal part:Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. . . .By betraying their oath to uphold the laws of this Nation, they have deprived the citizens of this Nation of their rights as they have attempted to subvert election laws by allowing an ignominious individual, Hillary Clinton, to campaign for the highest Office in the Land, when Clinton should, instead, have been indicted on several criminal charges. The Arbalest Quarrel has detailed these crimes at length, in several articles. See for example, “Pay to Play: The Clinton Foundation’s Open Secret and Silent Purpose.” These senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI have compounded their crimes by unlawfully utilizing tools, such as appointment of a Special Counsel—Robert Mueller—to undertake a lengthy, expensive investigation of the U.S. President, Donald Trump, when appointment of Special Counsel and investigation of Donald Trump is altogether unfounded, as the basis for such investigation is grounded on nothing but bald-faced lies, unsubstantiated hearsay, unfounded assumptions, and mere innuendo.Having failed to seat a likely criminal, Hillary Clinton, in Office, these Conspirators—senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI—have now turned their attention to removing the U.S. President, Donald Trump, from Office. They are doing this out of spite and they are doing this because, in their mind, they won’t accept this President’s policy initiatives; and they won’t accept the will of the American people who elected Donald Trump in a fair and lawful election. They arrogantly assert that they know what is best for the American people and thereby subvert the very Constitution and laws of this Country that they have taken an oath to serve.And, a fifth serious federal crime falls under title 18 of the United States Code, 18 USCS § 1505 (Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees) 18 USCS § 1505 (Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees) sets forth in critical part:Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years. . . .News Commentator, Sean Hannity, reported on Fox News, Monday, January 22, 2018, that hundreds of anti-Trump text messages have inexplicably vanished from FBI databases. The website, Sean Hannity "Release the Memo," further elucidates the point raised and expounded upon on Hannity's evening program. If, as almost certainly appears to be the case, senior officials of the DOJ and/or FBI deliberately destroyed messages—amounting to pre-emptive document deletion or shredding—in anticipation of civil or criminal investigation of wrongdoing, this amounts to anticipatory obstruction of justice and they may be subject to criminal liability under the obstruction of proceedings Statute mentioned, supra.

THE ARBALEST QUARREL WON’T REST UNTIL THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MEMO, COMPLETE, UNABRIDGED, AND UNREDACTED IS DECLASSIFIED FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.

In Part Five of our ongoing “Release the Memo” multi-series set of articles, we will look at whether the most serious charge of all, “treason,” can be leveled against these Senior DOJ and FBI Officials who have betrayed their Oath of Office. In Part Six, we will look at the actions of Congressional Democrats who--as with the mainstream news media, that has tacitly assisted the agents of the Deep State by censoring reporting of news pertaining to the House Intelligence Committee Memorandum--are impeding the release of the House Intelligence Committee Memo, and, through their actions are demonstrating, as well, their contempt for the American people. We are speaking here, namely and particularly, of Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) Ranking Democratic Party Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.We are doing our part. Please do your part. Tell Congress to release to the American public the House Intelligence Committee Memo that describes DOJ and FBI FISA Court abuses. The phone number to call is (202) 224-3121. That number will connect you to the U.S. Capitol switchboard. Follow the prompts to connect to U.S. Representatives and to U.S. Senators in your State._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

RELEASE THE MEMO: MAINSTREAM MEDIA NEWSPAPERS FAIL TO KEEP PUBLIC INFORMED OF THREAT POSED TO THIS COUNTRY FROM WITHIN

PART TWO

WHY AREN'T MAINSTREAM NEWS ORGANIZATIONS COVERING THIS HOTBED MATTER?

MAINSTREAM MEDIA BLACKOUT OF DAMNING HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MEMO ABETS DOJ/FBI CONSPIRACY TO TAKE DOWN U.S. PRESIDENT

With all the media buzz about the Government shutdown, the more pressing matter, by far, is this: Conspiratorial DOJ and FBI Officials and, perhaps, other high-ranking Obama Administration hold-overs of the Deep State have surreptitiously planned to overthrow Donald Trump. The odd thing is that this silent coup is still unfolding. It is unfolding, like a seemingly radiant—at least as presented to the public by Congressional Democrats—but clearly poisonous and deadly flower—and all of it with the passive, placid consent and connivance of mainstream media news organizations and outlets.The House Intelligence Committee Memo, would, as House Intelligence Committee Republicans make plain, explain clearly the reprehensible, insidious conspiracy afoot, within this Country, to oust Donald Trump from Office.We begin with this: the Fusion GPS Dossier, a work of fiction, concocted by ex-British spy, Christopher Steele, comprising uncorroborated, garbage meant to compromise Donald Trump—commissioned and paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC, which she controls, and which she had hoped would assure her victory in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, and which now serves as the primary force behind Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of collusion between Trump Campaign Officials and the Russian Government.The Fusion GPS Dossier serves as the predicate basis for Special Counsel, Robert Mueller’s investigation of Donald Trump and his Campaign Officials. This Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, along with other Deep State Conspirators—whose names undoubtedly appear in the House Intelligence Committee Memo—seek, together, to take down Donald Trump. The Fusion GPS Dossier also serves a complementary purpose for these Conspirators. It serves, at one and the same time to draw attention away from Hillary Clinton and other likely criminals who worked for and who would have had jobs in Clinton’s Administration had she prevailed in the 2016 election. Now that she has lost the election, she remains vulnerable to a new investigation of her many criminal actions when she served as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration.Obviously, Hillary Clinton, and the toadies and hangers-on who served her, along with mainstream news media organizations and Congressional Democrats—all of them—are furious that Hillary Clinton lost the election. What does this mean for the Country? Well, apart from the shattering of Clinton’s personal delusions of grandeur, we see, thankfully, an abrupt end to President Barack Obama’s domestic and foreign policy agenda. Hillary Clinton, as with Barack Obama before her, would have taken her cues from the secretive, ruthless, powerful, trans-nationalist, internationalist, globalist “elite” who seek to dismantle this Nation’s Constitution, and who intend to make the U.S. a vassal of a new world order, which the EU gives the American public some intimation of.

WHY DOES CONGRESS ALLOW THE SCAM OF THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION TO CONTINUE?

To date, after several months of “investigation” of collusion between Trump Campaign Officials and the Russian Government, Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, has come up with nothing, because there is nothing. Congressional Democrats, though, want the investigation to continue. In an obvious and blatant attempt to give the Mueller investigation an aura of respectability and to suggest that the Mueller probe constitutes something more than a rip-off to the American taxpayer, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California), “released,” ostensibly on her own, according to the liberal news media website, Politico, “the transcript of congressional investigators’ interview in August 2017 with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson, whose firm was behind the controversial dossier alleging ties between President Donald Trump and Russians.” Politico provides a link to the transcript. On perusal the transcript is nothing more than a compilation of bald, hearsay assertions that would not be admissible in a Court of law.It is time to end the illegal farce of the Mueller investigation. Further, the American public should demand a renewed—and this time, true and proper—investigation of Hillary Clinton and of those toadies who have aided and abetted her, along with an investigation of the conspirators who orchestrated and who are even now systematically machinating behind the scenes, blatantly, smugly, continuing to carry out their detailed, despicable, diabolical operation to destroy the Trump Presidency and to undermine the will of the people of this Country.In a renewed investigation of Hillary Clinton and her many henchmen, along with an investigation of those responsible for attempting to undermine the Trump Presidency, the Arbalest Quarrel demands that Attorney General Jeff Sessions appoint a new cadre of FBI agents and officials, and a new cadre of DOJ attorneys and officials—uncorrupted Americans, beyond reproach, unconnected with and untainted with the conspiracy to protect Hillary Clinton and unconnected with the conspiracy to destroy the U.S. President Donald Trump—to conduct these investigations.

SO, THEN, WHY AREN’T THE MAINSTREAM NEWSPAPERS REPORTING ON THIS FARCE AND DEMANDING, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY, A RELEASE OF THE CLASSIFIED HOUSE INTELLIGENCE MEMO THAT LAYS BARE THE INDIVIDUALS IN GOVERNMENT WHO, UNDER COLOR OF LAW, ARE USING THE POWER OF THEIR OFFICE IN THE DOJ AND FBI, AND, POSSIBLY, IN THE CIA AND NSA AS WELL, TO MACHINATE AND CONSPIRE TO DESTROY THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY AND, THEREIN, TO UNDERMINE THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO ELECTED DONALD TRUMP TO SET THIS COUNTRY ARIGHT: STRENGTHENING THIS COUNTRY’S BILL OF RIGHTS; ENSURING THIS NATION'S SYSTEM OF LAWS, THIS NATION'S CONSTITUTION, AND THAT THIS NATION'S JURISPRUDENCE ARE NEVER SUBORDINATED TO THOSE OF ANY OTHER NATION, PERSONS, OR LEGAL ENTITY; ENSURING THAT OUR CORE VALUES REMAIN IN PLACE AND THAT OUR NATION’S HISTORY IS NOT FORGOTTEN; SECURING OUR NATION’S BORDERS; PROTECTING OUR COUNTRY’S SMALL BUSINESSES AND WORKERS FROM THE EFFECTS OF RAMPANT GLOBALIZATION; PROTECTING THE  SANCTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL; AND KEEPING MEANINGFUL THE CONCEPT OF ‘CITIZEN’ THAT IS IN DANGER OF BEING ERODED AND DEGRADED THROUGH THE VERY EXISTENCE OF MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS PRESENT WITHIN OUR BORDERS, ABSURDLY CLAIMING THEY HAVE A "RIGHT" TO REMAIN HERE?

One would think that The mainstream Press would be all over this. It isn’t. The left-wing mainstream New York Times, whose motto is “all the news that’s fit to print,” reports nothing. Of course, The New York Times, debasing the sacred protection afforded the Press, under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows itself to be used as a tool of—or, more likely, is itself complicit in—the coup attempt to oust a popularly elected U.S. President. So, the NY Times reports nothing.Non-information—a veritable news blackout of critical events—is even more damaging to the maintenance of a free Republic than news distortion—i.e., reporting “fake” news, consisting of disinformation or misinformation, meant to deceive the public and to turn public attention toward trivial or irrelevant matters. Campaigns of deliberate deception, carried out by the Press through non-information, misinformation, and disinformation destroy a news organization’s credibility. To be sure, an astute reader may glean nuggets of truth even from misinformation or disinformation. But a total news blackout--a complete censoring of news--is a different sort of beast, as there is nothing to glean from a void in the news.We would expect news blackouts in Countries ruled by totalitarian regimes, not in Democratic Republics. News blackouts occurring in a Free Republic, such as the U.S., are heinous. The mainstream news media hides behind the First Amendment, claiming to work on behalf of the American people. Not so! They abet conspirators who seek to overthrow a popularly elected leader of our Nation.This is not the first time that a mainstream news organization, namely and specifically, The New York Times, hides news that is definitely fit to print. Indeed, it is the Times' new policy, now etched in stone, to keep their news reporters on a tight leash. The Arbalest Quarrel has recently written about the Times’ new gag order on its own reporters. See our article, titled, The Mainstream Media New York Times Newspaper’s New “Gag Order” Policy Prevents Its Employees From Exercising Their Right Of Free Speech Under The First Amendment To The U.S. Constitution.We guess that no other mainstream newspaper has reported on this apparent diabolical coup attempt—an attempted coup d’état of the Executive Branch of Government that is still unfolding, a matter more dangerous than the Watergate exposé that the Washington Post had written extensively on. Where is the Washington Post now? We see just a smattering of this frightening and provocative news in that news publication. Apparently, neither the Washington Post nor The New York Times, and likely no other mainstream media newspaper considers the overthrow of a legitimate U.S. President—who wishes only to do his job to faithfully execute the laws of this Country in accordance with his Oath of Office and who seeks to strengthen the Bill of Rights—to amount to news that most mainstream media news organizations like The New York Times considers the kind of news that’s fit to bring to the attention of the American citizen.Even conservative leaning Wall Street Journal, too, has nothing to say about the House Intelligence Committee Memo that Republican Congressmen, Matt Gaetz and Jim Jordan first brought to the attention of the American public in the last week’s Hannity broadcast. Gatekeepers of information obviously exist on both the “right” and “left” of the political spectrum. The American public is caught in the middle, deceived from this bastion of Democracy—this Fourth Estate—that claims to be the guardian of American Democracy. Instead, the Press, too, betrays the American people.Why is that? Instead of discussing and investigating a despicable coup attempt of the Executive Branch of Government, these mainstream news media organizations dwell on the illicit Obama created programs, DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans)—illegal schemes hatched by the Obama Administration to place this Nation in the very situation it faces today: what to do with 180,000 illegal aliens, along with their parents; and, for that matter, what to do with millions of other illegal aliens who do not belong here; never should have been here; should have been prevented from entering here; should have been removed from our Country years ago; and, that removal having been suspended, should certainly be removed from our Nation now as their very existence in this Country amounts to a slap-in-the-face of our naturalization laws and threatens the stability of the social, political, economic, legal and cultural fabric of this Nation.

THE ENDGAME OF OUR NATION IS UPON US

If DOJ and FBI conspirators succeed in this horrific coup attempt to upend the Trump Presidency, we will see further erosion of First Amendment free speech rights and the undermining of the Second Amendment. The Mueller investigation is, itself, in its very existence, an illegal and reprehensible attack on the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment that should shock the conscience of all American citizens.In Part three of this multi-series article, we look at plausible federal crimes these DOJ and FBI conspirators can feasibly be charged with—once their names—all of them—are known to the American people. For, these individuals constitute a far greater and graver threat to the well-being of this Country, and to its citizenry, and to its Constitution, than any threat emanating outside this Country. And, in further articles, we will continue discussing this critical matter until justice is meted out to those who have corrupted their Office, who exhibit disdain for our citizenry, who have stained our Constitution, and who threaten the very existence of our Republic.The Arbalest Quarrel calls on Congress to expose to the light of day, the rot that festers within the bowels of the Federal Government bureaucracy. Release the Memo now!Please do your part. Tell Congress to release to the American public the House Intelligence Committee Memo that describes DOJ and FBI FISA Court abuses. The phone number to call is (202) 224-3121. That number will connect you to the U.S. Capitol switchboard. Follow the prompts to connect to U.S. Representatives and to U.S. Senators in your State._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

RELEASE THE MEMO: REPUBLICAN HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS SHOCKED BY CONTENTS AND CALL FOR ITS RELEASE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC

PART ONE

HAVE SENIOR OFFICIALS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND FBI CONSPIRED TO OVERTHROW PRESIDENT TRUMP? IS THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION PART AND PARCEL OF THIS COUP ATTEMPT?

For those of you who tuned into Hannity’s Fox News program Thursday evening, January 18, and Friday evening, January 19, 2018, you learned that our Government is in the throes of a silent but deadly coup. U.S. House Representatives Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Matt Gaetz (R-FL), appearing on Hannity, Thursday, stated they had reviewed a classified House Intelligence Committee Memorandum that, as they strongly intimate, provide conclusive proof of a deliberate, calculated, categorical, treacherous attempt by senior FBI and Justice Department Officials to topple the Trump Presidency. They describe the Memo as “shocking.” Jordan and Gaetz want this Memo to be released to the public. They are insistent. They say the public has a right to know the contents of the Memo. And, we do.If half of what these House Republican Intelligence Committee members suggest is true—and, keep in mind that House and Senate Intelligence Committee members rarely, if ever, call for release of classified material to the American public—the public not only does have a right to know the contents of this Memorandum; they must know. But, House Democratic Party Intelligence Committee members according to Representatives Jordan and Gaetz, have demurred, claiming national security concerns, even, as they show, incongruously, lack of interest in the material. Very few House Democrats have reviewed the Memorandum and have, curiously, expressed no wish to do so.Government Officials and Legislators routinely cite national security concerns when they do not wish to release the contents of classified material; and, when they do, the contents are generally heavily redacted, and, so, essentially indecipherable. But national security is not at stake when Governmental documents contain content merely content that may be deemed merely embarrassing or humiliating. Worst of all, when Government documents contain evidence of ethical or criminal wrongdoing, transparency, not secrecy, is mandated. Evidence of criminal or ethical misconduct cries out for disclosure. The federal Government is, after all, our Government. It doesn’t belong to Congress and it doesn’t belong to bureaucrats. They are supposed to serve our interests, not their own. In refusing release of this House Intelligence Committee Memorandum to the American citizenry, House Democrats demonstrate complicity in the coup attempt and cover-up.Representatives Jordan and Gaetz, true patriots, having come forward with knowledge of this deeply disturbing Intelligence Committee Memo, have made abundantly clear that, once the American citizenry has access to the contents of it, heads will roll.The American public should not be surprised if, once the Memo is released, hopefully uncensored, some of the names that appear in the Memo happen to include:Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General of the DOJ; Andrew McCabe, acting Attorney General after the U.S. President Donald Trump fired James Comey; Andrew Weissman, Chief of the Criminal Fraud Section of the DOJ, and senior managing official on Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel team; Peter Strzok, senior counterintelligence official in the FBI, who served on Mueller’s team until Mueller was compelled to oust him for conspiratorial comments coming to light in his “insurance policy” email to Lisa Page, FBI lawyer; Lisa Page, FBI lawyer who failed to notify her superiors of Strzok’s conspiratorial intentions as she was probably complicit in the conspiracy; Sally Yates, Deputy Attorney General to then-President Barack Obama, and acting Attorney General after the departure of Loretta Lynch—the latter of whom served as Attorney General in President Barack Obama’s Administration immediately after the inauguration of Donald Trump to the Office of U.S. President Trump—whom President Trump rightfully fired for insubordination after Yates defiantly refused to defend the U.S. President’s order to close the Nation’s borders against terrorist threats from the Middle East; Bruce Ohr, Associate Deputy Attorney General, demoted, for concealing his secret meetings with Officials of Fusion GPS; James Comey, fired Director of the FBI, who leaked classified documents to The New York Times, through a friend, Daniel Richman, Professor at Columbia Law School. Comey’s documents served as a basis, along with the Fusion GPS Dossier, as the pretext for Rod Rosenstein’s appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Counsel, whose tacit directive is to take down the U.S. President. And, we surmise that Robert Mueller’s name, too, may be one of the names that appears on the memo that Representatives Jordan and Gaetz refers to.Robert Mueller served as FBI Director from 2001 to 2013. As FBI Director, he must have had knowledge of and may have been complicit in approving illegal sale of uranium to the Russians. If true, it would be singularly odd for the DOJ's Robert Rosenstein to appoint Robert Mueller to head a team to investigate, inter alia--as reported in the letter (Order No. 2915-2017) from Rosenstein to Mueller--“any links and/or coordination between the Russian Government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.” We may surmise that Hillary Clinton’s name appears in this classified House Intelligence Committee Memo, too, along with the name of Loretta Lynch, who served as President Barack Obama’s Attorney General, from April 27, 2015 – January 20, 2017. And, is it possible that the name of Barack Obama, too, appears in this Memo? If, Clinton’s name and Obama’s name appears in this House Intelligence Committee Memo, we can well imagine why House Democrats adamantly refuse to release the Memo to the public. For, the entirety of the Democratic Party will be held up to shame. The shameful and likely criminal acts of these individuals are too numerous to mention here, but we have touched on several—especially those that point to serious criminal acts on the part of Hillary Clinton. Imagine a person such as Hillary Clinton in the White House.Senior Federal Government Officials, having failed to achieve their goal of depositing Hillary Clinton into the Oval Office—having hatched and orchestrated a plan, through then-FBI Director James Comey and others, to absolve Democratic Party U.S. Presidential Hillary Clinton of criminal wrongdoing on multiple counts of multiple felonies so that she could continue to run as the Democratic Party choice for U.S. President, hatched their secondary plan. They presented, as is abundantly clear, false and fabricated information, namely the notorious Fusion GPS Dossier—paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC)—to the FISA Court. These high-level Officials in the FBI and DOJ, in a plot to topple the U.S. President, Donald Trump, attempted to obtain a warrant that would give these disreputable, and arguably, despicable, Officials legal cover by allowing the FBI to secretly, and ostensibly lawfully, to investigate senior Trump campaign officials on false allegations of having had nefarious dealings with the Russians. If true, this would serve, conceivably, as the principal feasible basis to impeach Trump and, if successful, would lead to his removal from Office.Comey’s own memoranda to The New York Times was instrumental in the appointment of  a Special Counsel in the first instance. The Fusion GPS Dossier, a compilation of damnable lies and uncorroborated, baseless rumor, innuendo, and hearsay, is a manuscript of deception put together by an ex-British spy, Christopher Steele. Steele is an expert on deception and intrigues, who worked for British intelligence, MI-6. The Dossier became the vehicle through which the FISA Court issued a warrant, allowing/authorizing the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, to investigate presumptive collusion between the Trump Campaign and the Russian Government. This Dossier, this lie, this work of fiction, serves as the predicate basis for the Mueller investigation. Therefore, the Mueller investigation is itself grounded on a lie, made worse through misuse of exorbitant taxpayer monies and wasteful Governmental resources. Further, presenting false information to a FISA Court, swearing that it is true to obtain a warrant from the Court that the Court otherwise would not have issued--subornation of perjury--constitutes a fraud on the Court—compounding other serious wrongdoing by senior Officials of Government who have been working secretly and inexorably to bring down Trump and his Administration. These senior FBI and DOJ Officials, who may include senior and mid-level Officials in both the State Department and in the Intelligence Agencies as well—hold-overs from the Obama Administration, have betrayed, through color of law and their Office, their sacred oath to this Nation, to this Nation's Constitution and to this Nation's citizenry. Their weak defense, for their heinous betrayal, which will not operate as a tenable defense at all in a Court of competent jurisdiction, is that it is their belief that Donald Trump will lead this Nation on a path that is at loggerheads with foreign and domestic policies of previous Administrations which they had wish to see continued. This is the height of arrogance, and contrary to the will of the American people who elected Donald Trump to the Office of President of the United States. What these senior and mid-level Officials of the Deep State want, or, what they unwittingly would be working toward if they would only stop to think about the matter, is subordination of our Nation, its Constitution, its Bill of Rights, its system of laws, its jurisprudence, its core values, its system of ethics and morality, to that of a new trans-nationalist, internationalist, globalist world order, as  exemplified in the present undermining of the political, social, and financial fabric, and independence, and sovereignty of the Nations that comprise the EU.Is the Mueller probe, then, nothing more than a monstrous step in a planned, coordinated, coup d’état of the Executive Branch of Government? Does the House Intelligence Committee Memo that Representatives Jordan and Gaetz refer to evidence of that? We think so, as this is the only intelligible inference that can be drawn on the facts so far illuminated. Further facts would, we believe, serve only to  buttress this sound conclusion.In Part two of this multi-series, we look to the mainstream news media organizations. Why does the American citizenry hear so little about this? We will post Part two of this series, on the Arbalest Quarrel website, tomorrow. In Part three, immediately following the posting of Part two of this series, we will look at a few of the specific crimes that senior DOJ and FBI Officials likely committed--serious crimes that these Officials can feasibly be charged with through the contemptible, dishonorable, thoroughly reprehensible hoax they perpetrated on both the FISA Court and the American people, a hoax that is, as of the date of posting of this article, still being played out!_________________________________________________ Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WESTCHESTER COUNTY EXECUTIVE GEORGE LATIMER’S ORDER, BANNING PUBLIC GUN SHOWS, LIKELY VIOLATES FIRST AND SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

CAN A STATE OR ANY JURISDICTION WITHIN A STATE BAN PUBLIC GUN SHOWS OUTRIGHT, WITHOUT ILLEGALY TRAMPLING THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?

“And, now, come to this spot Where the spotlight is hot And you’ll see in the spotlight A Juggling Jott Who can juggle some stuff You might think he could not. . . Such as twenty-two question marks, Which is a lot. Also forty-four commas And, also, one dot! That’s the kind of Circus McGurkus I’ve got!” ~ From the Children’s Book, “If I Ran the Circus," by Dr. Seuss (published by Random House 1956) 

We see with disturbing regularity, Governments, be they the federal Government, a State Government, or Government of a County, township, or municipality, blindly, indiscriminately, with stunning alacrity, and feverish abandon, enacting laws, codes, regulations, ordinances, or, as in the case, recently, in the County of Westchester, in the State of New York, an Executive Order that negatively impacts substantive, fundamental Constitutional Rights. Those in power, like the Westchester County Executive, George Latimer, seek, in the fiefdom, they "rule," a fanciful, but nightmarish world, a personal circus, that mirrors a conception of reality acceptable to them--a conception of reality consistent with their personal philosophy and ethical system but one at once inconsistent with the blueprint for a free Republic that the founders of our Nation designed and established for the American people, and one inconsistent with the rights and liberties that the framers of our Bill of Rights insisted on as a critical component of the Nation's Constitution, as a safeguard against the very actions that people such as George Latimer take. People, like the present Westchester County Executive, filled with their own smug certainty of what is right and proper, would dare to force the ordinary citizens, who reside in their domain of power, to live in the "circus" they create, compelled to obey and abide by the law they lay down, irrespective of natural law, codified as sacred rights and liberties comprising our Bill of Rights--rights existent intrinsically in each American citizen, as placed in each American soul, by the hand of the Divine Creator, that no man, acting as a demigod, may rationally and lawfully counteract or nullify.

WESTCHESTER COUNTY EXECUTIVE GEORGE LATIMER OVERTURNS THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR, ROB ASTORINO.

On January 2, 2018, George Latimer, a Democrat, took the oath of Office in his White Plains, New York Office, as the new County Executive of Westchester County, and wasted no time to attack the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “On his second day as Westchester County Executive, George Latimer delivered on a promise from in [sic] his campaign, and signed an Executive Order prohibiting the sale of guns on Westchester County property.” What precipitated this Executive Order? Apparently, George Latimer sought to reimpose on the American public that resides in Westchester County an earlier ban on public gun shows ordered by a prior Westchester County Executive, Andrew J. Spano, that had been lifted by George Latimer's immediate predecessor, Rob Astorino. As explained, further, on the Westchester Government website,“In 1999, gun shows were banned at the Westchester County Center by former County Executive Andrew J. Spano [a Democrat] in the wake of the mass shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado. That prohibition was later revoked by Latimer’s immediate predecessor [Rob Astorino, a Republican].‘Westchester County government should not be in the business of advancing the sale of weapons and other items often sold at gun shows – plain and simple,’ said Latimer. ‘This is not a restriction on gun shows in the entire county, but rather just on public land.’Text from the Executive Order states that 'WHEREAS, recreational County facilities always serve our residents best when used for sporting events, concerts, trade shows, and educational opportunities for our youth. Gun shows are not what taxpayer financed property should be used for.'"Several websites dryly report this event; several with approval, some not.The seesawing of actions, up and down, back and forth—where one Westchester County Executive bans public guns shows, another County Executive lifts the ban, and a third County Executive reimposes the public gun show ban—reflects a clash of philosophies pertaining to import and purport of the Second Amendment, and to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well, played out on a small scale. How this clash of philosophies ultimately pans out, when fought out on the broad national scale, in Congress and in the U.S. Supreme Court, though, will have, for the American citizenry, vast implications and ramifications, for good or ill, for generations of Americans to come.

THE INDEFATIGABLE OBSTINANCE OF THOSE FORCES THAT DENIGRATE AND REFUSE TO TOLERATE THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS KNOWS NO BOUNDS.

George Latimer's Executive Order, banning public gun shows in Westchester County, represents the latest effort of antigun forces to place obstacles in the path of those American citizens who, as Latimer and his fellow travelers see it, have the audacity to exercise the natural and fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms that the framers codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. The framers, for their part, with clarity of foresight, provided to them with guidance from Divine Providence, saw abundant need for this sacred right to be codified in the Bill of Rights. The framers of the Bill of Rights, the founders of our free Republic, knew full well that nothing but force of arms serves to check tyranny and nothing but force of arms best protects the life, well-being, and sanctity of the individual. Thus, as Latimer and his cohorts in the antigun conspiracy take exception with those American citizens who wish merely to exercise, unimpeded, the right to own and possess firearms for their protection and to safeguard the continued existence of a free Republic, George Latimer and his antigun cohorts must also take exception with the framers of the Bill of Rights, for it is they, who made clear enough, beyond the power of anyone to ignore, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms does exist, that the right is sacred and indelible, and that this right, more than any other, defines our Nation and defines what it means to be an American citizen.

GEORGE LATIMER LAYS OUT FOR THE MAINSTREAM NEWS MEDIA PRESS THE PREDICATE BASIS FOR HIS EXECUTIVE ORDER BANNING PUBLIC GUN SHOWS IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY, SIGNALING HIS VEHEMENT DISAPPROVAL OF FIREARMS AND HIS STRONG DISAPPROVAL OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

Where George Latimer’s sympathies lie on matters pertaining to the right of the people to keep and bear arms, one can readily ascertain. Talking to the Press, Latimer resorts to use of simplistic, superficial, banal political oratory, eschewing erudite, logical discourse—treating the public with condescension and contempt, as politicians customarily and most sadly do—punctuating his well-rehearsed talking points with the confident self-assurance and moral certitude of a televangelist delivering a weekly sermon to his TV audience. “Latimer said Tuesday that gun shows do not represent the family values reflected in the other events held at the county facilities. The ban is not a restriction on gun shows in the entire county, but just on public land, he said. ‘The County Center hosts basketball, Westchester Knicks play there in the developmental league, we have had the Harlem Globetrotters come in for performances, we have a bridal show coming up, we have a model train show that normally comes into the arena, we have job fairs and high school graduations and concerts, all very friendly family fare,’ he said.”The County Executive, George Latimer, also proclaims: “I believe the majority of the Board of Legislators, and myself as executive, believe very strongly that this is the wrong venue for a gun show. . . .” Well, who would dare oppose George Latimer; for, after all, as stated in County Code: “The County Executive shall be the chief executive and administrative officer of the county and the official head of the county government.” Westchester County Code of Ordinances, Part I, Charter, Article 110, County Executive.

COUNTY EXECUTIVE GEORGE LATIMER’S BAN ON PUBLIC GUN SHOWS IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY SIGNALS HIS SUPPORT OF GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO’S ANTAGONISTIC ATTITUDE TOWARD GUNS AND THE GOVERNOR'S ANTAGONISTIC ATTITUDE TOWARD THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

As George Latimer, County Executive, sets his imprimatur on the County level, one would do well to recall Governor Andrew Cuomo’s own actions, negatively infringing the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, on the State level. After all, it was Governor Cuomo who signed into law, on January 15, 2013, and who exclaims with visible pride, enactment of the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013 (NY Safe Act), one of the most restrictive and draconian set of firearms laws ever to be enacted in the United States—and a direct and clear repudiation of and affront to the fundamental right, codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Other anti-Second Amendment Governors have used the NY Safe Act as a model for enactment of their own restrictive firearms laws. And, on the national stage, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein had envisioned and had hopes of engineering similar NY Safe Act legislation for the entire Nation—a direct and cold and calculated and audacious challenge to any American citizen who might wish to exercise his or her fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Fortunately, she did not succeed in that endeavor. But, like a true fanatic, she employs indefatigable resolve, constantly introducing anti-Second Amendment bills in the U.S. Senate, and forever scheming behind closed doors.Antigun Politicians like Governor Andrew Cuomo and Westchester County Executive, George Latimer, and Senator Dianne Feinstein know they can always rely on the mainstream news media to trumpet, with great fanfare, their antigun message.

THE MAINSTREAM NEWS MEDIA “PRESS” SERVES IS OWN ENDS, AND THOSE OF ITS BENEFACTORS—THE WEALTHY, POWERFUL, RUTHLESS INTERNATIONALIST, TRANS-NATIONALIST GLOBAL “ELITE” THAT IT OBSEQUIOUSLY SERVES—TO DENIGRATE, INCESSANTLY, UNCEASINGLY, THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, CODIFIED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

Arguably, one of the most unforgiveable actions of the ‘mainstream news media’—where the expression, ‘mainstream news media,’ is generally equated with the term, 'Press,' as the word, ‘Press,’ appears prominently in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution —is that the Press, id est, “this mainstream news media Press,” fails to defend the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment. That is bad enough. Worse, the mainstream news media Press caustically, audaciously, and emphatically attacks those who defend the right codified in the Second Amendment. This mainstream news media Press, scurrilously abets the actions of those governmental leaders, who, with the power they wield through the Legislative Office they hold, do their utmost to undermine, rather than defend the right.Mainstream news media organization newspaper publishers like The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, The Guardian, and USA Today, and mainstream news media broadcast outlets like ABC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, and BBC all provide a quick and ready and willing forum for those Congressional and State legislators and for those antigun proponents and antigun provocateurs and for those obstreperous left-wing agitators that allows them to malign those American citizens who hold to traditional American values and who seek to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms. With customary malicious and malevolent bravado, and self-assured smugness, these mainstream news media newspapers and other mainstream media news organizations and their affiliates denigrate the Second Amendment and denigrate those who support it and denigrate those who support the framers' conception of the other Nine Amendments as well. Through their commentary and  Op-Eds, and through their news reporting, too--where mainstream media news coverage is seen less as hard, so-called "straight" news and more as editorial slants posing as news stories--these mainstream media news organizations deliberately and disingenuously concoct a central theme, a story-line, a story narrative, that, day-by-day, builds upon the story of the day before, not unlike what one sees when reading a work of fiction,that, chapter by chapter, builds sequentially on what came before, to a pre-ordained conclusion that the author mandates in the template for the work of fiction that the author creates.This same mainstream news media Press malevolently assails, with sanctimonious conviction and obvious glee, anyone who might dare challenge its pronouncements; for, the Press quickly reminds the American public that freedom of the Press is, after all, a fundamental right, even as that same Press insists that the right of the people to keep and bear arms isn’t. The irony in the claim—selectively and vehemently defending one fundamental right while viciously attacking another—is, apparently, lost on those who work for the mainstream news media Press, even if that irony isn’t lost on any other American.So, it should not be surprising that some Governmental leaders operate with characteristic aplomb and abandon to enact laws and take actions that undercut the right of the people to keep and bear arms as they have a powerful ally in the mainstream news media Press on their side. George Latimer evidently knows he has the backing of this mainstream news media Press, and with this Press on his side, he acts with impunity. Together, with a compliant County Government he leads, he obviously feels confident that his bold, legally dubious Executive Order, banning public gun shows, will go essentially unchallenged. For, who would dare confront him?Well, the Arbalest Quarrel does challenge Westchester County Executive George Latimer’s Order, banning public gun shows in Westchester County. And, we do proclaim loudly, assertively and confidently: Meaningful, compelling, deserving and discerning bases exist, in law, to challenge County Executive George Latimer’s Executive Order, on that portion of the Executive Order we have seen, as posted on the County Government website.Why do we say this? We have the weight of legal authority on our side.

COUNTY EXECUTIVE GEORGE LATIMER’S ACTION, BANNING PUBLIC SHOWS IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY IS LIKELY UNLAWFUL, AND A COGENT LEGAL BASIS EXISTS FOR CHALLENGING THE EXECUTIVE ORDER IN COURT.

Granted, the Arbalest Quarrel hasn’t had an opportunity to review the full text of George Latimer’s Executive Order. The reason is that the full text of the Executive Order has not been published on the Westchester County website. In time, perhaps, the full text of the Executive Order will be posted on the County Government website. There is, apparently, more to it.But, what we do see, from that portion of the Executive Order that has been published, namely that “recreational County facilities always serve our residents best when used for sporting events, concerts, trade shows, and educational opportunities for our youth [because] Gun shows are not what taxpayer financed property should be used for,” says enough for purpose of challenging the lawfulness of the Order. For, consistent with and supportive of George Latimer’s sentiments about firearms and about gun shows, as expressed to the mainstream news media Press, along with the language of the Executive Order itself, we conclude the language of the Order, as buttressed by the Westchester County Executive’s statements to the mainstream news media Press, demonstrate not only the County Executive’s open and visceral abhorrence of firearms, and not only his distaste for the right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and not only his contempt for American citizens who wish to exercise that right, but constitute, too, unconscionable violations of the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment to the U.S Constitution.That portion of the Westchester County Executive Order we have read, be it coupled with the Westchester County Executive’s statements to mainstream media newspapers and broadcast outlets, or not, amounts to an open admission of violation of the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment.The Arbalest Quarrel will provide an in-depth analysis in a future article. Suffice it to say, here, that George Latimer’s Executive Order, through its very language, contravenes United States Supreme Court law.In critical part, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, in the 1994 case, Turner Broadcasting System vs. FCC, 512 U.S. 622; 114 S. Ct. 2445; 129 L. Ed. 2d 497; 1994 U.S. LEXIS 4831; 62 U.S.L.W. 4647: “At the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that each person should decide for him or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence. Our political system and cultural life rest upon this ideal. See Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U.S. at 449 (citing Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 24, 29 L. Ed. 2d 284, 91 S. Ct. 1780 (1971));West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638, 640-642, 87 L. Ed. 1628, 63 S. Ct. 1178 (1943). Government action that stifles speech on account of its message, or that requires the utterance of a particular message favored by the Government, contravenes this essential right. Laws of this sort pose the inherent risk that the Government seeks not to advance a legitimate regulatory goal, but to suppress unpopular ideas or information or manipulate the public debate through coercion rather than persuasion. These restrictions ‘raise the specter that the Government may effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace.’ Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 116, 116 L. Ed. 2d 476, 112 S. Ct. 501 (1991). For these reasons, the First Amendment, subject only to narrow and well-understood exceptions, does not countenance governmental control over the content of messages expressed by private individuals. R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 393, 120 L. Ed. 2d 305, 112 S. Ct. 2538 (1992); Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397,  414, 105 L. Ed. 2d 342, 109 S. Ct. 2533 (1989). Our precedents thus apply the most exacting scrutiny to regulations that suppress, disadvantage, or impose differential burdens upon speech because of its content. See Simon & Schuster, 502 U.S. at; id., at (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment); Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., 460 U.S. 37, 45, 74 L. Ed. 2d 794, 103 S. Ct. 948 (1983). Laws that compel speakers to utter or distribute speech bearing a particular message are subject to the same rigorous scrutiny. See Riley v. National Federation for Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. at 798; West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, supra. In contrast, regulations that are unrelated to the content of speech are subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny, see Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293, 82 L. Ed. 2d 221, 104 S. Ct. 3065 (1984), because in most cases they pose a less substantial risk of excising certain ideas or viewpoints from the public dialogue.” Let’s deconstruct a portion of this high Court opinion: “At the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that each person should decide for him or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence. Our political system and cultural life rest upon this ideal.” There is a marked tension between the words of the U.S. Supreme Court and the words expressed in Westchester County Executive’s Order; for the language of the Executive Order stands in clear, categorical defiance to the well-reasoned opinion of the high Court in Turner. Again, the specific language of the Westchester County Executive Order of George Latimer reads: “WHEREAS, recreational County facilities always serve our residents best when used for sporting events, concerts, trade shows, and educational opportunities for our youth [because] Gun shows are not what taxpayer financed property should be used for [emphasis our own].” This is a presumptuous, arrogant assertion. Latimer predicates this Executive Order on, and attempts to support an unlawful and despicable Governmental act on, false moral piety. It is a ruse; no less so, if George Latimer truly believes that his Executive Order is justified because, in his mind, he has generated it from a sense of superior moral conviction, and sees it as an act of beneficence toward the residents of Westchester rather than, for what it really is, an act of defiance toward the supreme authority, establishing, in no uncertain words, the fundamental rights and liberties etched in stone in the Bill of Rights. Yet, Latimer's Executive Order, banning public gun shows in Westchester County, is nothing less than illegal gag order on free expression, posing as a righteous moral edict. For George Latimer is doing no less than thrusting his personal beliefs into the public sphere concerning what he sees, or what he would like to see, as the appropriate use of public County land and what he perceives as not constituting appropriate use of public land. Latimer obviously detests  guns, and he obviously abhors a citizen's exercise of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. By banning public gun shows, George Latimer uses his Office to make manifest in law, to actualize in Westchester County, his personal opinions and pompous high-minded moral judgments of what he deems to constitute appropriate behavior and what he signals as inappropriate behavior, informing residents of Westchester County, in no uncertain terms, as to what constitutes appropriate behavior in the County and what does not. Obviously, for George Latimer, those who wish to promote and hold public gun shows and those who wish to attend public gun shows are both engaging in inappropriate, immoral or amoral behavior, and he has signaled his clear disapproval of that behavior through the Executive Order he has issued on the matter. Undoubtedly, we will see more such Executive Orders emanating from his Office in White Plains, New York.George Latimer takes upon himself the role of guardian of public morality, and he has, through issuance of his Executive Order, given himself, albeit tacitly, the title of High Priest of Moral Order and Rectitude. It is George Latimer who determines what behavior is worthy of free speech protection under the First Amendment and what speech is not worthy of such protection, in Westchester County. Through his actions George Latimer demonstrates the height of arrogance and presumption. He uses a heavy hand to constrain the right of free speech that Westchester County residents might, one would think, reasonably expect is theirs to enjoy, as such right is codified in the First Amendment; and he uses a heavy hand to constrain, as well, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment--another fundamental right that Westchester County  residents might, one would think, also reasonably expect is theirs to enjoy. Not so, according to George Latimer. But, the Courts may think differently. Latimer's Executive Order is not likely to stand up to rigorous legal scrutiny. For, contrary to George Latimer’s assertions as manifested in his actions, the Bill of Rights doesn’t stop at the border of Westchester County. Moreover, that the County Executive would deign, at least for a time, to allow gun shows to proceed unimpeded on “private” land within the County, for those Westchester residents who would wish to attend them, the fact that private gun shows may be permitted in Westchester County, when public gun shows cannot, under Latimer's Executive Order, does not suffice to circumvent a charge of Constitutional violations impacting public gun shows, whether private gun shows are a feasible, practical alternative or not.Under our system of laws, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, consistent with the U.S. Constitution, George Latimer, in his official capacity as the Westchester County Executive, but also as an American citizen, thrusts a personal view toward firearms on others which sees expression as a ban on public gun shows. But, it is one thing for an American citizen to dislike guns, to dislike gun shows, and to dislike the Second Amendment and to hold personal views on what should, in that person's mind constitute limits on free expression under the First Amendment, and, thereupon, to express views consistent with those preferences. That is permitted. That itself reflects a sacred right that an American citizen shall, as he or she wishes, exercise, freely, without constraint. That entails, as well, the sanctity and inviolability of each individual American citizen to be individual--a basic precept that underlies the entirety of the Nation's Bill of Rights. But where, as here, an American citizen—who wields power as a Government official—would dare impose, indeed, inflict, his belief systems on others, by erecting barriers to another American citizen’s fundamental and substantive Constitutional rights, that cannot and must not be borne. Governmental officers are, after all, in this Nation, under our Constitution and under our system of laws, public servants. Their duty is to serve the people, not to command subservience of the people, to bend the will of the American citizenry to that official's will. The Bill of Rights operates as an absolute constraint on the authority of any Governmental official, whether serving at the Federal, State, County, or local level. The Bill of Rights cannot lawfully be overridden, either by Statute or by Executive fiat. The Bill of Rights sets the parameters beyond which no Governmental official is permitted lawfully to enter.The U.S. Supreme Court further stated, in Turner,“As a general rule, laws that by their terms distinguish favored speech from disfavored speech on the basis of the ideas or views expressed are content-based. See, e.g., Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 197, 119 L. Ed. 2d 5, 112 S. Ct. 1846 (1992) (‘Whether individuals may exercise their free-speech rights near polling places  depends entirely on whether their speech is related to a political campaign’); Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 318-319, 99 L. Ed. 2d 333, 108 S. Ct. 1157 (1988) (plurality opinion) (whether municipal ordinance permits individuals to ‘picket in front of a foreign embassy depends entirely upon whether their picket signs are critical of the foreign government or not’). By contrast, laws that confer benefits or impose burdens on speech without reference to the ideas or views expressed are in most instances content-neutral. See, e.g.  City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 804, 80 L. Ed. 2d 772, 104 S. Ct. 2118 (1984) (ordinance prohibiting the posting of signs on public property ‘is neutral—indeed it is silent—concerning any speaker's point of view’); Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640, 649, 69 L. Ed. 2d 298, 101 S. Ct. 2559 (1981) (State Fair regulation requiring that sales and solicitations take place at designated locations ‘applies evenhandedly to all who wish to distribute and sell written materials or to solicit funds’).”The language of Latimer’s Executive Order is, on its face, content-based, not merely neutral-based. The Executive Order, banning public gun shows in Westchester County, would, therefore, in our estimate, not withstand legal scrutiny if challenged.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES DO NOT EXIST IN AN ACADEMIC VACUUM. THEY AFFECT THE LIVES OF ALL AMERICANS IN A TANGIBLE WAY; AND TWO OR MORE RIGHTS, SUCH AS THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS OF THE SECOND, OFTEN COHERE. THEY OFTEN, AS HERE, IN THE CASE OF AN EXECUTIVE ORDER BANNING PUBLIC GUN SHOWS, GO HAND-IN-HAND.

Much of restrictive gun law legislation, apart from expressly conflicting with the Second Amendment, casts a bright light on the views of those who support such draconian legislation. It is demonstrative evidence for inferring that the proponents of such legislation seek not only to curb exercise of the fundamental, substantive right codified in the Second Amendment, but to curb the American citizen's First Amendment expression of that Second Amendment right. These two Rights go hand-in-hand. When antigun proponents talk disparagingly of a so-called "gun culture" or "culture of guns," that they seek to curb, they really mean to contravene, to place unconstitutional constraints on the free speech clause of the First Amendment too. George Latimer’s Executive Order, unlike many restrictive gun measures, overtly—not merely impliedly—infringes the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech, afforded all American citizens and would, if challenged, likely be struck down as an unlawful overt and absolute attempt to control content of speech, well beyond the regulation of time, place, and manner of speech. George Latimer seeks to control expression of what to some constitutes an unpopular view as much as he seeks to contain gun shows in Westchester County. He sees public gun shows as unwanted displays of "gun culture" and of the "culture of guns" that he, along with other like-minded antigun proponents and antigun provocateurs denigrate, They thereupon attempt to contain, constrain and constrict and, eventually, to eradicate gun ownership and gun possession in this Nation, in the tangible, physical sense, But, they go beyond that. They seek much, much more. They seek no less than to eradicate, to excise from the memory of man, from the mind of the American citizenry, the very desire for, the very wish to exercise the right of the people to keep and bear arms--to erase, then, from the mind of each American citizen that anything sacred exists in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They seek for a day to arrive when people here perceive the Second Amendment as not merely archaic, anachronistic, and obsolete, but incongruent, bizarre, meaningless. To that end the mainstream news media Press and our Nation's Educational system is hard at work--hard at work to disrupt and destroy the Second Amendment and hard at work to destroy the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment and hard at work to change the American public's perceptions toward and to severely constrain the notion of freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment

GEORGE LATIMER'S EXECUTIVE ORDER BANNING PUBLIC GUN SHOWS IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY RAISES OTHER LEGAL, AS WELL AS PERTINENT SOCIAL AND POLITICAL QUESTIONS, APART FROM THE EXECUTIVE ORDER'S NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE FIRST AND SECOND AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

George Latimer's Westchester ban on public gun shows in Westchester County--a ban that does not simply regulate time, place and manner of public gun shows but amounts to a total prohibition on gun shows--must be seen for what it really is: pernicious, discriminatory State regulation, operating to deny to a substantial class of American citizens use of a public forum for a legitimate Constitutional purpose. The question posed for review is this: Does not George Latimer's Executive order operate overtly, and unconscionably, and contemptuously to unconstitutionally discriminate against an entire class of citizenry, namely those American citizens who desire to own and possess firearms, by denying to these American citizens a vehicle, in the form of a public forum, through which an American citizen, not under disability, may seek to view and purchase firearms and such other items, such as memorabilia, that an American citizen has the right to own and possess? If an American citizen seeks merely and only to exercise a fundamental, substantive Constitutional right and if a public accommodation allows that citizen to exercise a fundamental Constitutional right, on what basis can a Governmental agent--in this particular case, the County Executive, George Latimer--lawfully deny, in totality, to an American citizen, the use of a public accommodation in which that substantive, Constitutional right may be exercised? If a legal basis does not exist for a total ban on gun shows, then George Latimer's unilateral action constitutes no less than an overt, unconstitutional discrimination against gun owners who desire to own and possess firearms. If true, then, does not George Latimer's Executive order impinge on and infringe the due process and equal protection clauses of both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as operating as an infringement of the free speech clause of the First Amendment and as an infringement of the Second?That George Latimer deigns to allow private gun shows to continue to be held in Westchester County, apart from public gun shows--at least for the time being--does permissible use of private accommodations for gun shows obviate Constitutional issues associated with a total ban on public gun shows in Westchester County? Then, too, does not George Latimer's ban on public gun shows operate as a shifty and deceitful attempt to slide around what antigun proponents and antigun provocateurs and antigun conspirators see as the public gun show "loophole" to the instant criminal background check system under federal law? For, if public gun shows do not exist, then, the perceived "loophole" issue disappears into mist. But, is not the "loophole" issue and is not the very expression 'gun show loophole' itself a myth perpetrated by and perpetuated by antigun proponents, antigun provocateurs and antigun conspirators to strain and constrain exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms?We will continue with our analysis of the Westchester County Executive George Latimer’s Executive Order in a forthcoming article.

A CLOSING NOTE: WHAT WE ARE SEEING; WHAT IS AT STAKE.

We see, of late, and with more insistent and incessant fury, a bold attack on the very cultural traditions and core values and belief systems of this Country underway. Do American citizens not see that, despite the electoral triumph of Donald Trump to the U.S. Presidency, there is a conscious, sinister, insidious, diabolical effort underway to undercut our most cherished rights and liberties, and that this process is being carried out by the sinister forces that crush Nation States? Do American citizens not see that these forces intend to crush our Nation State through a systematic, orchestrated scheme of disinformation, misinformation, pseudo-information, and non-information designed to demoralize the American citizenry; to impose a false sense of guilt onto the American citizenry; to confuse and confound the American citizenry; to devalue the Bill of Rights, to devalue the notion of 'American citizen,' to soften and mold and reshape the contours of this Nation's citizenry as if the American people were but a lump of clay; to transform the American citizenry into weak, guilt-ridden, anxious souls.We see that Americans have lost the right to privacy. They have lost the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. They have lost the right of free speech, the right to speak their mind, as threat of public reprimand, and threat of loss of employment are omnipresent. They are slowly losing their God-given right of the people to keep and bear arms.We see monopolistic corporate mega-structures emerging in all business sectors: technology, finance, media, entertainment. We see these colossal mega-structures imposing bizarre, alien rules and bizarre principles of behavior on society, across society. They are doing this with impertinence, impudence, false piety, and with a disgusting sense of self-righteousness, and with impunity. And they are using their horde of wealth and outsize power to influence Government. They are operating as if they were Government, but as a Government free of constraints imposed on Government by the Bill of Rights--a Document that is systematically being dismissed as irrelevant. We see our Nation awash in waves of illegal aliens, falsely and loudly clamoring for and oddly claiming rights they do not have and should never be given. And, we see waves of unassimilable, poverty-stricken, ill-informed, mentally lazy refugees flooding into our Country from failed States. These individuals make an unwieldy welfare State, that we are becoming, even more untenable. They strain our resources and require support from our citizenry. And, many in Congress support this, would allow this; would encourage this. They would enact new immigration laws that would further disrupt our economy, and negatively impact our mores, our values, our sacred roots. We see, even now, our history revised; our children taught alien ideas. Our sense of National identity is being turned on its head. More than questioned, national identity, as perceived by the founders of our free Republic, is now scorned, and reviled, and slowly revised.How far can this awful state of affairs go? When will the American people fight back to recover their sacred birthright? _________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE COURTS, NO LESS THAN CONGRESS, IS WHERE ONE WILL FIND THE SECOND AMENDMENT EITHER SAFEGUARDED AND STRENGTHENED OR ENDANGERED AND WEAKENED.

REPUBLICAN CONTROL OF ALL THREE-BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT IS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN BOTH THE SOVEREIGNTY AND INDEPENDENCE OF OUR NATION STATE, AND THE SUPREMACY OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR SYSTEM OF LAWS.

The mandate of a Republican controlled Congress, and of a Republican President and of a federal court system--comprising jurists who recognize the supremacy of our laws and of our Constitution over foreign laws and over the decisions of foreign tribunals and who recognize and appreciate the critical importance of the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people, as codified in the Bill of Rights--is this: to maintain our roots as a unique People; to make certain that our Country continues to exist as a free Republic and as an independent, sovereign Nation, beholden to no other Nation or to any group of Nations; and to keep sacred the supremacy of our Constitution and our system of laws, grounded in the sanctity of the Bill of Rights--a Bill of Rights that has no parallel in any other Nation on this Earth. To succeed in this mandate it is imperative that: one, Congress retain a Conservative Republican majority; two, that Donald Trump remain as U.S. President through two terms in Office; and, three, that the U.S. Supreme Court hold a conservative-wing majority and that the lower federal Courts seat a majority of  jurists who recognize and appreciate the supremacy of our Constitution and of our laws and of our sacred rights and liberties, and who render opinions with that principle omnipresent.Obviously, those malevolent forces that seek to undermine the sovereignty of this Nation, that seek to subvert the will of the American People, that seek to undercut and subordinate our Constitution, our system of laws and our fundamental rights and liberties, are working for the precise opposite. They seek to gain Democratic Party majorities in both Houses of Congress in the midterm elections, and, if they can accomplish that, they will undoubtedly pursue efforts to impeach Trump, using the tenuous, ludicrous, tax-payer funded Mueller investigation, chasing after ghosts, as a springboard to destroy the Trump Presidency. These individuals and groups, bankrolled by a shadowy, secretive, ruthless internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist “elite”, hope, as well, to create a liberal wing majority in the U.S. Supreme Court. To do that, they must win back the White House.Those who seek to destroy the sovereignty of this Nation and to undermine the true import and purport of the Bill of Rights are rankled by two specific events that they cannot, and, obviously, will not abide: one, the failure to usher Hillary Rodham Clinton into the Office of U.S. President, which they thought was an assured bet; and, two, the failure to seat Merrick Garland—the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and President Barack Obama’s nominee—on the U.S. Supreme Court. These critical and monumental failures of the internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist “elite” who bankroll and control the Deep State of the federal Government—the forces that would dare crush this Nation and the American people into submission—have suffered an extraordinary setback in their plans for world domination. To reset the clock in accordance with their global strategy, they have been forced to show their hand. The negative forces that manipulate and control the Government of this Nation and that manipulate and control the Governments of those Nations that comprise the EU have emerged from the shadows and have forced their toadies in this Country to surface from the depths of the Deep State of the federal Government, to undermine, at every turn, the efforts of the duly elected President of the United States, Donald Trump. Not content to undermine and undercut the President's policy objectives, which they attack at every turn through the well-orchestrated media circus they control, they attack the man himself, disrespectfully, caustically, and reprehensibly; and, in so doing, they demonstrate as well their disrespect for this Nation, and  for this Nation’s core values, and for this Nation’s system of laws, and for the people of this Nation who elected Donald Trump, who was then inaugurated the 45^th President of the United States, on January 20, 2017, succeeding Barack Obama.The election of Donald Trump as U.S. President has thrown a wrench into the well-oiled and greased machine of the Deep State of the federal Government of the United States. This singularly important event has thrown the internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist elites, headed by the international Rothschild clan, into a state of consternation, of befuddlement, of rage and turmoil, of chaos. Their well-laid plans for world domination sees the United States as an important cog in an expansive industrial and financial machine comprising the New World Order, for no other Western Nation has as impressive a military and as impressive an intelligence apparatus, and as adept technological capabilities as those of the United States. As the forces that would crush this Nation and its people into submission have suffered a severe and costly set-back, they intend to set matters aright. The American people bear witness to the raw extent of the power and reach of these forces: one, the naked audacity of their actions; two, the evident contempt in which they hold the American people; three, the bald self-assurance and aplomb by which they plan and orchestrate a campaign of deliberate deception—through the mainstream media—a campaign of disinformation and misinformation through which they hope and trust they can manipulate the American people into accepting a bizarre worldview--one inimical to the needs and desires and well-being of the American people; four, the obscene loathing they express toward our Bill of Rights; five, the demonstrative malevolence they have shown toward the U.S. President and toward his Administration; and, six, the abject hatred they display toward this Nation’s Constitution, toward this Nation’s unique history, toward this Nation’s core values, toward this Nation’s system of laws and morals. And through the levers of media and of the Deep-State of Government that they control, they give mere lip-service and lip-homage to those very things Americans hold most dear.The Arbalest Quarrel has done its part. We have worked to help elect Donald Trump as President of the United States and have worked, as well, to defeat the confirmation of Judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court. But our work has not ended. It has, perforce, just begun.We must continue to support President Trump from the forces that, having failed to prevent his electoral success, seek, now, to place obstacles in his path, making it difficult for him to implement the policies he has promised—policies that are at loggerheads with those hostile internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist financial and industrial forces that seek global domination which, in accordance with their plans for world domination, requires the crushing of Western Nation States, including the crushing of our Nation State, the crushing of the sovereignty and independence of our Nation state; and, with that, the subordination of our laws to that of international laws and treaties and the subordination of our Courts to that of foreign Courts and foreign Tribunals; and the undermining of the sacred rights and liberties of the American citizenry. These extremely powerful, extraordinarily wealthy, and abjectly ruthless and cunning globalist forces seek eventually to topple Donald Trump and his administration. They seek also to take back control of the two Houses of Congress. We must therefore work to maintain House and Senate Republican Majorities.Further, we must work toward and anticipation of the confirmation of at least one additional, and, hopefully, two or, better yet, three conservative-wing Justices to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. With the passing of the eminent and brilliant jurist and true American patriot, Justice Antonin Scalia, we have lost a mighty champion of liberty in the vein of the founders of this Nation, the framers of our Constitution. We hope and trust and pray that, before the end of this year, 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy and/or Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and/or Justice Stephen Breyer will retire. That will pave the way for President Trump to nominate at least one and conceivably two, and optimally three more American jurists, to sit on the high Court who, as with Trump’s nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, hold jurisprudential values and who would apply the same methodology to deciding cases as do Justices Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, which the late Justice Antonin Scalia had set the course. With strong and true conservative-wing Justices on the high Court, who hold a clear majority, we will see the Court agreeing to hear critical Second Amendment cases and, thereupon, rendering decisions that, with the Court’s untarnished and supreme judicial imprimatur, makes clear the import of the natural, fundamental rights and liberties of American citizens as codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution in the manner the framers’ intended.

THE ARBALEST QUARREL LOOKS BACK ON WORK COMPLETED IN 2017 AND THEN FORWARD TO OUR TASKS FOR 2018

WHAT WERE SOME OF OUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN 2017?

Let us step back for a moment and look at just a few of the tasks we completed in 2017, and remark briefly on tasks we have set for ourselves in 2018. Much of our work, consistent with the primary purpose of the Arbalest Quarrel involved detailed, comprehensive analyses of critical federal and State Court cases impacting the Second Amendment. One of those cases is Soto vs. Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC., 2016 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2626; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P19,932. Soto is an active case. The Soto case arises from the deadly attack that occurred on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, when a deranged young adult, Adam Lanza, 20 years old, stormed Sandy Hook Elementary School, fatally shooting twenty children and six adults, before turning a handgun on and killing himself. According to the allegations of the Soto Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (CM), Adam Lanza murdered these school children and school staff with a Bushmaster AR-15, model XM15-E2S rifle. Defendant Bushmaster prevailed in the lower Superior Court (trial Court), and we analyzed the Superior Court decision in depth. Plaintiffs appealed the adverse decision directly to the Connecticut Supreme Court, bypassing the State Court of Appeals, and the Connecticut Supreme Court agreed to hear argument. We will be analyzing the Briefs of Plaintiffs and Defendants in the case and will also analyze selected amicus (friend of Court) Briefs in that case. Over 50 amicus briefs were filed in that case. We also provided comprehensive analyses in an “assault weapons” case, (Kolbe vs. O’Malley, 42. F. Supp. 3d 768 (D. Md. 2014); vacated and remanded, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 813 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2016); rev’d en banc, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017) ), which we had hoped would be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court—the high Court failing to have granted certiorari in an earlier disastrous “assault weapons” case, Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6902 (7th Cir. Ill., 2015). Alas, the high Court failed to garner four votes, allowing the case to be heard in the high Court. Had the high Court agreed to hear the case, Americans would see a definitive ruling on whether so-called “assault weapons” fall within the core of the Second Amendment’s protection. Obviously, the liberal wing of the Court and at least two "apparent" conservative wing Justices, likely, Anthony Kennedy and the Chief Justice, John Roberts, did not want to resolve this case, and, so, to date, resolution of “assault weapons” as protected firearms within the core of the Second Amendment remains in abeyance, with liberal Circuit Court of Appeal Judges ruling that semiautomatic "assault weapons" do not fall within the core of the Second Amendment and, so, are not protected.In addition, we looked at two Congressional bills that, if enacted, strengthen the Second Amendment. We looked at national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation, pending in Congress, H.R. 38, and looked at Congressman Chris Collins’ bill, the “Second Amendment Guarantee Act” (H.R. 3576) (“SAGA”) which has been referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, on September 6, 2017 where it presently sits. We also did our part to sidetrack Obama’s attempt to sit Judge Merrick Garland on the U.S. Supreme Court. When we feel it critical that our representatives in Congress be notified of specific and extraordinary dangers presented to our Nation, we have not hesitated to contact them. When, after the passing of the exceptional U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, we have seen that President Barack Obama wasted little time in nominating a person to serve as a new ninth member of the high Court who would, given the opportunity, assist the liberal-wing Justices—Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—in unwinding case law that Justice Scalia helped to shape in his many illustrious years on the Bench. That person who President Barack Obama had hoped to see confirmed is Merrick Garland, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Arbalest Quarrel took strong exception to the possibility of seeing Judge Garland sitting on the high Court. We sent a letter to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley, requesting the Senator to refrain from allowing a confirmation hearing to proceed. Had a confirmation proceeding been held, that would have resulted in Judge Merrick Garland sitting on the high Court as an Associate Justice. Of that, we have no doubt, as U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch has articulated that point. According to the liberal political commentary website, "New Republic," Senator Hatch said that there was "no question" that Judge Merrick Garland would be confirmed were a confirmation hearing held. The Arbalest Quarrel explained the singular danger Judge Merrick Garland posed to the preservation of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution if Merrick Garland sat on the U.S. Supreme Court. In our letter we took exception to pronouncements of several academicians who had also written a letter to Senator Grassley. Those academicians argued that nothing in the record of Judge Garland’s service as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals suggests that an inference can be drawn concerning Judge Garland’s jurisprudential philosophy toward the Second Amendment. We disagreed with the pronouncements of those academicians. We pointed to specific examples in the judicial record that establish beyond doubt that Judge Merrick Garland holds great and abiding antipathy toward the Second Amendment; and that Judge Garland’s antipathy toward the Second Amendment is very much in evidence in the judicial record, contrary to the pronouncements of those academicians who promote the Judge’s ascendancy to the U.S. Supreme Court. Our concern was not directed to Judge Garland’s ability as a jurist. We have no doubt that Judge Garland has a bright and, conceivably, brilliant legal mind. But, when that brilliance is coupled with a philosophy at loggerheads with the philosophy of another brilliant Justice, Antonin Scalia, then we know that preservation of the natural, substantive fundamental rights of the American citizenry—particularly the right of the people to keep and bear arms—are in jeopardy. In a series of in depth articles, we have written extensively about Judge Garland’s jurisprudential philosophy. We pointed out that Judge Garland’s judicial approach is clearly antithetical to that of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, and that Justice Scalia’s illustrious work would be undone were Judge Garland to sit on the high Court. In our letter to Senator Grassley, we provided a link to the Arbalest Quarrel website and encouraged the Senator to peruse our analytical articles on Judge Garland, as the letter only touched upon the matters of concern.

THE MISSION OF THE ARBALEST QUARREL 

The mission of the Arbalest Quarrel is to preserve, protect, and strengthen the Bill of Rights, and, principally, to preserve, protect, and strengthen the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Arbalest Quarrel has written dozens of articles on newsworthy and noteworthy events, impacting the Second Amendment. Many of our articles appear in Ammoland Shooting Sports News. Most of the articles we prepare are comprehensive, extremely detailed, highly analytical expositions on Second Amendment issues. Many of our articles are written as part of lengthy, continuing series. Given the exigencies of time and of new and pressing newsworthy matters, we are often compelled to sidestep continuous work on a series, returning to a series later. Since threats to the Second Amendment are constant and continuous, much of the work that we may have left uncompleted in previous weeks or months is and remains pertinent. Some work that we do, involving analysis of active legal cases, such as the Soto case, cannot, of course, be completed until further action is taken by a Court and, in that event, we must await action before continuing discussion. In other cases, such as Kolbe, where we have commenced work, as part of a series, a higher Court, in this case, the U.S. Supreme Court has denied a writ of certiorari, which means that the ruling or rulings of the second highest Court, a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, remains the law in that judicial Circuit. But, as those cases involve an open-ended and critically important issue that the U.S. Supreme Court will, at some point be compelled to tackle, our analysis of lower U.S. District Court and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal decisions are still relevant and, so, hold more than historical value in terms of their impact on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Kolbe, for example, deals directly with the issue whether semiautomatic weapons, defined as ‘assault weapons’ fall within the core protection of the Second Amendment. As antigun groups intend to deny American citizens the right to legally own and possess “assault weapons,” and, as they seek, eventually, to ban civilian ownership and possession of all semiautomatic weapons, it is incumbent upon us and important to consider the legal arguments they present. Thus, at some point in time when the U.S. Supreme Court does deal with the issue as to the extent of or whether semiautomatic weapons defined as ‘assault weapons’ fall within the core protection of the Second Amendment or whether semiautomatic weapons, as a broad category of firearms, fall within the core protection of the Second Amendment--and the high Court will, at some moment in time have to consider the issue--we will have addressed, in depth, all or virtually all of the salient arguments that litigants happen to make. As we look back at the work over the years, we note our article, titled “The Arsenal of Destruction.” Concerning antigun groups efforts to defeat the right of the people to keep and bear arms, what we mentioned in that article is as true then as it is today. We said: Here is what we deemed then, as now, to be the salient methodologies antigun groups use to undercut the Second Amendment. There are probably more; undoubtedly, the antigun groups are busy concocting others even as we publish this list:

• ENACTMENT OF RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS

• REWRITING/RECONFIGURING/RECONSTITUTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO UNDERCUT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE INDEPENDENT CLAUSE: “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

• EFFORTS TO REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT OUTRIGHT

• INDOCTRINATION OF AMERICA’S YOUTH

• MILITARIZATION/FEDERALIZATION OF CIVILIAN POLICE FORCES ACROSS THE COUNTRY THROUGH THE MACHINATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

• DIRECT MAINSTREAM NEWS MEDIA ATTACKS ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT

• USE OF PROPAGANDA AGAINST THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND INDOCTRINATION OF THE PUBLIC BY MAINSTREAM NEWS MEDIA GROUPS

• SYSTEMATIC EROSION OF THE RULE OF LAW IN THE UNITED STATES

• DENIAL OF GUN POSSESSION TO ENTIRE GROUPS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS

• ILLEGAL ATTEMPTS BY CITIES AND TOWNSHIPS TO WEAKEN OR OVERRIDE STATE LAWS WHERE SUCH STATE LAWS ARE DESIGNED TO EXTEND SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS TO THEIR CITIZENS

• CREATING CONFUSION OVER THE CONCEPT OF ‘CITIZEN’ AND CREATING CONFUSION AS TO THE RIGHTS OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES

• EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVERREACH/USURPATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION BY THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT IN CLEAR DEFIANCE OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE SET FORTH IN AND THE MAINSTAY OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

• OVERRIDING THE BILL OF RIGHTS THROUGH INTERNATIONAL PACTS, TREATIES, AGREEMENTS, AND CONVENTIONS

• FALLACIOUS REASONING OF ANTIGUN GROUPS AND ANTIGUN GROUP DECEPTION AS TO THEIR ULTIMATE GOAL: DE JURE OR DE FACTO REPEAL OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

• ATTACK ON GUN RIGHTS’ ADVOCATES’ MORAL BELIEFS AND ETHICAL BELIEF SYSTEMS

• BATFE ADOPTION OF ONEROUS REQUIREMENTS FOR GUN DEALERS AND BATFE INTRUSION/ENCROACHMENT ON TRADITIONAL U.S. CONGRESSIONAL LAW MAKING AUTHORITY

• MISAPPLICATION/MISAPPROPRIATION OF THIRD PARTY PRODUCTS LIABILITY LAW AND LEGAL DOCTRINE TO UNFAIRLY TARGET GUN MANUFACTURERS

• FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RESTRAINT OF TRADE: COERCING LENDING INSTITUTIONS TO REFRAIN FROM GIVING LOANS TO GUN DEALERS

• MANIPULATION OF THE COMPOSITION OF STATE LEGISLATURES AND OF THE U.S. CONGRESS BY MULTI-MILLIONAIRE/BILLIONAIRE TRANSNATIONAL GLOBALISTS THROUGH THE BANKROLLING OF POLITICIANS—WHO ACQUIESCE TO THEIR WISHES, AND WHO ARE WILLING TO DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT—AND THROUGH THE NAKED, SHAMELESS EXPLOITATION OF ATTACK ADS, TARGETING THE DEFENDERS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT -- THOSE POLITICIANS WHO REFUSE TO KOWTOW TO THE ANTI-AMERICAN AGENDA OF THE RUTHLESS MULTI-MILLIONAIRE AND BILLIONAIRE TRANSNATIONAL GLOBALISTS.

• GLOBAL CENSORSHIP/CONTROL OF EXPRESSION ON THE INTERNET: UNDERMINING THE SECOND AMENDMENT BY CONTROLLING MESSAGING WITH THE AIM, ULTIMATELY, OF INSIDIOUSLY DESTROYING THE SECOND AMENDMENT THROUGH AN UNCONSCIONABLE INFRINGMENT UPON THE FIRST AMENDMENT: AS CONTEMPT FOR ONE AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS SHOWN, SO, AS WELL, IS CONTEMPT FOR THE OTHERS DEMONSTRABLY SHOWN

• DESTRUCTION OF SOVEREIGN NATION STATES AND OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF SOVEREIGN NATION STATES THROUGH THE CREATION OF, ESTABLISHMENT OF AND INEXORABLE EXPANSION OF AN INTERNATIONAL, NEOLIBERAL INSPIRED WORLD ORDER DEDICATED TO AND WORKING TOWARD THE DESTRUCTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, THE DESTRUCTION OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES, AND THE ERADICATION OF PERSONAL AUTONOMY

We intended to do an article on each of these 21 strategies within the series. We didn’t complete the series, but we did write on several of these strategies and some of the strategies were touched upon in other articles. For example, our most recent article on the NY Times new “gag order” policy preventing its employees from exercising their freedom of free speech on their own time in vehicles other than the New York Times newspaper, actually is a response to two strategies we delineated on in “The Arsenal of Destruction":ONE: GLOBAL CENSORSHIP/CONTROL OF EXPRESSION ON THE INTERNET: UNDERMINING THE SECOND AMENDMENT BY CONTROLLING MESSAGING WITH THE AIM, ULTIMATELY, OF INSIDIOUSLY DESTROYING THE SECOND AMENDMENT THROUGH AN UNCONSCIONABLE INFRINGMENT UPON THE FIRST AMENDMENT: AS CONTEMPT FOR ONE AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS SHOWN, SO, AS WELL, IS CONTEMPT FOR THE OTHERS DEMONSTRABLY SHOWN; and,TWO: USE OF PROPAGANDA AGAINST THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND INDOCTRINATION OF THE PUBLIC BY MAINSTREAM NEWS MEDIA GROUPS.Our principal mission and raison d’etre—as mentioned, supra—is to preserve, protect, and strengthen the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the preservation of, protection of, and strengthening of the Second Amendment all go hand-in-hand. There exist forces both inside and outside this Country that would like to repeal the Second Amendment. Of course, they realize that repealing, de jure, any one of the Ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution that comprise the Bill of Rights is virtually impossible. As natural rights, there is no mechanism for repealing these rights and liberties anyway, since no man created them. The Framers of the Constitution merely codified the rights that exist intrinsically in each American citizen. That doesn’t mean that a sacred right cannot be ignored or de facto repealed which effectively reduces the right to a nullity even as the words remain intact. Thus, if the words remain, but the intent behind the words is absent, hollowed out, the right, in essence, ceases to exist. We have seen this before. The fundamental right of Americans to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures has been hollowed out, as Government agencies like the CIA and NSA download and keep digital records on everyone and everything. This is patently illegal, but Federal Government agencies do it anyway. The fundamental right of free speech is beginning to be hollowed out, too, as censorship, in the guise of “political correctness” is taking its toll on free speech. The fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms was dying a slow death until the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in two seminal cases, District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570; 128 S. Ct. 2783; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010)), made clear what that right entails. The high Court made poignantly and categorically clear that this right—a right that must be recognized by both federal Government and by the States—is an individual right, a right, then, not connected to one’s service in a militia. Still, those Legislators and Jurists who seek to disembowel the Second Amendment have either ignored the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court or have actively tinkered with it, working around the edges of the Heller and McDonald holdings to slowly weaken the Second Amendment. But, to weaken the right is tantamount to destroying it; for the rights codified must be understood in the context the framers of the Constitution intended, as absolute imperatives. This doesn’t mean restrictions ought not be enacted that operate as deprivations on some individuals but, this deprivation is justified only if the threat posed by the one threatens the lives of millions of others, or where the threat posed by an individual undermines the sovereignty of this Nation.Consider the Second Amendment. Federal law bars persons adjudged mentally incompetent from owning and possessing firearms. Thus, the absolute right to own and possess firearms infringes the right of a person adjudged mentally incompetent but this is necessary to protect the lives of millions of innocent, law-abiding Americans. Federal law also prohibits illegal aliens from owning and possessing firearms. And, in so doing, we protect the sanctity of the notion of a Nation State comprising a unique citizenry. Antigun groups, though, don’t perceive the Bill of Rights as a set of natural rights, existing intrinsically in the individual, endowed by the Creator to the individual. They see the Bill of Rights in the same vein as do internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist “elites,” as mere man-made creations-- statutes enacted and repealed at the will and the whim of the of the rulers that draft and enact them. As they see nothing positive in the right of the people to keep and bear arms, they see nothing that mandates the preservation and strengthening of that right. So, those who attempt to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms do not consider restrictions on the exercise of that right from the standpoint of the restriction's negative impact on the majority of rational, responsible, law-abiding American citizens, who wish to exercise their right, but, rather, see restrictions on the exercise of that fundamental right from the utilitarian consequentialist position. Consistent with utilitarian consequentialism, it is firearms in the hands of law-abiding rational, individual, not the occasional criminal or lunatic, that is perceived as posing the real danger, the real threat. And, what is that threat? It is a threat perceived as directed against society— against an amorphous collective “hive”—a threat perceived, eventually, as one directed against the entirety of the “free” world, a free world constituted as a "New World Order." It is not the criminal or lunatic possessing a firearm that concerns those that hold to the utilitarian consequentialist theory of morality that poses the greater threat to the well-being of society. In a constant flurry of new draconian firearms bills introduced in Congress, we see, in the draft language of these bills, that it is really the average law-abiding individual--the rational, responsible, law-abiding American citizen--against whom restrictive gun measures are really targeted and leveled. These restrictive gun bills are drafted and enacted in clear defiance of the right guaranteed in the Second Amendment.Our mission, our raison d’être, is to call out those disreputable groups and to call out those legislators and to call out those Hollywood film stars and moguls and to call out those mainstream news commentators and journalists and "comedians" and to call out those inordinately wealthy, extraordinarily powerful, extremely secretive, and absolutely ruthless internationalist, trans-nationalist, globalist forces that mean—all of them—to destroy our Nation State and that mean to destroy our Bill of Rights, and that mean to do so all the while claiming their efforts have a rational, ethical basis. But their actions belie their assertions. Their actions belie their true intent. These individuals, these groups, these cold-hearted ruthless internationalist, trans-nationalist, globalist “elites” that control the levers of finance and industry, that control major media organizations, that operate within and control the Deep State of Government within our own Nation mean to destroy the sovereignty and independence of this Nation and they mean to upend and to destroy the supremacy of our laws and of our Constitution.These individuals distort truth; they sow seeds of discord; they confuse and confound the ill-informed masses by challenging the Nation's core values and by interposing false substitutes for those core values. They rail against and dare to rewrite our Nation's history. They attack our Judeo-Christian ethic and our Christian heritage and traditions. They mean to destroy our Nation and our sacred Bill of Rights to pave the way for an antireligious, morally bankrupt trans-global corporate New World Order conglomerate—an amorphous, muddled indistinguishable conglomeration of once proud and unique independent Nation States—a union of populations comprising the entirety of the “free” world, which these internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist financiers and captains of industry plan to rule. We are beginning to see what this portends for the U.S. as they consolidate their power in the EU, with the assistance of their technocrats, their puppets.In their concerted effort to destroy the structure of and the very notion of the sanctity and sovereignty of Nation States, and of the sanctity and sovereignty of our Nation State in particular, we see insidious and perverse attempts by these internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist “elites”—through the mainstream media whom they control and through members of Congress whom they have bought—to play with language—to suggest that the notion, the idea of ‘American,’ of what the word ‘American’ means is simply a matter of personal belief. Why is such a ridiculous notion fostered? It is fostered for a reason. For, if what it means to be an ‘American,’ or, for that matter, what it means to be a Frenchman, or German, or Italian, or Canadian, for example, comes down to personal opinion and belief, then, the bonds between a person and that person’s Country is tenuous, amorphous, fragile, elusive, even illusive, and, ultimately, unimportant. This has serious ramifications for Nation States and repercussions for the people residing in a Nation State. Thus, if a person is to be deemed an American, for example, who simply and essentially believes him or herself to be an American, then, on that basis, alone, may presumptuously presume a right to live in this Country, to emigrate to this Country and to be endowed with all the rights and liberties that the United States Constitution provides.This open-ended concept of what it means to be an ‘American’ is deliberately and unconscionably fostered by those who seek an end to the very notion of a Nation State; who seek to portray people not as citizens of this or that Country but, literally, as “citizens of the world”—who may freely move about as they wish. This “open borders” philosophy is anathema to the concept of the primacy and sovereignty of Nation States which demands that independent, sovereign Nation States have a right and duty and responsibility to maintain and control their borders, and, in so doing, forestall emigration of undesirables to this Country. To allow essentially anyone and everyone to emigrate to this Country, is to denigrate and ultimately destroy the very foundation of the sovereignty and independence of a Nation State. A Nation State’s core ethical and religious and social values are in danger of erosion. That Nation’s historical roots are in danger of erosion. That Nation’s jurisprudential values and core economic principles are in danger of erosion.When educators, along with news organizations and legislators in the United States proclaim that illegal aliens are Americans, the Arbalest Quarrel has stepped in to set the record straight. Co-Founder and President of Arbalest Group, LLC., Stephen L. D’Andrilli wrote a reply to an article written by the Vice President of the United Federation of Teachers that appeared in the Union’s publication. The Arbalest Quarrel's response was published in Ammoland Shooting Sports News. Stephen has penned other cogent responses to the UFT that we, as strong supporters of America’s Bill of Rights, have taken exception with.

THE WORK AHEAD FOR THE ARBALEST QUARREL IN 2018

In 2018 we will continue to analyze federal and State gun laws; federal and State gun bills; and federal and State Court cases. We anticipate seeing one and perhaps two openings on the U.S. Supreme Court. It is imperative that President Trump have the opportunity to nominate one or more individuals to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.It is in the Courts, no less than in Congress that our Bill of Rights and, especially, our Second Amendment, will be preserved, strengthened, and expanded. We will otherwise see our Bill of Rights debilitated, weakened, and restricted.The House and, more importantly, the U.S. Senate must remain firmly in the hands of Republicans and, more especially, in the hands of those who espouse a conservative philosophy, reflective of the views and philosophy and sensibilities of the Founders of our Nation, the Framers of our Constitution, the Creators of our Free Republic—not those Centrists like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, who hold to a decidedly globalist philosophy, who demonstrate globalist sympathies, and whose support of our Bill of Rights is lukewarm at best.The Democrats intend to take control of both Houses of Congress and they intend to weaken our Bill of Rights and to weaken especially the First Amendment Freedom of Speech, and the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. They intend, in league with their internationalist, trans-nationalist, globalist benefactors, to weaken, debase and eventually curtail our natural, fundamental rights and liberties. For they mean to draw us insidiously into the arms of a New World Order. They intend to do this through the vehicle of international pacts and treaties and through mainstream news organizations that condition the American public to accept open borders and to accept an amorphous notion of what it means to be a citizen; and by conditioning the American public to accept the legitimacy of foreign courts to hear cases impacting our fundamental rights; and to condition the American public to accept the supremacy of international law over that of our Constitution, and over our system of laws, and over our jurisprudence; and to condition the public to accept historical revisionism, to accept bizarre, alien notions of morality and gender identity; and to condition the public to accept the dismantling of a Nation that is grounded in Christianity and in notions of self-reliance and initiative, individual responsibility. All these things are on the table, as Democrats and many Centrist Republicans seek to weaken the foundation of a Nation as designed and understood by the Founders of it.

IN CLOSING, WE SET FORTH THE FOLLOWING POINTS AND CAUTIONARY IMPERATIVES FOR OUR READERS:

If the American people are to maintain their unique roots, we must work, first and foremost to keep sacred the Bill of Rights, and that means we must understand the import and purport of the Bill of Rights as the drafters intended, and we must insist that rights and liberties be preserved, protected, and strengthened. We must argue for the continued primacy of this Country as a sovereign, independent Nation State and we must insist that the federal Government’s first order of business, as servants of the American people, is to see to the needs of and well-being of, and security and safety of the American people. And, who are the American people? They are the citizens of this Country and those citizens, the American people, do not include anyone who resides here illegally, whatever that person's motive or circumstance for being here. And, no individual who resides elsewhere has a right to emigrate to this Country simply because that person seeks to live here, for good or for ill; and no one who has entered this Country illegally, whether consciously or through no fault of their own, can demand, as a matter of right, as a matter of law, the right to remain here. For law is not ad hoc. If Congress deigns to allow illegal aliens to remain here, then Congress must refrain from granting such individuals, citizenship. For, to grant citizenship to those who have consciously or not ignored our law, or who claim an exception to law that does not presently exist in law will serve only to destroy our system of laws. To change law or to ignore law on a whim sets a poor precedent and such action, in the seeming moral sense of it, will destroy this Country from within.We must hold to our core values. We must not be seduced into accepting notions of moral and legal relativism and we must not fall prey to historical revisionism. These notions are poisonous, pernicious, debilitating. We are a People with one common language, English. No Nation has remained a separate and distinct Nation State that has inculcated, internalized a notion of bilingualism or multilingualism or that has abided bilingualism or multilingualism.No one, whether inside or outside Government, shall indoctrinate the American people. Each American citizen has a right to free expression and to freely express his or her mind. That an individual may wish to express an idea or to possess a physical item that another individual may personally dislike, or even abhor, so what of it? The founders of our free Republic and the framers of our Constitution did not undertake to institute or to insinuate into the natural and fundamental rights and liberties of the American people a notion of “political correctness.” Such a notion is of modern invention and vintage, designed to serve an ulterior purpose. Indeed, had the founders of our Republic thought of such an absurd concept at all they would undoubtedly have held political correctness to be decidedly politically incorrect. Nothing is more devastating or destructive to the citizenry of this Nation or, for that matter, to the citizenry of any nation state, than the sins of hypocrisy and sanctimony. Unfortunately, both are in abundance in this Nation. We can for that thank the arrogance of mainstream media and of those with power and money and influence, both here and abroad, who wish to dictate a mode of thought the rest of us are obliged to adhere to. The American people should be particularly wary of those legislators and those presumptuous “elites” who bandy about such expressions as “rule of law,” and “living Constitution,” and “open borders,” and “citizen of the world” and “job creator,” and “commonsense gun laws,” and “social Darwinism, and “identity politics,” and “political correctness.” These expressions, and there are others, have become trite and dangerous clichés, shorthand simplistic sloganeering, that are either misunderstood and therefore misused, or are otherwise given to suggest or convey something overtly positive, even exemplary, when, in fact, their utilization is meant to harm the American citizen, meant to harm you! Always be mindful of seemingly noble sounding and high-minded verbiage thrown out to the masses for consumption like so much popcorn and roasted peanuts and cotton candy. Be observant, be cautious, think critically before throwing your lot in with everyone else simply because everyone else is “doing it” or “believing it.” You are no longer in high school. There is no longer any need for you to belong to this or that “clique,” in order to "fit in."The framers of the Constitution glorified the right of the individual to be individual and to accept personal responsibility for one’s actions. Our sacred rights and liberties as codified in the Bill of Rights are a testament to that fact. That is our birthright. The right of free speech; freedom of association; the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. These are not mere platitudes. These are a few of the most important natural rights, codified in the Bill of Rights. They are absolute and unconditional, and they are slowly being eroded. Americans should consider, critically, how the words of a news commentator, or of a Hollywood star, or of a mega-sports star, or of a legislator, or of a financier, or of a government bureaucrat, or of a highly paid comic on nighttime  television meant to cajole or persuade Americans would impinge on or infringe those rights and liberties before you throw your lot in with them. For you may be hoodwinked into giving up everything of real consequence._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA NEW YORK TIMES NEWSPAPER’S NEW “GAG ORDER” POLICY PREVENTS ITS EMPLOYEES FROM EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH? SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS? GOING, GOING GONE IF THE NEW YORK TIMES WERE TO REWRITE THE CONSTITUTION!

THE NEW YORK TIMES BOMBARDS THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WITH ‘GROUPTHINK’ AND ‘DOUBLESPEAK: WELCOME TO “1984” IN THE 21^ST CENTURY.

“We are poor little lambs Who have lost our way. Baa! Baa! Baa! We are little black sheep Who have gone astray. Baa! Baa! Baa!” ~ from the Wiffinpoof song, circa 1910; traditional closing number of the Wiffinpoofs, an a cappella group of Yale UniversityAs is our wont, the creators of the Arbalest Quarrel often peruse on Amazon.com—books, on philosophy, politics, science, and law, among various other categories of knowledge to assist us in the work we do for our readers in defense of our most sacred right: the right of the people to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As we write this, we came across a book, serendipitously, and one which we may purchase, titled, “Reasons Why,” by Bradford Skow. The illustration on the book’s cover is whimsical: a platypus seemingly contemplating a strawberry. And, lest one believe the book was written for a child, the answer is decidedly, “no.”Notwithstanding the straightforward, seemingly, superficially simplistic title, the material is decidedly tantalizingly complex. We perused a few pages of the book, on-line, as Amazon sometimes permits. We bring this matter up here because the subject matter of the book, “why questions,” drew us to consider something about the mainstream media that is somewhat mystifying to apprehend and, at once, frightening to contemplate. Mainstream media organizations—comprising major newspapers, radio, television, and internet—are drawn more and more to proselytize to the American public rather than to simply report the news, and this is contrary to the basic import and purport of news organizations. But, what is the purpose of a news organization? We ask:

WHAT IS THE IMPLIED GOAL—THE TRADITIONAL, PRIMARY PURPOSE OF NEWS ORGANIZATIONS? THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF A NEWSPAPER IS TO CONVEY TO THE PUBLIC A RECORD OF THE DAY’S EVENTS: TO REPORT THE NEWS, THEN, AND TO REPORT THE NEWS CLEARLY, ACCURATELY, OBJECTIVELY, WITHOUT EMBELLISHMENT.  IN PROVIDING AN ACCOUNT OF EVENTS IN THE WORLD, A NEWSPAPER MUST REFRAIN FROM WEIGHING IN ON THE EVENTS IT REPORTS ABOUT THE WORLD. FOR, ONCE A NEWSPAPER WEIGHS IN ON EVENTS THAT IT REPORTS, THAT IT DESCRIBES, THE NEWSPAPER, THEN, IS NO LONGER, AND CAN NO LONGER BE CONSIDERED AN OBJECTIVE, NEUTRAL OBSERVER, NAMELY, ONE OPERATING APART FROM THE EVENTS, BUT, RATHER, BECOMES, INSTEAD, AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN THE EVENTS—IN THE VERY SHAPING OF EVENTS A NEWSPAPER REPORTS ON. AND, ONCE A NEWSPAPER BECOMES PART OF THE EVENTS, THE OBSERVED, RATHER THAN THE NEUTRAL OBSERVER, THE NEWSPAPER, THEREUPON LOSES ITS OBJECTIVITY—LOSES ALL OBJECTIVITY. BUT, THIS DOES NOT SEEM TO BOTHER MAINSTREAM NEWSPAPERS IF THEY BOTHER TO CONSIDER THE LOSS OF OBJECTIVITY IN THEIR REPORTING THE NEWS AT ALL. TODAY, MAINSTREAM NEWSPAPERS, LIKE THE NEW YORK TIMES, ARE NOT CONTENT MERELY TO REPORT THE NEWS, BUT ARE TELLING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HOW THEY ARE EXPECTED TO THINK ABOUT THE NEWS. OBJECTIVITY IS THEREBY COMPLETELY LOST. REPORTERS BECOME MINISTERS OF PRIVATE BENEFACTORS, UNKNOWN TO THE PUBLIC. THEY BECOME PROPAGANDISTS. EVERYTHING REPORTED IS SUSPECT.

MAINSTREAM NEWSPAPERS ARE NOT OBJECTIVELY, NEUTRALLY, AND DRYLY TELLING THE PUBLIC ABOUT CRITICAL EVENTS IN THE WORLD—AND THEY ARE NOT REPORTING ON ALL THE CRITICAL EVENTS. RATHER, MAINSTREAM NEWSPAPERS SELECTIVELY REPORT EVENTS AND THEY DO NOT ALLOWTHE AMERICAN PUBLIC TO MAKE UP ITS OWN MIND ABOUT THE EVENTS REPORTED. THESE MAINSTREAM NEWSPAPERS AND OTHER MAINSTREAM MEDIA NEWS ORGANIZATIONS ARE, AT ONCE, TELLING THE PUBLIC HOW THEY SHOULD REACT TO EVENTS, HOW THEY ARE TO THINK ABOUT THE EVENTS, REPORTED.

Journalists, also referred to as—and, traditionally, more inclined to prefer the term, ‘reporters,’ as the latter expression is narrower, suggesting specifically what these professionals do, namely reporting news events rather than journalizing whatever may come to mind—learn, in college, before commencing work for mainstream news organizations, what reporting of news encompasses and, just as importantly, what it does not. Whether through the written or spoken word, reporters are expected to—well—report the news, nothing more and nothing less. To do their job correctly, appropriately, reporters are expected to report news accounts clearly and dryly, without embellishment, utilizing nouns and verbs, eschewing the use of adjectives and adverbs, to avoid “coloring” their reporting. They are expected to propound propositions that mirror truth, under the epistemic correspondence theory of truth they ascribe to, with the goal of providing the American public with reports on facts--'states of affairs' as philosophers prefer to refer to these “things,” “facts”--about and in the world, rather than propounding subjective  evaluations, about the facts, that is to say, providing extraneous comments about the states of affairs reported on.Reporters answer fundamental ‘who,’ ‘what,’ ‘where,’ ‘when,’ and, occasionally, ‘how’ questions. It is not the purpose of reporters to ask and to discuss ‘why’ questions, which brings us back to Skow’s book, directed principally to the philosophy of science, as “why” questions set the stage for causal explanations for events. Yet, today, we see mainstream media encroaching more and more on ‘why’ questions. They do so—as they may say—to engage the public in open and lively discussion, and to give context to their news reporting. They attempt to explain the reasons for events and, they proceed, then, to a consideration of changes that they believe should occur for the benefit of society. But that is shifty, deceptive, and not the basic motivation of mainstream news reporters for dealing with “why” questions at all. They provide answers to “why” questions to manipulate thought. They sermonize. Sometimes they do this calmly and collectedly. More often they do this callously and caustically; bombastically and sanctimoniously; stridently and angrily. They do this to cajole the public into accepting the nonsense they spout, attempting to convince the public that their prescriptions for dealing with the many events they report on, that they write about, is right, and proper, and just, and should be acted upon by policy makers. Many Americans—all too many members of the American public, to date, but, increasingly, fortunately, fewer members of the American public, through time—do still accept, unconditionally and uncritically, the presumptuous and vapid claptrap the mainstream media offers up for the American public’s consumption. Indeed, these reporters—now propagandists —working for mainstream newspapers and other mainstream news organizations, attempt to disguise the subjective evaluations they propound about events as true, simple, to-the-point, objective, accurate accounts of the events reported on, when subjective evaluations and objective reports about states of affairs in and of and about the world merge into each other, or where one becomes the other, and the public is left with the impression that it has received bare factual accounts about news events when they are really obtaining subjective appraisals of the events reported on.

MAINSTREAM MEDIA’S DANGEROUS PREOCCUPATION WITH FIREARMS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT:

One of the favorite topics of the mainstream media involves news about ‘gun crimes,’ which are particularly susceptible to this subterfuge that mainstream news reporters engage in which is to mix objective news accounts into subjective evaluations.  If newspaper and cable networks and radio simply reported instances of ‘gun crimes,’ dryly and matter-of-factly, and left the matter at that, that would be fine. But, then, mainstream newspapers and cable news networks, were they true to their creed, would also report on defensive uses of firearms. Yet, the mainstream newspapers and their affiliates on cable news invariably remain silent on defensive use of guns by law-abiding citizens who forestall gun violence, through use of their own firearm or who use a firearm, as necessary, to defend themselves or to defend other innocent lives. One would think that accurate reporting would require newspaper accounts to strive to report all news events: to report, then, on the use of firearms by ordinary Americans to thwart violent criminal acts, as well as to report gun crimes committed by lunatics, terrorists, criminal gang members, and by your garden-variety common criminal.

SELECTIVE NEWS REPORTING IS DEMONSTRATIVE OF “FAKE NEWS” NO LESS SO THAN FALSE REPORTING OF NEWS

The non-reporting of critical news events constitutes deception no less than the false reporting of news events and no less than the habit of mainstream news reporters of adroitly stirring subjective evaluations into news accounts. The mainstream media, including, prominently, The New York Times—whose motto is, “All the News That’s Fit to Print”—infers, or, more correctly, assumes that defensive use of firearms isn’t news that’s fit to print at all; so, the American public doesn’t see it. But, it is news just the same and, to our mind, this news does fall squarely into the domain of “All the News That’s Fit to Print.” The New York Times refuses to report on instances of defensive uses of guns as that tends to denigrate and weaken the running narrative that guns cause only bad things to happen. Still, if The New York Times stuck to reporting gun violence and refrained from proselytizing about the “evil” of guns, we might accept reporting of those events involving gun violence alone even if the Times’ accounting of “use of guns” is incomplete—as in the case of utilization of firearms for self-defense. Unfortunately, The New York Times and other mainstream news organizations do not and will not stop with reporting the ‘who,’ ‘what,’ ‘when,’ ‘where,’ and ‘how’ of gun violence. These mainstream news organizations tread dangerously into the realm of the ‘why’.’ They dare to ask, rhetorically, ‘why did the individual commit a violent act with a gun.’ The ‘who,’ ‘what,’ ‘when,’ ‘where,’ and ‘how’ of gun violence, then, is merely a side-note. It is merely incidental to and serves to buttress their argument for strengthening draconian gun laws and adding ever more to the serried ranks of restrictive federal and State gun laws and local gun ordinances. And, it is these arguments for ever more restrictions on the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms that the mainstream media makes, constantly, ad nauseum: sermonizing, proselytizing to the American public.The reporting of news merely operates, then, as an introduction to what it is that mainstream news organizations really wish to do which to address “the need to get rid of guns in this Country.” So, reporters and editors of mainstream news organizations, like The New York Times, mention instances of gun violence in order that they might proceed with their long-running, never-ending polemic on why gun violence occurs and wherefore gun violence happens and ‘why civilian access to guns is wrong and why, therefore, guns ought to be abolished. And, that is where mainstream news organizations have gone astray. They should protect this Nation, this Free Republic; but they have, instead, hijacked this Nation as they work strenuously, and actively, and insidiously against it, undermining the Nation’s Bill of Rights, all the while masquerading that they are the guardians of it, oblivious to the inherent invidiousness of their pronouncements.Mainstream news Reporters and Editors wrongly assume the role of psychologists, and psychiatrists, and sociologists, and politicians, and ethicists, and attorneys among others. They do not merely report the news, they attempt to explain the news. In so doing, the mainstream media no longer remains the outside, neutral observer of news events, coolly describing events, but insinuates itself into the events themselves, observing itself and thereupon reflecting its own image onto the American public’s psyche, and, in a most contemptuous fashion, proclaiming to the American public how the public ought to see the world and how the world ought to be molded and shaped.And, with that—with attempts to answer “why” questions—these mainstream news organizations carefully construct and carefully calibrate their explanations and use these explanations as springboards to “ought imperatives” such as: ‘no American civilian ought to have access to firearms;’ and ‘this Nation ought to have more stringent, common-sense gun control laws’; and ‘this Country ought to perceive gun ownership and gun possession as unnecessary and dangerous to the well-being of a modern society;’ and ‘Americans should abhor guns like most citizens do who reside in other Western Countries, like those citizens of Nations that comprise the EU do;’ and ‘ everyone has the right of free speech as long as one’s comments do not offend another person’s sensibilities; and ‘employers ought to be able to control their employees thoughts and ideas, whether on the job or off,’ and that ‘censoring of ideas and opinions and beliefs is wrong, except that, sometimes, it could be right.’Not content to declare what it is that happens to be the case—the “thus and so” of a given news event—mainstream news reporters and editorial boards tell us what “ought to be the case.” Now, generally, newspapers have used opinion editorials—“Op-Eds”—as a place where they feel they are at liberty to answer the ‘why,’ the cause of such event, and, therein, to express and expound upon the ‘ought,’ as they see it, from the occurrence of a given event. But this seeming bright-line separation between “news” and “opinion” is no longer perceptible or tenable in the age of mind control and psychological conditioning through various media mechanisms. The one flows seamlessly into the other. But normative ‘ought’ statements—normative prescriptions of the way the world should be, according to mainstream media—do not logically follow from ‘is’ statements—descriptions of the way the world happens to be, notwithstanding that mainstream news Reporters and Editors assume that ought prescriptions can be derived from and deduced from “is” descriptions, and we see, now, that Reporters and Editors of mainstream news organizations commence to operate as if the one can be derived from and deduced from the other. But, they cannot.It is hardly a secret that mainstream newspapers, like The New York Times, vehemently, indeed virulently, oppose possession of firearms by anyone in society, other than law enforcement, and other than the military and--although they won’t admit it--other than by the powerful, ruthless billionaire class that increasingly rules us and that seeks to destroy our free Republic, and that seeks to destroy the sovereignty and independence of our Nation State, and that seeks to destroy our unique and sacred Bill of Rights.Now, even as the owners of mainstream media vehicles will quickly deny—at least in their reporting of events—any specific position toward firearms and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the fact of the matter is that the owners of these mainstream media news vehicles have, as with any other subject discussed in their media vehicles’ “bag of tricks,” specific opinions that infiltrate, insinuate themselves into, and seep and filter in and through, descriptions of news events. So, the public is not obtaining merely descriptions of news events, but prescriptions about how the public should think about those events and the sorts of actions that should be taken by policy makers from those events. Bad enough that mainstream media is reduced to propagandizing and proselytizing to the public through control of virtually every major form of media apart from a few outlier websites such as the Arbalest Quarrel, but mainstream media seeks, of late, to control the thoughts and actions of their own employees, too.Consider, one mainstream media news organization, The New York Times, goes so far as to control its reporters’ exercise of their personal First Amendment right of Free Speech even when they are not writing specifically for the newspaper. This is reprehensible and, likely would not survive Constitutional muster if challenged and is odd, too, when one considers that The New York Times, and other mainstream media news organizations, vociferously, presumptuously, and hypocritically argue that the President wrongly attacks their First Amendment right of freedom of the Press. Yet, the U.S. President is also a citizen and, as a citizen, he certainly has the right, guaranteed under the free speech clause of the First Amendment to call out “fake news” narratives when he sees it. And, he rightly does so, on behalf of himself and on behalf of those Americans who support him.

GROUPTHINK VERSUS THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH

Lest the reader of this article think that the Arbalest Quarrel has made a false claim about The New York Times controlling its employees’ expression of personal opinion, outside of employment, we point out that the Times, itself, expressly admits as much. On October 16, 2017, a reporter for the New York Times, Jim Rutenberg, writing in the Business Section of the Times newspaper, in an article titled, “Seeing Right Through Tech Chiefs’ Talk of Better ‘Transparency’”, said: “My newspaper [The New York Times] is [when reporting on Tech Companies control of their employees’ opinions], also dealing with the question of how transparent a person should be on social media. On Friday, it announced a new policy for its journalists requiring them to avoid say anything on the platform [that is to say, reporters must avoid saying anything on any and all vehicles, aside from The New York Times, when, on their own time] that they could not say under the banner of The New York Times. At a TimesTalks event in Washington on Thursday night, the Times’ executive editor, Dean Baquet, said that overly opinionated or partisan tweets could undermine the paper’s mission of reporting ‘objectively and clearly.’” Who is Baquet kidding? The assertion is nonsensical and disingenuous to boot. For, it isn’t “objective and clear reporting” that the NY Times newspaper is interested in protecting. It is, rather, a specific “subjective viewpoint” that the owners and Editorial Board of The New York Times seeks to foster and buttress, and it is a subjective viewpoint that the drafters’ of the newspaper’s new policy obviously presume that every employee of the newspaper knows or should know. In fostering and buttressing that viewpoint, the newspaper’s owners and Editorial Board would squelch a reporter’s right of free speech in that reporter’s capacity as an American citizen, even when, on that reporter’s own time, the reporter wishes freely to express his or her own viewpoint on a subject, absent constraints imposed on the reporter in the course of his or her work for the newspaper. Obviously, it isn’t objective facts that the owners and Editorial Board of The New York Times is concerned about protecting—despite what Baquet says; for, after all, the facts can take care of themselves. Rather, it is the running narrative—the “why” and of a story—that The New York Times’ owners and Editorial Board wish to maintain an overarching monopoly on. It is the running narrative, as it were, that they wish to control and that they intend to control, through the Times’ new policy.The newspaper, thereupon, muzzles and censors its own reporters First Amendment free speech rights, through a policy that operates essentially as a “gag order” lest its reporters, and any other employee, working for the newspaper, weaken the running narrative the newspaper’s publisher owners and Editorial Board wish to convey and to maintain clear, categorical, and unequivocal. Consider, too, that, this new policy directive of the New York Times, as issued by the executive editor, Dean Baquet is logically absurd, as well as legally insupportable. For, if a newspaper is simply describing events, objectively and clearly—the ‘who,’ ‘what,’ ‘when, ‘where,’ and, occasionally, ‘how,’ of the news—an account that “mirrors” a state of affairs in the world, how can such objective description feasibly be subject to subjective analysis? The answer is that it cannot; for such descriptive account of a news event, of a particular state of affairs in the world, can only admit of one accurate descriptive account, not multiple accounts. Only subjective analyses—one’s opinions—of descriptive accounts can admit of and allow for multiple and incompatible propositions about an event. Thus, there can only be one accurate descriptive account about any given actual state of affairs but many subjective opinions about that one descriptive account. If so, then how can one’s opinion about an objective news account, the ‘why’ statements and ‘ought’ statements, “undermine the paper’s mission of reporting ‘objectively and clearly?’” The answer is that opinions cannot undermine a newspaper’s objective reporting of an event.Recall what we said, supra. Normative, prescriptive ‘ought’ statements about the way the world should be do not logically follow from or entail descriptive ‘is’ statements, namely declarative propositions about the way the world happens to be. So, then, take the example of a lunatic, or psychopathic terrorist who kills innocent people with a gun. The newspaper reporter recounts the event in a news story. Likely, the news account will be, as well, laced with inaccurate, suggestive wording regarding the gun incident. Then, suppose that the reporter that wrote the story for the newspaper, writes, on his own time, on a social media site, that he supports the arming of all American citizens, as a method for reducing criminal gun violence. Would that supposition undermine a newspaper’s mission of reporting accurately and objectively? How can it? It cannot. It cannot because logically accurate, objective, clear reporting of an event—that is to say, logically accurate, objective, clear reporting of a state of affairs in and of the world—does not implicate and cannot implicate, anything, intelligible about the way the world—from one perspective or another—ought to be. Yet, you and I both know where this goes. For, assume, then, the newspaper’s editorial board, follows up the descriptive account of a terrorist murdering innocent people with a firearm, with an Op-Ed calling for new restrictive gun laws, impacting law-abiding, rational, responsible American citizens' exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. Clearly, if a reporter working for the newspaper were to argue, contrary to the position of the editorial board, that all law-abiding, sane, responsible Americans ought to be armed and that Congress should enact a national handgun carry reciprocity law, such normative viewpoint on gun ownership and possession would be at loggerheads with the editorial board’s own normative viewpoint on gun ownership and possession--one calling for confiscation of all firearms in the hands of civilians.It is not the descriptive account of a violent gun incident that the newspaper owners and editorial board are concerned about protecting. Rather, it is the normative, prescriptive remarks concerning the buttressing of restrictive gun laws that The New York Times owners and Editorial Board is desirous of protecting. For, the two normative, prescriptive viewpoints—one viewpoint expressing the desire for more restrictive gun laws and the other viewpoint calling for a relaxing of restrictive gun laws—are semantically incompatible and logically inconsistent. The reporter who writes something, on his own time, in another medium, arguing for the arming of civilian population in America could end up receiving a “pink slip” from his employer, a mainstream news organization, for that employee's troubles—and he may receive a very public rebuke as well.Extrapolating from this, to the new policy of the NY Times, it should be evident that the mission of the newspaper is not, contrary to Dean Baquet’s assertions, undermined if the newspaper were only concerned about protecting clear and objective and accurate reporting of news events. It is, rather, something other or, at least, in addition to the protection of objective and accurate reporting of news events. For, the more emphatic, persistent, and ominous mission of The New York Times is one not of reporting news events, it is, rather, one of persuasion—persuading the American citizenry, for example, that civilian gun possession should be radically restrained and constrained, and that the Second Amendment is archaic and should be repealed. And, these normative prescriptions of the way the Nation ought to look, of the way things ought to be are conveyed to the American public constantly, vociferously, incessantly, through the medium of The New York Times. Obviously, a reporter that does not share the normative worldview of the newspaper’s publisher and owners and of the Newspaper’s Editorial Board and who wishes to make his or her contrary thoughts known in another medium, on his or her own time, will be skating on thin ice, for it is this person’s personal opinion that the newspaper’s owners and editors really see as undermining one specific mission of the paper—a mission that is directed to restricting and thereby weakening gun rights, not expanding or strengthening gun rights. The objective reporting of a particular instance of gun violence is not affected by differing opinions concerning the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The matter of restricting or strengthening gun rights has, then, absolutely nothing to do with the mere reporting of a particular incidence of gun violence. Normative, ethical pronouncements have nothing to do with and do not follow from a descriptive accounting of a particular event in the world. But, the newspaper’s owners and editors don’t wish to acknowledge this. They do not wish to be seen as preventing their employees from exercising their fundamental right of free speech. So, they concoct a subterfuge. They come up with a ludicrous rationale for their news policy—a rationale that is tantamount to doing just what they do not wish to be seen as doing: preventing their reporters from exercising their First Amendment right to speak freely, and on their own time, whatever it is that their reporters may wish to say, pertaining to personal opinions about this or that subject, through a medium other than through The New York Times newspaper.The NY Times’ owners thus deny to their employees the free exercise of a fundamental right guaranteed under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a right they, as members of an “aristocratic elite,” as they fashion themselves, garner for themselves. And, of course, these aristocratic “elite” see no inconsistency in reserving for themselves those fundamental rights that they would deny to their employees, as American citizens, and which they would deny to most every other American citizen if they could, whether it be the right of free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that they would like to restrict or the right of the people to keep and bear arms, under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Imagine, for a moment, that the writers of the Arbalest Quarrel happened to work as reporters for the NY Times. Would the Times’ publishers and editors suffer us to write in support of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Not under this new policy as heralded by Dean Baquet, which he, as a spokesperson for The New York Times, sees as a good thing, as a positive thing. But that can only mean The New York Times does not draw a tenable distinction between its opinion articles and its news articles. Objective facts and subjective opinion are conflated. Opinion and Fact are all one and the same for the owners and Editorial Board of The New York Times. Thus, The New York Times owners and Editorial Board, through this incongruous sleight-of-hand, argue that its reporters cannot offer an opinion, even on their own time and through a medium other than the newspaper they work for if that opinion happens to be inconsistent with and therefore is perceived as operating to the detriment of the newspaper owners’ and Editorial Board’s running of an Op-Ed/News narrative. This, though, has nothing to do with protecting objective facts which can very well take care of themselves. It has everything to do with controlling the thought processes of the public. The public is coerced into accepting one line of thought regarding any subject that The New York Times happens to write on and the Newspaper will suffer no viewpoint to the contrary.

THE OWNERS AND EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES ARE HYPOCRITES

The hypocrisy of the NY Times’ owners and Editorial Board toward the First Amendment free speech protection—a right it would retain for itself, as coupled with freedom of the Press, and which it has the audacity to refuse exercise of by the Newspaper’s employees—was not lost on another mainstream newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, no less a mainstream newspaper—a “gatekeeper” ostensibly on “the right” of the political spectrum, but still a mainstream media newspaper just the same, representing the wealthy “nobility” in this Country. William McGurn, writing an Opinion, titled, “The NFL vs. the New York Times,” on Tuesday, October 17, 2017, quoting the NY Times editor, Baquet, at length, which the NY Times itself dared only to touch upon ever so slightly for its readers, noted the hypocrisy and doublespeak and smug self-assurance coming from the Times. “Mr. Baquet says ‘. . . In social media posts, our journalists must not express partisan opinions, promote political views, endorse candidates, make offensive comments or do anything else that undercuts The Times’s journalistic reputation. Our journalists should be especially mindful of appearing to take sides on issues that The Times is seeking to cover objectively. These guidelines apply to everyone in every department of the newsroom, including those not involved in coverage of government and politics. . . . We consider all social media activity by our journalists to come under this policy. . . . While you may think that your Facebook page, Twitter feed, Instagram, Snapchat or other social media accounts are private zones. Separate from your role at The Times, in fact everything we post or ‘like’ online is to some degree public. And everything we do in public is likely to be associated with The Times.” If this is the rationale for gagging a citizen’s right of free speech, it is a poor argument, as it denigrates the very idea inherent in a newspaper—the notion of factual reporting of events. It also denigrates the very notion of free expression, one of the essential legs upon which a free Republic—our free Republic—stands. Indeed, it is the very notion of critical comment and commentary that the American public has a right to demand. The New York Times’ owners and Editorial Board admit their fear of critical comment, commentary, and review. The New York Times’ owners and Editorial Board admit their fear of public consumption of opinions different from and contrary to their own. The New York Times’ owners and Editorial Board fear open and public and lively debate. All this the American public now hears from a newspaper that loudly proclaims the right of a Free Press, codified in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—but, apparently, only so long as there exists one voice—that of the NY Times’ owners and Editorial Board which they would deign the American public to hear. Through this policy The New York Times’ owners and Editorial Board are telling their employees that the purpose of The New York Times goes far beyond the mere reporting of “All the News That’s Fit to Print,” far beyond the recitation of objective facts. The newspaper’s owners and Editorial Board has informed the American public, “clearly and objectively and accurately, that the newspaper engages in influence peddling and, more, that it will suffer no viewpoint on any subject other than its own, as dictated to it by its benefactors: the enclave of  incorrigible, intractable, ruthless, secretive, inordinately wealthy and powerful internationalist, trans-nationalist, globalist “elite,” both here and abroad, who seek to undercut the sovereignty of this Nation, who seek to undermine the supremacy of this Nation’s laws, and who seek to pervert and debase the sanctity of the natural and fundamental rights of this Nation’s citizenry.The New York Times’ new policy goes well beyond the import and purport of the Hatch Act that applies to Federal Government Bureaucrats. The Hatch Act of 1939 prohibits the vast Federal Government Bureaucracy from taking part in political campaign activities, but the Act does not prevent a Government Bureaucrat from expressing his own political or social or philosophical view on social media, on his or her own time, as that would be at loggerheads with the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Yet, the new policy of The New York Times' Editorial Board goes must further. For, here we have a mainstream newspaper, the fervent promoter of and benefactor of the Freedom of Press clause of the First Amendment, that dares to deny of its own employees the right of free speech—which also resides within the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—when those employees wish to exercise, outside of their employment in their capacity as American citizens, the right embodied in the First Amendment. Thus, The New York Times disparages and decries of others what it would monopolize for itself—the right to express an opinion. Clearly the Times Newspaper is not interested in protecting objectivity in reporting. It is only interested in controlling opinion and, when it comes to the Second Amendment, the NY Times intends to control opinion--to control the narrative--completely, even if the exercise of that control amounts to denying--denying of its own employees, in their capacity as citizens of the United States, and denying to those employees, hypocritically, as well as denying to those employees, unlawfully-- the very right of free speech, which it would jealously guard for itself.Apparently, The New York Times is taking its cue from Germany. In an article posted on June 30, 2017, titled, “Delete Hate Speech or Pay Up, Germany Tells Social Media Companies,”  NY Times Reporters, Melissa Eddy and Mark Scott, write:“Social media companies operating in Germany face fines of as much as $57 million if they do not delete illegal, racist or slanderous comments and posts within 24 hours under a law passed on Friday.The law reinforces Germany’s position as one of the most aggressive countries in the Western world at forcing companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter to crack down on hate speech and other extremist messaging on their digital platforms.But the new rules have also raised questions about freedom of expression. Digital and human rights groups, as well as the companies themselves, opposed the law on the grounds that it placed limits on individuals’ right to free expression. Critics also said the legislation shifted the burden of responsibility to the providers from the courts, leading to last-minute changes in its wording.Technology companies and free speech advocates argue that there is a fine line between policy makers’ views on hate speech and what is considered legitimate freedom of expression, and social networks say they do not want to be forced to censor those who use their services. Silicon Valley companies also deny that they are failing to meet countries’ demands to remove suspected hate speech online.Still, German authorities pressed ahead with the legislation. Germany witnessed an increase in racist comments and anti-immigrant language after the arrival of more than a million migrants, predominantly from Muslim countries, since 2015, and Heiko Maas, the justice minister who drew up the draft legislation, said on Friday, that it ensured that rules that currently apply offline would be equally enforceable in the digital sphere.”As a prime example of hypocritical, contradictory “doublespeak,” the Times Reporters, add this remark of Maas:“‘With this law, we put an end to the verbal law of the jungle on the internet and protect the freedom of expression for all,” Mr. Maas said. “We are ensuring that everyone can express their opinion freely, without being insulted or threatened.’“That is not a limitation, but a prerequisite for freedom of expression,” he continued.” What? Taking away a person’s right of free speech is to be equated with giving that person the right of free speech? Unless something was lost in translating the German into English, here, this remark by Heiko Maas is a contradiction in terms and the quintessence of bombastic absurdity. Maas should be ashamed of himself. Apparently, though, The New York Times felt there was something noteworthy in the remarks of Maas to the extent that The New York Times felt that Germany’s new National policy is worthy of adoption by the Times newspaper itself. Incredible! But, the absurdity fostered transcends well beyond the Times itself. As the newspaper reports, major publishing houses are hiring so-called “sensitivity readers”—at the moment directed to the writers of children’s books. In an article, published on December 24, 2017, titled, “In an Era of Online Outrage, Do Sensitivity Readers Result in Better Books, or Censorship?,” by Times reporter, Alexandra Alter, we are told that,“In today’s hair-trigger, hyperreactive social media landscape, where a tweet can set off a cascade of outrage and prompt calls for a book’s cancellation, children’s book authors and publishers are taking precautions to identify potential pitfalls in a novel’s premise or execution. Many are turning to sensitivity readers, who provide feedback on issues like race, religion, gender, sexuality, chronic illness and physical disabilities. The role that readers play in shaping children’s books has become a flash point in a fractious debate about diversity, cultural appropriation and representation, with some arguing that the reliance on sensitivity readers amounts to censorship. . . . Behind the scenes, these readers are having a profound impact on children’s literature, reshaping stories in big and small ways before they reach impressionable young audiences. Like fact checkers or copy editors, sensitivity readers can provide a quality-control backstop to avoid embarrassing mistakes, but they specialize in the more fraught and subjective realm of guarding against potentially offensive portrayals of minority groups, in everything from picture books to science fiction and fantasy novels. . . . Some see a downside to publishers’ growing reliance on sensitivity readers, and warn that it could lead to sanitized books that tiptoe around difficult topics. Skeptics say the heightened scrutiny discourages authors from writing about cultures other than their own, resulting in more homogenized literature. “Can we no longer read ‘Othello’ because Shakespeare wasn’t black?” the novelist Francine Prose wrote recently in an essay about sensitivity readers and censorship in The New York Review of Books."The NY Times' reporters, continue:

"Others have echoed that view, arguing that sensitivity readers might have derailed works like William Styron’s “The Confessions of Nat Turner,” Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird” or Mark Twain’s “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.” After the subject was covered in Slate, a writer for National Review fretted that “if ‘sensitivity readers’ are given the freedom to hijack authors’ visions, we’re going to lose some beloved works of art that we could have otherwise enjoyed.”

Is The New York Times’ “gag order” policy anything less than an attempt to censor opinion? Does not The New York Times impose its own sensitivity readers—its Editorial Board—on all ideas expressed. We are seeing, in this Country, an attempt to second-guess every written and spoken word. The American public is not the better but all the worse for it.This attempt by the Deep State and by the mainstream media to control guns, to control thoughts, to control actions is leading to societal upheaval, mass hysteria, pandemonium. Perhaps this is by design—an attempt to create volatility and confusion in order to weaken this Nation, to weaken its resolve, to weaken the Bill of Rights so that we, American citizens, will be ripe for takeover by the powers that seek to crush us into submission.

HOW FAR WILL THE NEW YORK TIMES AND OTHER MAINSTREAM NEWS ORGANIZATIONS GO TO TRAMPLE THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AS WE ENTER A NEW YEAR?

As this year draws to an end, The New York Times has commenced a series of articles, “The Home Front,” where the newspaper’s Editorial Board is calling for a major transformation of the Lautenberg Amendment, 18 USCS § 921(a)(33)(A)(i). What is the Lautenberg Amendment? Essentially the Lautenberg Amendment of 1996, following in the footsteps of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, makes it unlawful for any person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to possess a gun. Here we have the NY Times Editorial Board writing an extensive series of articles on a law—subsumed under the Gun Control Act of 1968—that the Editorial Board knows little, if anything about, and seems to care even less of what it may know about, the law, but writes with presumed and presumptuous authority and certitude about a law as if it knows full well whereof it speaks. Yet, it knows nothing. Nonetheless, the NY Times Editorial Board skirts broad discussion of the actual law itself and yet writes extensively and boldly about why the law needs to be strengthened.The NY Times' Editorial Board should not be proselytizing to the American public on matters beyond its professional ability to explain and decipher. Actually, the Editorial Board should not be proselytizing to the American public at all, but certainly not on matters of law, especially those impacting fundamental Constitutional Rights. The Editorial Board, likely, does not include lawyers. Unfortunately, that doesn’t prevent, the Editorial Board from expounding upon the law. That it chooses to do so is illustrative of an overbearing pompous attitude exhibited in discussing legal matters. This pompous attitude adds to, rather than distracts from, this Newspaper’s condescending attitude toward its readers. The Editorial Board apparently believes it can successfully cloak its ineptitude concerning law and legal matters by cultivating an air of moral superiority when pontificating on matters involving firearms and on the exercise of the right to keep and bear them.The Editorial Board of the NY Times suggests—nay, demands—as seen in this series, which has yet to conclude, that the law—the Lautenberg Amendment—ought to be transformed. The Editorial Board would create a monstrosity, denying to millions of Americans their right to own and possess firearms.We will take to task in forthcoming articles on the Lautenberg Amendment in the New Year. We will provide you with the language of the Statute as it exists—something The New York Times will not provide for its readers. We will explain the meaning of the law as drafted and enacted, and will discuss problems with it, in the context of the Second Amendment and in the context of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution as well. The law is poorly drafted. The New York Times would make a poorly drafted law even worse, as it calls on the public to blindly go where the newspaper leads it—to the edge of a cliff.Returning, for a moment, to the Yale a cappella group’s Wiffinpoof Song, consider, in light of the foregoing remarks set down in this essay:

WHO REALLY ARE THESE “BLACK LITTLE SHEEP IN THE WIFFINPOOF SONG WHO HAVE LOST THEIR WAY? ARE THE BLACK LITTLE SHEEP THOSE MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WHO HOLD TO TRADITIONAL VALUES, MORES, CODES OF CONDUCT, HISTORICAL PURITY—WHO VIEW THIS NATION AS THE FOUNDERS OF THE REPUBLIC, THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, ESTABLISHED—OR DO THEY INCLUDE THOSE PEOPLE WHO STAFF THE INSTITUTIONS OF THIS NATION: NAMELY AND PARTICULARLY, THOSE PEOPLE WHO STAFF THE  MAINSTREAM MEDIA; VARIOUS MEMBERS OF CONGRESS; THOSE PEOPLE WHO STAFF THE VAST BUREAUCRACY OF GOVERNMENT; AND NOT LEAST, THOSE CONFUSED AMERICANS WHO HAVE BOUGHT INTO THE CAREFULLY PLANNED AND ORCHESTRATED RUSE THAT NATIONALISM IS BAD, THAT OPEN BORDERS ARE GOOD; THAT ANYONE WHO BELIEVES HIM OR HERSELF TO BE AN ‘AMERICAN’ IS AN ‘AMERICAN’ EVEN IF THAT PERSON IS RESIDING HERE ILLEGALLY; THAT GUNS ARE EVIL AND THAT GUN BUYBACKS ARE GOOD; THAT GENDER IS NOT BIOLOGICAL AND ABSOLUTE BUT INFINITELY MALLEABLE, SO THAT A MAN IS A WOMAN AND A WOMAN IS A MAN AS ONE WISHES TO BE; OR, PERHAPS, NEITHER, OR PERHAPS, BOTH AT ONCE; AND THAT WE, AMERICAN CITIZENS, ARE NO LONGER TRULY CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, BUT, RATHER, CITIZENS OF THE WORLD—ONE BIG, GLORIOUS HAPPY FAMILY, FIXATED ON MATTERS OF IMPORTANCE: SPORTS, ENTERTAINMENT, CLOTHES AND JEWELRY AND COSMETICS—THE DAILY DOSE OF SOMA TO KEEP A PERSON, HAPPY, CONTENTED, AND ASLEEP? PERHAPS, TO SOME EXTENT, BOTH ARE “BLACK LITTLE SHEEP”: AMERICANS WHO SEEK TO HOLD ON TO THEIR BIRTHRIGHT, WHO CHOOSE NOT TO “GET WITH” THE NEW PROGRAM, THE BRAVE NEW WORLD ORDER, ON THE ONE HAND, AND THOSE, ON THE OTHER HAND, WHO SEEK TO DEMOLISH THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES THAT THE FOUNDERS OF THIS NATION, OF THIS REPUBLIC, HAD SO LOVINGLY BEQUEATHED TO US, THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY? PERHAPS THIS NATION AND ITS CITIZENS AND THE IGNORANT, ILL-INFORMED AMONG US AND THE DEMON KIND WHO WISH TO RULE OVER EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING ARE ALL WELL LOST AND HAVE ALL GONE ASTRAY. PERHAPS IT IS MUCH TOO LATE FOR THIS NATION AND MUCH TOO LATE FOR ALL THE DENIZENS IN IT. IF SO, THEN, LET US ALL CHIME IN: “BAA, BAA, BAA!” BUT, WE HOPE ALL IS NOT LOST FOR US, TRUE AMERICANS, WHO SEEK TO PRESERVE OUR NATION AND OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR CONSTITUTION'S MOST SACRED AND CRITICAL COMPONENT--THE BILL OF RIGHTS--WHO SEEK TO PRESERVE OUR NATION AND OUR CONSTITUTION AS ORIGINALISTS, TO UPHOLD OUR TRADITIONS, OUR VALUES, IN THE MODE OF THE FOUNDERS OF THIS GREAT NATION, IN THE MODE OF THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION. WE MUST CARRY ON; WE MUST PERSEVERE, AND WE MUST BE EVER WARY AND CAUTIOUS OF THOSE WHO TALK ABOUT CHANGING OUR NATION, CHANGING OUR CORE VALUES AND CORE TRADITIONS, CHANGING OUR HISTORY, "TO KEEP UP WITH THE TIMES;" FOR THESE ARE PSEUDO AMERICANS; THEY ARE THE BETRAYERS OF OUR NATION, THEY ARE BETRAYERS OF THE FOUNDERS OF THIS FREE REPUBLIC; THEY ARE BETRAYERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND OF OUR SACRED BILL OF RIGHTS. THEY USE AN ODD NOTION OF MORALITY TO CLOAK THEIR DESIRE TO TEAR DOWN THIS NATION STATE; TO DESTROY OUR SOVEREIGNTY; TO DESTROY OUR CONSTITUTION; TO DESTROY OUR NATURAL, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES--RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES THAT EXIST IN US INTRINSCIALLY AS THEY COME TO US FROM THE CREATOR AND CANNOT THEREFORE BE LAWFULLY TAKEN FROM US BY GOVERNMENT. WE MUST PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN OUR RIGHT TO SPEAK FREELY, TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN OUR RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN OUR PERSONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN OUR RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE. ALL THESE NATURAL, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE UNDER CONCERTED ATTACK BY THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA AND BY THEIR FELLOW TRAVEVLERS IN CONGRESS AND BY THOSE BUREAUCRATS THAT LURK IN THE SHADOWY CORNERS OF GOVERNMENT, UNSEEN AND UNHEARD, AND BY THE SECRETIVE AND RUTHLESS INTERNATIONALIST, TRANS-NATIONALIST ROTHSCHILD CLAN AND BY THEIR TOADIES IN THE UN AND IN THE WTO, IMF, WORLD BANK AND IN OTHER "INTERNATIONAL" ORGANIZATIONS--EVER SCHEMING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS TO INCORPORATE THIS NATION INTO THE EU AND EVENTUALLY TO DISMEMBER ALL WESTERN NATION STATES, MERGING AND SUBMERGING THEM INTO A NEW WORLD ORDER, PRESIDED OVER BY A COLD-HEARTED WEALTHY AND POWERFUL RULING "ELITE," DICTATING POLICY TO WE, THE NEW SERFS OF THAT NEW WORLD ORDER, WHO HAVE NO RIGHTS, NO LIBERTIES, SAVE THOSE THAT THE RULING "ELITE" DEIGN TO GRANT TO US AND WHO MAY, ON A WHIM, TAKE FROM US.

The Arbalest Quarrel seeks to awaken the American public from its slumber. As always, and most importantly, the Arbalest Quarrel will set the record straight on matters involving this Nation’s most sacred right—the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In 2018 we will press for enactment of national handgun carry reciprocity and propose our own language to avoid attempts by some States to ignore the national handgun carry reciprocity if, or, hopefully, when, enacted. We will explore the qualifications of certain individuals we would like to see on the U.S. Supreme Court, and we will continue with our detailed expositions of Federal and State firearms legislation and of Federal and State case law impacting on the Second Amendment. We will return to completing series we had commenced writing on in 2017 and in previous years. We have a lot of work to do, and much to accomplish.Antigun groups and antigun legislators are not sitting idly by. They intend to destroy the Second Amendment. But, like brave Horatio at the Bridge, the Arbalest Quarrel intends to stop these anti-American groups and anti-American people. But, we intend to do much more. We intend to take the fight to them, strengthening the Second Amendment, along with and in conjunction with the critical work NRA does on behalf of Americans.We will never give up our values, our history, our traditions, our Bill of Rights!Our articles and our essays stand as a testament to our commitment in support of our Bill of Rights and, especially, in support of our sacred Second Amendment. Please feel free to explore our site at www.arbalestquarrel.com. We encourage you to join our list of readers. It is easy to add your name to our list. You will receive immediate notification of the posting of our articles. There is no cost to you.We all have our work cut out for us. But, together, taking nothing for granted, and working hard to preserve and strengthen our Bill of Rights, and supporting our President in this effort, we can succeed in holding our Nation together, in the vein the Founders of our Republic intended. Won’t you join us?_________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ATTACKS GUNS AS HOLIDAY GIFTS; SUGGESTS INSTEAD GIFTING OR SELLING A FIREARM TO THE POLICE: FINE IN AUSTRALIA, BUT NOT IN AMERICA.

TRUCKS AND TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES; GUNS AND KNIVES AND SISSORS; BOMBS AND FIREWORKS AND OTHER EXPLOSIVE DEVICES; HAMMERS AND AXES AND SAWS: WHERE DOES EVIL LIE? SURELY, NOT IN THE THING ITSELF BUT IN THE SENTIENT BEING THAT CONTROLS IT.

“A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.” The Gunfighter Shane’s mild rebuke to Marian Starrett, wife of the rancher, Joe Starrett, head of the Starrett household, whom Shane protects from a ruthless cattle baron and from the cattle baron’s hired henchmen. ~ From the 1953 American Western Classic, “Shane.” Periodically, the mainstream media refocuses its attention on the Second Amendment and on firearms in its single-minded, obsession with—and goal to rid society of, as it sees it—the scourge of guns. Even during the Holiday season, the American public is not spared the mainstream media’s spewing of venomous and nonsensical vitriol toward an inanimate object.Notwithstanding the absence of its favorite pretext for attacking civilian ownership and possession of firearms—namely, a psychotic lunatic, or psychopathic criminal, or rabid terrorist, committing a reprehensible act of violence with a firearm or with some other implement—the mainstream media’s attack on civilian ownership and possession of firearms continues unabated. And, even when the psychotic lunatic or psychopathic criminal or rabid terrorist does violence by means other than with a firearm—say, through use of a truck barreling down on innocent individuals, or through use of a knife, or by setting off a bomb—still, it is the “gun” that is invariably singled out for denunciation; for it is the “gun” that the mainstream media, on behalf of its shadowy internationalist, trans-nationalist, globalist benefactors, vilifies as the worst of the “demon-kind.” The “gun” is forever perceived by the mainstream media as the convenient scapegoat even if the sentient miscreant happened to utilize another implement in attacking the innocent.Recall that, on October 31, 2017, an Islamic terrorist, Saifullo Saipov, an immigrant from Uzbekistan, proclaiming allegiance to Islamic State, committed murder. Saipov isn’t a citizen of the U.S. He arrived here through the Diversity Visa Program, which President Trump has said he will shut down. At some moment in time, Saipov decided how nice it would be to kill Americans. Apparently, murdering Americans is how Saipov shows his appreciation of having been given the opportunity to reside in our Country. This is how he repays America.Renting a pickup truck, Saipov hopped a curb in New York City, and, careening down a bike path at great speed, mowed down several people, killing eight and seriously injuring eleven others before crashing the vehicle into a school bus. Many of the dead and injured weren’t even Americans. They were citizens of Belgium and Argentina. They were dead all the same.The New York City Mayor, Bill de Blasio, speaking at a news conference, after the incident, expressed regret at the incident. How nice of the Mayor to do so. Bill de Blasio referred to Saipov’s crime as an act of terrorism but avoided use of the prefix, ‘Islamic,’ when referring to this species of terrorism. That he failed to tie the word, ‘Islamic,’ with the word, ‘terrorist,’ in his remarks about the incident, was deliberate, not accidental. Governor Andrew Cuomo, for his part, also weighed in at the news conference. Taking the podium, Cuomo—expressing his regret at the loss of innocent lives and extending his condolences to the families of those whose lives were so rudely and violently and suddenly taken—swerved inexplicably, incongruously, and discordantly, into a polemic on the need for the Nation to rid itself of guns. Did we miss something, here? Saipov didn’t use a firearm in his attack on innocent souls. He used a truck. Didn’t Cuomo know that? How could he not know that? Why did Cuomo suddenly bring up the subject of “guns”?Saipov, using a rented pick-up truck like a bowling ball, attempted to knock over—like so many “ten pins”—as many people as he could, and he succeeded in doing so—murdering eight, and severely injuring twelve others. Since Saipov used a truck to murder innocent people, why did Cuomo mention guns at all, during the news conference? Perhaps, Cuomo didn’t wish to waste an opportunity to mention his abhorrence toward firearms. So, then, he would he would blame the firearm for the violence that Saipov inflicted on hapless individuals. Perhaps, Cuomo thought, that, with time, the public would connect Saipov’s violent act with gun use, even though it was with a truck, not a firearm, that this demented individual violently attacked innocent people.But, Cuomo’s remarks about guns at the news conference is noteworthy for another reason. Consider: it would be odd to equate a truck with violence. After all, a truck is an inanimate object. It is the person behind the wheel who bears responsibility for harm done through use of a truck. Similarly, a gun is simply an inanimate object. It is the intent of the person who wields the firearm that is responsible if harm be done with it. Yet, being constantly, incessantly, bombarded with remarks about the “evil” of guns, the American public is blinded to the fact that guns are not “evil” at all. Just as there is nothing innately dangerous about trucks or cars, or knives or hammers, or axes or saws, there is nothing innately evil about guns. We do not hear news reports about “evil automobiles,” or “evil knives,” or even “evil explosives.”In and of themselves objects are not evil. It is the intent behind the use of the object where lurks evil. Yet, when Saipov committed a truly horrific act of murder and attempted murder behind the wheel of a rented pickup truck, we did not hear either de Blasio or Cuomo describe the resulting horror as due to the machinations of the truck itself. Yet, whenever a person commits a horrific act with a firearm, the public is instantly and incessantly bombarded with sensational headlines about the “evil gun” and the need to curb civilian access to guns. Often, the killer himself, plays second fiddle as airtime is given over to discussion about the guns utilized, in a crime, as if the true killer were the gun itself, and the sentient killer merely the abettor of the crime, committed directly by the “gun.” We rarely hear of the mainstream media referring to an instance where an individual defends him or herself with a firearm or defends the lives of other innocent individuals with a firearm. When an individual does defend self or innocent others with a firearm, the mainstream media downplays the significance of it, lest that fact undermine and weaken the narrative, namely that the gun creates violence; the gun does not guard against it.More recently, another Islamic terrorist, Akayed Ullah—this one who happened to be a citizen of Bangladesh—but apparently residing in this Country legally—attempted, unsuccessfully, to set off a homemade pipe bomb in a New York City subway. The bomb did detonate but not with the impact Ullah expected, intended, wished for. The botched detonation merely wounded the terrorist, but injured a few innocent New York residents as well. Once again, Mayor de Blasio, when speaking to the public, refrained from referring to the attack as an act of Islamic terrorism, even though Ullah had pledged allegiance to Islamic State, as did Saipov. In fact, de Blasio even refrained from applying the appellation, ‘terrorist,’ to the word, ‘attack,’ in order to deny that a ‘terrorist attack’ had even taken place. Rather, the Mayor referred to Ullah’s actions as an “attempted terrorist attack” even though the act of terror did, in fact, take place.  There is, in fact, nothing to suggest the attack was merely “attempted.” Ullah intended to set off an explosive device and he did set off an explosive device, and he did harm innocent subway riders waiting for a train, as well as himself, through his actions in setting of an explosive device that he had constructed for the specific purpose of murdering innocent people. The fact that Ullah’s explosive device didn’t do as much damage as he had hoped, as he had intended, still, Ullah did carry out his action. Ullah did set off the device and the device did harm innocent NYC residents. Yet, the Mayor shrugged off the attack, asserting, “The choice of New York is always for a reason, because we are a beacon to the world. And we actually show that a society of many faiths and many backgrounds can work. . . . The terrorists want to undermine that. They yearn to attack New York City.” The mayor’s feel good pronouncement is ridiculous. The point is irrelevant. You would think de Blasio would have concluded his remarks by offering support to Donald Trump’s attempt to curtail migration of refugees from Islamic Countries in view of the threats posed to this Country by practitioners of radical Islam. Yet, Bill de Blasio seems blasé over threats to our Nation’s citizenry posed by these denizens of Islam.We see this dismissive, callous, cavalier attitude to threats posed by Islamic terrorists toward citizens of other Western Nations echoed in the remarks of leaders of the EU as well. Yet, Islamic terrorism is real; it is virulent; it is constant. Either we get a handle on it or we can expect ever more frequent attacks, as in the Nations comprising the EU.It is odd that local, State, and National Democratic Party leaders expect the American public to shrug off the danger of Islamic terrorism as leaders expect the same of the citizens of the EU, even though federal, State and local Government in the U.S. can and do pinpoint and have pinpointed danger to specific types and categories of people, whom this Country can and should rid itself of, but doesn’t. We could take concrete steps to remove riffraff from society. This riffraff includes members of drug cartels and other criminal gangs—many of whom reside in this Country illegally—and anyone espousing loyalty to our sworn enemies, namely those who espouse murder in the name of Islam.Congress and the mainstream media and many others with a “liberal” bent go easy on the very creatures that would destroy us all. Yet, on the issue of firearms—a fundamental, natural right of American citizens, codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—these same Party leaders along with the mainstream media and many others of a similar vein, demonstrate intolerance and disdain toward—in fact, they exhibit a virulent, vile wrath toward firearms. They condemn a firearm in the hands of a law-abiding, rational, responsible citizen, even though, strong statistical evidence supports a finding that a firearm, in the hands of responsible citizens, remains the single best defense against threats to individual American citizen and remains, too, as the best means available for the citizen to protect the body politic. So it is that, with a disturbing lengthy lull in mass gun violence and, lest the American public forget who “Public Enemy Number One” is, the mainstream media feels the need to remind the American public of that enemy.We are told, by these leaders of Democratic values that the greatest threat to “Liberal Democracy”—an expression used often by the “elites” in the EU—exists not in the wave of illegal immigrants, nor in the wave of refugees from Islamic Countries, but, rather, due to the American citizen’s “obsession” with firearms and concern over the continued viability of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.In two opinion pieces, appearing back-to-back in the New York Times, one published on December 15, 2017, titled, “How to Get Rid of a Gun,” by Carol J. Adams, an author and feminist, and the other, published on December 16, 2017, by the editorial Board, titled, “Melting Guns Into Tools as Sales Boom,” the reader is led, once again, to believe that the best thing one can do for him or herself, this Christmas, is to trade in a gun for cash—receive pennies on the dollar for a firearm—that, one can rest assured, the police will destroy for the good of society. Both articles hark back to the Newtown, Connecticut tragedy.

THE GUN “BUYBACK”: SILLY IN THE CONCEPTION; CONDESCENDING TO AMERICANS IN THE APPLICATION

Of course, “gun buyback” programs on the local governmental level do not work if the purpose is to remove guns from society. It is akin to a Bank teller, taking upon himself, the task of removing from circulation a few worn federal reserve notes he comes across, to be wrapped up and sent to the mint for incineration, to be replaced with fresh, crisp, new federal reserve notes, believing that removing a few worn bills, among millions in circulation, will accomplish anything productive. It is ludicrous to contemplate. The same is true with gun buyback programs. So, why have them?Carol Adams asserts, in her op-ed, in response to her own question— “what does a gun buyback accomplish” — “Some studies claim that it reduces gun violence; others disagree.” She continues, “nevertheless it gives peace of mind to people who don’t want their guns anymore—and who don’t want their guns to be used in a crime.” Really? Contrary to Carol Adams’ supposition, gun buyback programs don’t reduce gun violence. Those who orchestrate these gun buyback programs promote them as something positive for society; but, these gun buyback programs are subversive to American values and demeaning to the gun owner as well.Consider Carol Adams' declaration that gun buybacks "give peace of mind to people to people who don’t want guns anymore." Is that so? The truth of the proposition is doubtful. The fact of the matter is that gun buyback programs are suffused with condescension toward the American public. Consider: a lunatic commits heinous acts with a firearm—or with any other implement for that matter—and, somehow, that taint of horror rubs off on the ordinary American. Gun buybacks—so saccharine sweet tasting on the surface—leave a sour aftertaste. Gun buyback programs destroy one’s own sense of self-worth and one’s own sense of self-esteem and one’s own sense of personal responsibility. Gun buybacks cause one to doubt one’s ability to trust one’s self. Indeed, those who design gun buybacks do so with the intent to sow seeds of doubt in one’s own ability to control his or her emotions. Having a gun in one’s possession is deemed retrograde, evil. One is deemed a reprobate who would dare keep one. Those who possess guns are made to feel guilty for having them in their possession.In the second article, published December 16, 2017, the Editorial Board of the NY Times, declaring its antipathy toward those Americans who have purchased firearms as Christmas gifts, wrote:“Not to crimp such holiday cheer, but the police department in New Haven, Conn., plans a small biblical twist to America’s avid gun culture: a gun buyback on Saturday in which prison inmate volunteers will transform surrendered weapons into gardening tools to be provided to schools so students can plant and harvest vegetables for soup kitchens.This takes the swords-into-plowshares dictum to a creative new level. The police running the buyback promise to ask no questions of anyone turning in a weapon. In return, they offer gift cards worth $25 per small, Derringer-like handgun. Rifles and shotguns come in at $50 each, pistols and revolvers at $100, and high-powered assault weapons are the most prized here, too, at $200.The police worked out the buyback in cooperation with RAWtools Inc., a gun safety program that specializes in breaking apart firearms and reforging gun barrels into safer things, and the Newtown Foundation, created after the massacre of 20 schoolchildren and six staff members five years ago at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown.No one expects drastic results in crime statistics. But buybacks are considered important by police officials in various cities for getting some guns off the streets and out of owners’ badly secured homes. They are a tangible commitment to gun safety, particularly as elected politicians prove largely useless on the subject. Over the past six years, the New Haven police have collected nearly 700 guns in buybacks, run at government expense, in which the firearms were broken apart and discarded."This article by the New York Times Editorial Board is absurd on multiple levels. First,  as alluded to, supra, voluntary gun buybacks are inane if the idea is to reduce guns in the hands of millions of law-abiding, responsible American citizens who are not under disability, who choose to exercise their right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, or if one is talking about guns in the hands of criminals. In order for a gun buyback program to be effective in reducing the number of guns in circulation, gun buyback programs would have to be compulsory, applied against individuals on a national level. This occurred in Australia, during implementation of the Country’s infamous, National Firearms Act.  “The buyback program's effect was to reduce Australia's firearms stock by around one-fifth, or more than 650,000 firearms, which amounts to the government buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people. If these numbers were applied in the United States, the buyback program would equal the destruction of 40,000,000 firearms. Australia's gun buyback ranks as the largest destruction of civilian firearms in any country over the period of 1991-2006. . . . Another gun buyback was enacted in 2003 through the National Handgun Buyback Act, resulting in the surrender of about 70,000 handguns and more than 278,000 parts and accessories that did not comply with the new restrictions.” Note: "We Don't Come From A Land Down Under: How Adopting Australia's Gun Laws Would Violate The Second Amendment Of The U.S. Constitution," 24 Cardozo J. Int'l & Comp. L. 657 (Spring 2016) by Jonathan Weg, candidate for Juris Doctor, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, May 2016, and Staff Editor for the Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law.Removing guns from the hands of millions of law-abiding Americans would do nothing, concomitantly, to reduce gun violence since criminals would continue to obtain guns. National gun confiscations schemes would simply leave millions of law-abiding American citizens defenseless. Antigun groups and antigun legislators would have no quarrel with this. Neither would criminals. The overt reason for Governmental gun buyback programs, whether compulsory or voluntary—at least the reason usually if not invariably given—is to reduce gun violence. However, the tacit, and real reason for Governmental gun buyback reasons is to constrain ownership and possession of firearms by ordinary citizens. Second, if the purpose of gun buybacks is to reduce the number of guns in circulation among millions of law-abiding American citizens, then, to be effective, gun buyback programs would have to be compulsory. The problem is that a national gun confiscation scheme is patently illegal in this Country. Apart from the fact that compulsory gun buyback programs clash with the right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is obvious, compulsory gun buyback programs also clash with the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and with the due process clauses in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution—clashes that may not seem as intuitively true, but that amount to Governmental actions at odds with the fundamental rights of American citizens nonetheless.Governments around the world—regardless of the nature of political rule over the citizenry—that attempt mass firearms confiscations do so to preclude Government accountability. Guns in the hands of citizens keeps Government honest. It is the only effective safeguard against tyranny and, at bottom, this is the salient reason the framers of the U.S. Constitution codified the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Constitution. This is clear and irrefutable and the main obstacle for antigun groups and antigun legislators who seek to reduce firearms’ ownership and possession among the American citizenry.Spokespeople for the antigun groups have argued that law-abiding American citizens would surrender their firearms en masse if the Federal Government so ordered a nation-wide confiscation of firearms—be such confiscation ordained through Congressional Statute or Executive edict. After all, mass gun confiscation worked in Australia. It would not, however, work here. Likely, the attempt would bring about a call-to-arms among the citizenry. The American citizenry would revolt. And that revolt would be with the blessing of the founders of our Republic._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

HEARING OF THE U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON NICS REPORTING AND FIREARM ACCCESSORY REGULATION

WHAT IS THE GOAL OF CONGRESS: TO REPAIR AND IMPROVE NICS REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OR TO TURN NICS INTO A MASSIVE FIREARMS REGISTRATION SCHEME?

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." ~ Thomas Jefferson’s Literary Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774—1776On Wednesday, December 6, 2017, the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, presided over by Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-IA, held a three-hour Hearing on firearms, titled, “Firearm Accessory Regulation and Enforcing Federal and State Reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).” The full Committee attended. That included the Ranking Democratic Member of the Committee, and virulent opponent of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.  CSPAN televised the Hearing.Two panels convened. The first one included senior officials of the ATF, FBI, the Secretary of the U.S. Air Force, and the Inspector General of Department of Defense. The second panel convened included, inter alia, a survivor of the Las Vegas mass shooting tragedy, Heather Gooze, who was the first to speak; two Second Amendment legal experts, David Kopel and Stephen Halbrook; and the Montgomery County Chief of Police and Major Cities Chiefs Association President, J. Thomas Manger.The two mass shooting incidents—one occurring during the Harvest Music Festival in Las Vegas, Nevada, on October 1, 2017 and the second occurring at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, roughly one month later, on November 5, 2017—served, evidently, as the impetus for and the backdrop for this Hearing. The Senate Judiciary Committee focused its questioning of the first panel on: one, the mechanics of criminal and mental health reporting requirements, two, the sharing of data or lack of sharing of data between State and federal police agencies, and, three, the failure of Governmental agencies, both federal and State, to maintain accurate, reliable, and complete databases on those individuals who are not permitted to possess firearms. The Senate Judiciary Committee focused questioning of the second panel on firearms—semiautomatic rifles—that the killers, Stephen Paddock and Devin Patrick Kelley allegedly utilized to murder innocent people.The purpose of this article is not to delve into the interstices and intricacies of the Senate Hearing but to inform the American public of the fact of it and the specific concerns addressed during it that cast in high relief the dangers posed to preserving the sacred right embodied in the Second Amendment.Antigun proponents, through their Congressional representatives—Senate Democratic Party members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including ranking Democratic Party member, Dianne Feinstein, and her principal cohorts, Patrick Leahy, Richard Blumenthal, Dick Durbin, and Sheldon Whitehouse, among others—wish to move the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and other criminal and mental health databases into an efficient and massive and broad digital firearms registration scheme, embracing more and more individuals and incentivizing the military and the States to add comprehensive criminal and mental health data into NICS and other databases. Through this Hearing, and through recent comments of antigun proponents in news broadcasts, we see renewed efforts by antigun proponents, stoked by the recent mass shooting incidents—to weaken the Second Amendment beyond past efforts. Emboldened, we see efforts afoot by antigun proponents to transform NICS and other federal and State databases into a comprehensive digital firearms’ registration scheme, wrapping it into a more restrictive, draconian criminal and mental health background check scheme.If successful, these efforts by the antigun movement would infringe not only the basic, natural and fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, embodied in the Second Amendment, but would also infringe the fundamental right embodied in the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment, and infringe, too, the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. And, the antigun movement does not stop there. Not content to ban some semiautomatic firearms—that Federal Statute (the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB)) at one time, defined certain semiautomatic firearms as ‘assault weapons,’ until the AWB expired in 2004, and which several States, with their own assault weapon ban statutes, in full force, presently prohibit—the antigun movement now seeks to ban all semiautomatic firearms.There are efforts afoot to enact federal law not unlike the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Under the NFA, the ATF heavily regulates civilian ownership and possession of from possessing fully automatic machine guns and submachine guns and selective fire assault rifles. And, the civilian population is prohibited altogether from owning newly manufactured fully automatic weapons.So, even as the House in recent days passed the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38), a bill that strengthens the Second Amendment, which now goes to the U.S. Senate for consideration, we see--in stark contrast and contradistinction to pro-Second Amendment efforts to strengthen the right of the people to keep and bear arms--efforts by antigun Legislators mobilizing and gearing up to dispossess American citizens of semiautomatic firearms—all semiautomatic firearms, not merely those bizarrely categorized as ‘assault weapons.’ Antigun proponents evidently feel that they can hoodwink the American public, given the recent mass shooting incidents—which they use to their advantage—as they work unceasingly toward their ultimate goal to dispossess all Americans, eventually, of their firearms.During the questioning of the first panel, senior Officials of the Federal Government admitted that the NICS system was incomplete and faulty. The reason for this is that the military, especially, but also the States, have been remiss in entering data pertaining to individuals convicted of crimes that preclude these individuals from possessing firearms. Senator Ted Cruz, in his opening remarks, also made the pertinent point that individuals who falsify information to obtain a firearm have violated federal law, but that these crimes are rarely prosecuted and, so, all too often go unpunished.Falsifying information to obtain a firearm when an individual is not permitted to possess a firearm is a serious crime. 18 USCS § 922(a)(6), titled, “Unlawful acts” sets forth clearly, categorically, and unequivocally that: “it shall be unlawful for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition under the provisions of this chapter.” Senator Cruz was making the point, albeit tacitly, that laws that have no legal consequences do not amount to laws at all. Enforcement of federal firearms laws is lackadaisical at best, a point often made by NRA and a point perfunctorily ignored by antigun proponents whose real goal, after all, is to go after the millions of law-abiding gun owners, even as they profess to express concern over those individuals, alone, who are absolutely prohibited by law “to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign  commerce.” See United States Code, 18 USCS § 922(g) and 18 USCS § 922(n), titled, “Unlawful Acts,” as set forth in Title 18, “Crimes and Criminal Procedure,” of Part I, “Crimes,” of Chapter 44, “Firearms.”During the hearing, Legislators on the Judiciary Committee uniformly expressed concern over faulty federal NICS record-keeping and they requested, from the panel of senior Government officials, an explanation for the failure of these Government Offcials to keep the criminal databases up-to-date. But, it is one thing to repair the NICS record-keeping system; it is quite another to contemplate dumping ever more people into it, essentially, eventually, encapsulating minutia of mental health details of every American, along with details of every infraction committed by every American during every period of his or her life—every spat between husband wife or boyfriend and girlfriend, and an accounting of every instance, every bout of depression or anxiety an American citizen at one time or another may have had. Democratic Party members of the Judiciary Committee—alluded to expanding NICS and other criminal and mental health databases into a comprehensive and permanent digital—as opposed to merely manual—database of every firearm’s transaction and tying that to and in tandem with a universal background check schema.Clearly, the aim of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee is, then, more ambitious and grandiose than merely repairing a faulty NICS system. We are headed toward a universal registration system if antigun proponents have their way. Every firearm owner becomes suspect. Hence, every American, who owns a firearm must be carefully screened, and those licensed and therefore “privileged” to own and possess a firearm, will be carefully and continuously observed for signs of anti-social behavior, predicated on subjective standards of assessment. The implication of a universal criminal and mental health background check system tied into a permanent NICS databases are dire from the standpoint of Constitutional privacy concerns.Then, there are the firearms themselves. During the questioning of the second panel, it became clear that it wasn’t Stephen Paddock or Devin Patrick Kelley who were being castigated for the horror they caused. Rather, it was the semiautomatic weapons that were the target of and the focus of the Senators' ire--those Democratic Party members who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee.One speaker on the second panel, who was the first to speak, was a young woman named Heather Gooze. She detailed her personal experiences during the Las Vegas shooting episode and resulting carnage. This survivor’s anguished account of holding and attempting to aid and comfort a dying stranger, who had been shot by Paddock, was poignant, graphic, heart-rending, heartfelt, and deepfelt, as it was meant to be—but, for all that, it was also irrelevant. The fault for the tragedy in Las Vegas was not laid at the feet of the maniac, Stephen Paddock, the sole cause of the carnage—assuming there were no others that abetted Paddock. No! The fault for the crime is laid on inanimate objects—the weapons Paddock used in the commission of his heinous acts. But, if civilian access to an entire category of weapons, semiautomatic rifles, in common use by millions of law-abiding, sane, responsible Americans, is to be curtailed, then, those who would ban civilian possession of semiautomatic weapons  must propound sound legal and logical arguments in support of their case. Arguments amounting to emotional rhetoric, however endearing and heartfelt and honest they may be, are not rational substitutes for sound reasoning.What was on display during the Hearing, was unabashed grief and anger. That is what we heard from the young woman, Heather Gooze: a plaintive and soulful, if tacit, cry for a universal ban on semiautomatic weapons, and that is what the Senators on the Judiciary Committee got from her. This appeal to sympathy for one's cause, derived from heartfelt pain, is representative of a common fallacy. It's one an undergraduate college student learns about in a course on informal and formal symbolic logic. The Latin expression for this informal fallacy is argumentum ad misericordiam (argument from pity or sympathy or misery, or compassion). The fallacy of argumentum ad misericordiam is committed when pity, or sympathy, or compassion, or misery is appealed to for the sake of getting someone to accept a conclusion predicated on emotion, alone, sidestepping the salient issue.Appealing to pity, compassion, or sympathy, or misery avoids dealing with the pertinent legal questions. The pertinent legal question here is this: do semiautomatic weapons fall within the core of the Second Amendment’s protection? Antigun proponents use the argument from pity incessantly to sidestep this legal issue—the real issue—because they do not wish to hit the issue head-on. Appealing to sympathy or pity, or misery, or anger operates as a convenient substitute for cogent and sound legal and logical reasoning. It is unfortunate that the U.S. Supreme Court has, at least twice, decided not to take up the issue whether semiautomatic weapons do fall within the core of the Second Amendment’s protection, as appellants in the cases failed to garner four votes necessary to secure high Court review. See, Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, Illinois, 784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 447, 193 L. Ed.2d 483 (2015); and, recently, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 813 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. Md., 2016), cert. denied, 2017 LEXIS 7002. The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively on both these cases.The legal and logical weaknesses of the antigun proponent’s position, apropos of semiautomatic weapons, would be all too apparent were they to try to evince an argument. The public is hit with emotional rhetoric and pious sentiments, instead. Such emotional outrage has clout, even as it is devoid of substance. Heather Gooze used it to good effect during the Hearing. Her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee was as much a plea for action from the public as it was a plea for action from the Senate. No doubt, that was the reason she was invited to speak before the Committee at this public Hearing.Antigun proponents invariably take the argumentum ad misericordiam out of their sack of tricks whenever a tragedy involving the misuse of firearms occurs. They know that tragic events tug at the heartstrings of anyone who has a modicum of compassion in his or her heart, which are the majority of us—and which do not include psychopaths, who have no inkling of and therefore have absolutely no understanding of the concept of compassion. And, these individuals, who lack a modicum of compassion include, as well, common criminals who might understand the concept but simply don’t care since a consideration of compassion during the commission of a crime interferes with their personal selfish ends.Appealing to sympathy as an argument to dispossess millions of law-abiding firearms owners of their firearms operates as a useful makeweight, a convenient scapegoat, for antigun proponents, allowing antigun proponents to avoid factoring in the complex legal, logical, historical, cultural, and ethical ramifications of taking firearms away from millions of sane, rational, honest Americans. Essentially the antigun proponent’s argument, in various forms and permutations, boils down to this:“semiautomatic ‘assault weapons’ are weapons of war and have no legitimate use in civilian hands other than to commit murder and to do so on a large scale. And, manufacturers market these weapons to the entire civilian population which includes, then, mentally ill individuals and criminals who should not have them. These weapons have incredible firepower and no legitimate civilian use. Just look at what happens when a poor, deluded person gets hold of this ‘weapon of war.’ Just look at the harm he calls. Anyone who has a heart at all should see that semiautomatic assault weapons will only cause bad things to happen and will cause good people to do bad things. If you don’t want to see an innocent child, a vulnerable woman, a weak old man harmed—and what caring, compassionate human being does—then you will agree with us that there is no place for these ‘weapons of war’ in a civilized society, and you will write or call your Congressman or Senator, asking your Legislator to enact legislation that permanently bans these awful weapons of war, to ban them for the good of society so that no other person will ever suffer the needless tragedy that these weapons of war cause.” Well, if there is a sound reason for banning semiautomatic weapons from civilians, this isn’t it. Apart from appealing solely to one’s emotions, the argument embraces false assumptions, hyperbole, and irrelevant considerations. And, if you think our illustration of the fallacy of argumentum misericordiam amounts itself to a fallacy—the straw man fallacy, as some, who challenge our position, may claim—it does not. The remarks, concerning semiautomatic weapons as ‘assault weapons’ and ‘weapons of war,’ “weapons that have no legitimate civilian use,” and the notion that firearms manufacturers market these “weapons of war” to criminals and to the mentally ill are not suppositions the Arbalest Quarrel has invented to illustrate an argumentum misericordiam, for the purpose simply to knock down a straw man. No! These remarks are not our invention at all. These remarks, purporting to be arguments against civilian possession of firearms, are utilized constantly, incessantly by antigun proponents. And, more to the point, these remarks, as set forth in our example, comprise, in part, allegations taken from an actual formal legal pleading—namely and specifically the First Amended Complaint of the Soto Plaintiffs, in Soto vs. Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC., 2016 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2626; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P19,932. The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively on this case and continues to write articles about it. See, for example, our in-depth article, titled, “Soto vs. Bushmaster: Antigunners Take Aim at Gun Manufacturers.” We also wish to point out that a detailed account of one’s personal experiences, as related to the reader or listener—those of Heather Gooze, during the Senate Hearing—amount to a series of declarations that have no appreciable epistemic value. In other words, her account of the tragedy in Las Vegas, that occurred during the Harvest Music Festival, is not the sort of thing that one can reasonably challenge, or that need be challenged, or is expected by anyone to be challenged, as false.The Arbalest Quarrel accepts the account of Heather Gooze, as related at the Senate Hearing, as true, and does not quarrel with it. There is no reason to. There is no reason to consider her personal account as false. We say this because the remarks of Heather Gooze have no concrete epistemic value on the salient issue whether semiautomatic weapons fall within the core of the Second Amendment. Her remarks or declarations of events as she experienced them at the Harvest Music Festival do not serve as a sound reason for banning semiautomatic weapons from the millions of average, law-abiding, rational, responsible American citizens who own and possess them, notwithstanding that the Democratic Party Senators on the Judiciary Committee happen to believe the account of Heather Gooze to be relevant to the issue whether semiautomatic weapons are the sorts of firearms that properly belong in the hands of the average, rational and responsible American citizen. The remarks of Heather Gooze simply attest, at best, to a matter that everyone can agree with: that criminals, psychopaths, Islamic terrorists, and other assorted lunatics—the flotsam and jetsam of society—should not have access to any firearm. One might by the same token argue that the worst elements of society should not have access to anything that can feasibly be used to cause great harm to others and to many individuals at one time. Consider for example: a knife, an automobile or truck, or chainsaw. What we are getting at here is that common criminals, and members of drug cartels and criminal gangs, and psychopaths, and Islamic terrorists, and other assorted lunatics and maniacs and riffraff who pose a danger to others, as these individual do, should be removed from our society. It is not the firearm that should be removed from American society.That common criminals, terrorists, psychotics, or psychopaths may happen to get their hands on a semiautomatic rifle or on any other firearm to harm others does not serve as a sound legal or logical reason for banning semiautomatic weapons en masse from millions of average, law-abiding, responsible, rational American citizens. And, make no mistake, Senator Dianne Feinstein and the other Democratic Party members of the Senate Judiciary Committee do seek to ban and do work feverishly to ban all semiautomatic weapons, just as fully automatic weapons and selective fire weapons have been essentially banned from civilian possession, since 1934, with passage of the National Firearms Act (NFA). In fact, Senator Dianne Feinstein would accomplish this feat through enactment of a very devious bit of legislation, which was referred to during the Senate Hearing.Roughly two months ago, on October 4, 2017, Senator Feinstein introduced the following bill in the U.S. Senate:Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, This Act may be cited as the "Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act".POSSESSION OF CERTAIN FIREARM ACCESSORIES. Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-   in section 922, by inserting after subsection (u) the following:   "(v)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), on and after the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, it shall be unlawful for any person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a trigger crank, a bump-fire device, or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.   This subsection does not apply with respect to the importation for, manufacture for, sale to, transfer to, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof."; and   in section 924(a)(2), by striking ", or (o)" and inserting "(o), or (v)". Attorneys David Kopel and Stephen Halbrook, sitting on the second panel, and testifying at the Senate Hearing—were acutely aware of this Senate bill. David Kopel pointed out that the language of Feinstein’s bill, the "Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act," makes very clear that any change at all to any semiautomatic weapon—lightening the trigger pull, for example, or even cleaning a firearm—can effectively serve to increase the rate of fire of the weapon. Thus, any semiautomatic rifle can, were Feinstein’s bill enacted, serve as the basis to ban outright all semiautomatic rifles. When faced with David Kopel’s critical, astute remarks, Senator Feinstein demurred, seemed agitated and, evidently, perplexed, asserting, disingenuously, that the bill was drafted by capable attorneys, suggesting, perhaps, or, then again, perhaps not, that her bill only targets certain types of accessories or components for semiautomatic weapons, such as the “bump-fire device” (“bump stock”) that are specifically mentioned, and not, ipso facto, all semiautomatic weapons. But, that doesn't seem to be the case; and, if that is not the case, then this would suggest that the drafters of Feinstein’s bill either know very little about the operation of semiautomatic rifles or know the operation of semiautomatic weapons all too well. If the former supposition is true, then the bill has unintended consequences: positive consequences for antigun proponents; negative consequences for everyone else. This means that all semiautomatic rifles can and eventually would be banned. This is consistent with the plain meaning of the bill. If the latter supposition is true, then, given the plain meaning of the bill, the bill is a subterfuge. This would mean that those who drafted Feinstein's bill intended, all along, not merely to suggest that only some accessories for semiautomatic rifles would be banned, but that, in fact, all semiautomatic weapons would be banned, as this is what antigun proponents want and have wanted all along and this is what the bill says: no semiautomatic weapons in the hands of American citizens qua civilians. Either way, Senator Feinstein would derive from her bill, if enacted, exactly what she had long sought—a universal ban on semiautomatic weapons defined as ‘assault weapons’—meaning, of course, that all semiautomatic weapons would be banned because all semiautomatic weapons are, ipso facto, ‘assault weapons,’ as Senator Feinstein sees it.Never underestimate the deviousness of antigun proponents and never trust them when they assert that they do not seek to defeat the right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment. These antigun groups, and antigun legislators, and their billionaire benefactors, and their fellow travelers in the mainstream media and in Hollywood, will not rest easy until each and every average American citizen qua civilian—apart from the so-called “elites” in society, like Senator Feinstein, herself—is prohibited, by law, from owning and possessing any kind of firearm._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

SOTO VS. BUSHMASTER: ANTIGUNNERS TAKE AIM AT GUN MANUFACTURERS

SOTO PLAINTIFFS GUNNING FOR GUN MANUFACTURERS ON BEHALF OF THE ANTIGUN MOB

PART ONE: A COMPREHENSIVE CRITIQUE OF THE COMMENDABLE AND COMPETENT SUPERIOR COURT OPINION

SOTO PLAINTIFFS BRING LAWSUIT TO FORCE GUN MANUFACTURERS OUT-OF-BUSINESS, SEEKING TO CRUSH THE SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS MARKET, AND WORKING TO DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT, ENDING CIVILIAN ACCESS TO SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS

HOW DID THE SOTO CASE COME ABOUT?

The Soto case arises from the deadly attack that occurred on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, when a deranged young adult, Adam Lanza, 20 years old, stormed Sandy Hook Elementary School, fatally shooting twenty children and six adults, before turning a handgun on and killing himself. According to the allegations of the Soto Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (CM), Adam Lanza murdered these school children and school staff with a Bushmaster AR-15, model XM15-E2S rifle.

WHO ARE THE PARTIES IN THE SOTO CASE?

The case is brought by or on behalf of victims of the shooting, against the Defendant Bushmaster, and others. The Plaintiffs in the case include: two individuals, staff members of the school, who were harmed by the gunman, Adam Lanza, because of the shooting that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School; and also include various administrators or executors of the estates of those killed by the gunman. These administrators or executors include the administrator or executor of Victoria Soto, who is the principal Plaintiff in the case and whose name appears in the caption of the case. Defendants in the case include: Remington Arms Company, LLC, also known as, Freedom Group, Inc, also known as, Bushmaster Firearms Int., Inc—the other principal party in the case—the principal Defendant in the case, whose name appears in the case title—also known as, Remington Outdoor Company, Remington Outdoor Company, Inc., also known as, Freedom Group, Inc. (collectively, Remington Defendants), the principal named Defendant in the Soto case. The Defendants in the Soto case also include suppliers, distributors, and dealers of the manufacturer’s Bushmaster AR-15 XM 15-E2S semiautomatic rifle: Camfour, Inc. and Camfour Holding, LLP (collectively, Camfour defendants); and Riverview Sales, Inc. and David LaGuercia (collectively, Riverview defendants).

WHEN DID THE SOTO ACTION COMMENCE, WHERE WAS THE LAWSUIT FILED, AND WHAT ARE THE MECHANICS OF APPEALING AN ADVERSE DECISION OF A STATE TRIAL COURT?

The Soto case was initially filed in the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Fairfield At Bridgeport: Soto vs. Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC., 2016 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2626; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P19,932. The actual filing date is somewhat convoluted. The Superior Court of Connecticut that heard this case stated, in a footnote of the Memorandum Opinion, that: “While this action was not filed in this court until January 26, 2015, the action was, in fact, commenced by service of process on the defendants at various dates in December of 2014 and January of 2015. Accordingly, the Remington defendants were able to file a motion for removal to federal court on January 15, 2015, before the filing of the action in this court [the Superior Court of Connecticut (the lower trial Court)] actually occurred.”Defendants in Soto filed a motion to remove the case to federal Court. The federal Court case is styled Soto vs. Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC. 139 F. Supp. 3d 560; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138046. Why did they do this? The Defendants tried to remove the case to federal Court because they felt, apparently, they would likely receive fairer treatment in federal Court than if the case were heard in State Court. So, Defendants considered federal Court to be the preferred forum for hearing the case. The actual legal basis for, and the Defendants’ purport for, removing the case to federal Court is that Plaintiffs had deliberately and fraudulently filed suit against one Defendant, in particular, Riverview Sales, Inc., in the Plaintiffs’ wrongful attempt to deprive the other Defendants—primarily the principal named Defendant, Bushmaster Firearms—of a federal forum in which to hear the case. Conversely, the Soto Plaintiffs apparently felt they would have a better chance of prevailing in State Court if the case remained in State Court, which is why they filed their case in State Court. The Plaintiffs contested the Defendant’s attempt to remove the case to federal Court, asking the District Court to remove the case back to State Court. The Plaintiffs prevailed in their effort to have the case sent back to the State Court. The federal Court ruled for the Soto Plaintiffs, finding that it did not have federal subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case and, so, returned the case to State Court. Ultimately, Defendants need not have worried about an adverse decision in the Superior Court of Connecticut, as Defendants ultimately prevailed in the lower State Court. The Superior Court of Connecticut granted the Defendants’ Motion to Strike, in totality, the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. This adverse result for Soto Plaintiffs led to Plaintiffs’ appeal of the Superior Court decision directly to the Connecticut Supreme Court.The circumstances of Plaintiffs’ appeal directly to the State Supreme Court, rather than through the intermediate level, Connecticut Appellate Court, and the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision to hear briefs on the case, which the Connecticut Supreme Court recently heard, is murky. The Arbalest Quarrel could not find information about this appeal through our legal research. Once the Connecticut Supreme Court renders its decision, though, the decision will be reported in legal reporters and we will provide a co0mprehensive analysis of the case at that time.

WHAT MIGHT THE CONNECTICUT SUPREME COURT DO? WHAT ARE THE VARIOUS SCENARIOS THAT CAN PLAY OUT?

The Connecticut Supreme Court recently sat for oral argument in the case. Each side presented its legal arguments. If the Connecticut Supreme Court rules in Defendants’ favor, then the decision of the Superior Court stands, and the Soto Plaintiffs' last recourse, apart from asking the Connecticut Supreme Court for a rehearing and reconsideration of an adverse decision, is to appeal the adverse decision directly to the United States Supreme Court which may or may not grant certiorari to hear the case. If, on the other hand, the Plaintiffs prevail, having convinced the Connecticut Supreme Court to overturn the decision of the Superior Court that dismissed Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, this likely means that the State Supreme Court will remand—return—the case to the Superior Court for a hearing of the case on the merits, which is what the Plaintiffs wanted all along and which the Defendants properly pointed out, as the lower Superior (trial) Court agreed, was legally improper, as there wasn’t, in law, a legal basis for a court of competent jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ case on the merits.A State Supreme Court decision may take a few weeks or a few months. If Plaintiffs prevail and the case is remanded to the Superior Court, the trial and ultimate decision of the Superior Court will likely take a few more months. The Plaintiffs want the case to go before a jury and they have pressed for this all along. The reason for this is obvious. Plaintiffs’ legal position is extremely weak, at best. They perceive that presentation of their evidence to a jury, rather than presentation of their case directly to the Court in a Bench trial, would be easier in terms of convincing a jury as to the merits of their case. Plaintiffs believe they would be able to hoodwink a lay jury through the mechanism of emotional rhetoric, on their bizarre notions of justice and morality, in lieu of presentation of their claims to a jury though presentment of a sound and valid legal and logical argument, which clearly favors a decision for Defendants, and which a Court, steeped in the law, would be looking for. Thus, the Soto Plaintiffs believe they would win the day, convincing a jury to return a verdict in their favor, also convinced that the Court is already predisposed to rule  against them, being acutely aware of the flimsy foundation upon which Plaintiffs' claims rest, which, again, is why the Plaintiffs wish to present the merits of their case before the jury. Still, even if the State Supreme Court does reverse the decision of the lower Superior Court, remanding the case to the Superior Court for a trial on the merits, that does not mean the case will ever go before a jury for a trial on the merits. Likely, once discovery has concluded, Defendants will file a motion for summary Judgment. A motion for summary judgment is tantamount, in law, to a trial on the merits through motion rather than physically presenting evidence in a Court of Law before a jury. So, the Soto case may never even go to a jury for a trial on the merits.The legal standard for review of a motion for summary judgment is essentially the same from one jurisdiction to the next. In Connecticut, the State Supreme Court says this, about a motion for summary judgment: “The standard of review of a trial court's decision granting summary judgment is well established. Practice Book § 17-49 provides that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. . . . The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and that the party is, therefore, entitled to judgment as a matter of law. . . .” Gold v. Greenwich Hosp. Ass'n, 262 Conn. 248, 811 A.2d 1266, 2002 Conn. LEXIS 493.  See also Mountaindale Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Zappone, 59 Conn. App. 311, 315, 757 A.2d 608, cert. denied, 254 Conn. 947, 762 A.2d 903 (2000). "In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. . . . A motion for summary judgment is properly granted if it raises at least one legally sufficient defense that would bar the plaintiff's claim and involves no triable issue of fact." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Suppose, then, that the Connecticut Supreme Court does remand the case to the Superior (trial) Court for a trial on the merits, and assume, further, that, once discovery has concluded, Defendants in the Soto case do file a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs will move the Court to deny the motion and the Soto Plaintiffs may file their own motion for summary judgment. The filing of motions for summary judgment by both Parties in the case--Plaintiffs and Defendants--is referred to as referred to as “cross motions for summary judgment.”If Defendants do move for summary judgment and if their motion is granted, that effectively ends the case. That means the Soto Plaintiffs must, once again, appeal to a higher State Court, asking a higher Connecticut Court to review an adverse decision of the trial Court. But, this time the Soto Plaintiffs would be asking for an appellate Court—or, if Plaintiffs appeal an adverse trial court decision directly to the State Supreme Court and the State Court agrees to review the case—to reverse the trial court’s adverse decision granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Since an appeal of a motion for summary judgment operates as an appeal of a trial on the merits of the case—no less so than an adverse decision for Soto Plaintiffs if the case were presented to a jury—the Soto Plaintiffs would find that an appeal of an adverse decision of a case after presentment of evidence (a trial on the merits) is not so easy to reverse. Why is that? We need to look at the standard of review when a party appeals an adverse decision rendered on a motion for summary judgment. The Connecticut Supreme Court looks to whether a trial Court’s conclusions are legally and logically correct. Emotion plays no role in this. The Court says: “. . . we set forth the well established standard of review for a denial of summary judgment. ‘Summary judgment “shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Home Ins. Co. v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 235 Conn. 185, 202, 663 A.2d 1001 (1996), quoting Practice Book § 384, what is now § 17-49. The trial court was presented with cross motions for summary judgment based on stipulated facts. Therefore, our review is plenary and we must determine whether the trial court's conclusions of law ‘are legally and logically correct’ and find support in the stipulated facts. SLI International Corp. v. Crystal, 236 Conn. 156, 163, 671 A.2d 813 (1996), citing Practice Book § 4061, what is now § 60-5.” Doucette v. Pomes, 247 Conn. 442, 724, A.2d 481, 1999 Conn. LEXIS 3. The operative phrase here is "legally and logically correct." If the Defendants’ file a motion for summary judgment and it is denied, and if Plaintiffs’ file a for motion for summary judgment and it is granted, then Plaintiffs’ win. If Plaintiffs do not file a motion for summary judgment but simply oppose Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which the trial Court grants, and the Plaintiffs subsequently appeal the trial court’s granting of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, a higher Court’s standard of review in Connecticut is essentially the same. An appellate Court must determine whether the trial court’s conclusions of law are legally and logically correct, and, in the context of a motion for summary judgment, this means that an appellate Court must determine that no triable issue of fact exists. If an appellate Court determines that at least one and possibly more triable facts exist, then the case will be remanded for trial on those facts. So, if the Soto Plaintiffs prevail in their desire for a jury trial, the case will proceed to trial, which, again, is what Plaintiffs wanted all along, hoping, along the way, to maximize news coverage by the mainstream media that, unfairly, has taken a position forever demonstrably favoring the goals and philosophy of the antigun movement in this Country.What happens if the Soto case does go to trial? Each side presents its evidence, but, at any time during trial each side can request the Court, on motion, to direct a verdict in that side's favor, referred to in Connecticut, as a motion for a directed verdict and Judgment NOV (Judgment notwithstanding the verdict). What does this mean and what is the distinction between a motion for summary judgment and a motion for a directed verdict which are both trials by motion rather than by jury? The U.S. Supreme Court explains the difference. “The Court has said that summary judgment should be granted where the evidence is such that it ‘would require a directed verdict for the moving party.’ Sartor v. Arkansas Gas Corp., 321 U.S. 620, 624 (1944). And we have noted that the ‘genuine issue’ summary judgment standard is ‘very close’ to the ‘reasonable jury’ directed verdict standard: ‘The primary difference between the two motions is procedural; summary judgment motions are usually made before trial and decided on documentary evidence, while directed verdict motions are made at trial and decided on the evidence that has been admitted.’ Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, 745, n. 11 (1983). In essence, though, the inquiry under each is the same: whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 81, L. Ed. 2d 202, 1986 U.S. LEXIS 115.But, suppose Defendants in Soto move for a directed verdict, after trial, and Judgment NOV, and the Superior Court denies the movant's motion. In that event, the prevailing party at that point, wins, and the losing party’s last recourse, its only recourse, is to appeal directly to the United States Supreme Court, requesting—a party cannot demand—that the U.S. Supreme Court hear the case. Generally, the Supreme Court takes cases that involve a substantial number of split-decisions in the various Circuits or, when, in the Court’s own inscrutable manner, decides that a case is worth taking up. If the U.S. Supreme Court were to take the Soto case, then, likely, the result, itself, would be a split decision, divided evenly between the liberal-wing Justices and the conservative-wing Justices, with Justice Anthony Kennedy providing the swing vote, and it would not be clear how Justice Kennedy would decide this case. We would hope that Justice Kennedy, or, preferably, Justice Ginsburg or Justice Breyer would retire, in the next several months. This would enable President Trump to nominate a second individual to the high Court--another individual in the mode of the late brilliant and revered Justice, Antonin Scalia. If the Justices were to vote against hearing the Soto case, then the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court would stand.

WHAT IS THE SOTO VS. BUSHMASTER CASE REALLY ABOUT?

The Soto Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant, Bushmaster (Remington), manufacturer of the weapon, specifically, a Bushmaster AR-15, model XM15-E2S rifle, which, as alleged, the killer, Adam Lanza, used to commit the murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School—along with the firearms’ distributor and dealer who served as the intermediaries through which the weapons were sold to the killer’s mother, and ultimately fell into the hands of the killer, Adam Lanza—bears legal, not merely moral, responsibility for the deaths of children and adults that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and that, this is due to the fact of Defendant Bushmaster’s marketing of its AR-15 rifle to the entirety of the civilian population in this Country, and the manner in which the Defendant manufacturer, Bushmaster marketed its AR-15 model semiautomatic rifle to the entirety of the civilian population in this Country. The Soto Plaintiffs contend that the fact of and manner of marketing this rifle to the civilian population which necessarily included marketing the Bushmaster AR-15 model XM15-E2S semiautomatic rifle to mentally ill individuals served as the proximate cause, the true cause, of the tragedy that unfolded at Sandy Hook Elementary School. In their prayer for relief, as set forth in their pleadings, the Soto Plaintiffs seek, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs for wrongful death (several counts of wrongful death). In their prayer for relief, as set forth in their pleadings, the Soto Plaintiffs also ask the Superior Court for an injunction, preventing the Defendant firearms’ manufacturer from marketing the semiautomatic Bushmaster AR-15 style  rifles in Connecticut, thereby preventing the manufacturer’s suppliers and distributors from making this category of firearms available for sale to the civilian population in Connecticut through licensed Connecticut firearms dealers.Soto is a civil case, not a criminal case. As a civil case, the Soto Plaintiffs’ claims are directed principally against a firearms manufacturer, Remington (or Bushmaster), and against a supplier of the firearm, predicated on the dubious ground, as claimed by Plaintiffs, that various Defendants involved in the distribution and sale of the AR-15 Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle are liable for the tragic events that occurred even though the manufacturer and distributor of the AR-15 Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle did not engage in the direct sale of the rifle to Adam Lanza’s mother and notwithstanding that none of the Defendants—manufacturer, distributor, or dealer—had direct knowledge of Adam Lanza and could not have known anything about him, when the firearm was sold to Adam Lanza’s mother, who was under no federal or State disability. Adam Lanza, though, was not permitted to own or possess firearms because of mental impairment or mental incompetence. He had gained access to weapons, owned and possessed by the killer’s mother, due to the mother’s failure to properly secure her firearms from a mentally deranged person in her household.Keep in mind, too, that the Soto Plaintiffs’ case against Defendant manufacturer, supplier, and dealer, as a civil case, is considerably different from a criminal case, both in the manner of handling and in the manner of liability. Criminal cases are handled by State Prosecutors. No one is claiming that the Defendant manufacturer or the other Defendants bear any criminal liability for the criminal acts committed by Adam Lanza. Had Adam Lanza survived, he would have been arrested, charged, arraigned, and tried for murder and for other serious crimes, felonies. Possibly Adam Lanza’s mother, had she survived, might also be tried under Connecticut’s criminal laws, specifically, the crime of ‘criminal negligence.’ Under the Connecticut Annotated Statutes, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-58, “Criminally negligent homicide: Class A misdemeanor,” of Title 53a Penal Code, of Chapter 950, “Penal Code: General Provisions,” criminal negligence could be imputed to Nancy Lanza, had she survived, for the crimes of her son, Adam Lanza, who, had he survived, would have been charged, inter alia, with murder (several counts), under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-54-a, “Murder,” although, under the definition of 'Murder,' in Connecticut, which include the circumstances under which a person can be convicted of murder, Adam Lanza could very well have been able to circumvent a conviction of murder not in spite of but specifically because of the horrific nature of the act, suggesting that only a person seriously mentally ill could have legally intended to shoot to death, innocent children. Connecticut law sets forth, in pertinent part:(a) A person is guilty of murder when, with intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person or causes a suicide by force, duress or deception; except that in any prosecution under this subsection, it shall be an affirmative defense that the defendant committed the proscribed act or acts under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant’s situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be, provided nothing contained in this subsection shall constitute a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, manslaughter in the first degree or any other crime. (b) Evidence that the defendant suffered from a mental disease, mental defect or other mental abnormality is admissible, in a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section, on the question of whether the defendant acted with intent to cause the death of another person.Likely, a prosecutor would have greater chance to obtain a conviction of Adam Lanza’s mother, being “normal,” for the crime of criminal negligence, a Class A Misdemeanor in Connecticut, than would a prosecutor have obtaining a conviction of murder against Nancy Lanza’s seriously mentally ill son, Adam Lanza. Under the Connecticut Annotated Statutes, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-3(14) “Definitions”, of Title 53a Penal Code, of Chapter 950, “Penal Code: General Provisions,” “A person acts with “criminal negligence” with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. This is the definition of “criminal negligence.” This would, in essence, explain the ground for a criminal action against Nancy Lanza, Adam Lanza’s mother, imputed to Nancy Lanza, who failed to properly secure her firearms, knowing full well that her son was seriously mentally disturbed and that, were he to gain possession of those weapons, there would be “a substantial and unjustifiable risk” that he would commit a horrific crime, which, in fact, is precisely what transpired.Assume that Adam Lanza and/or his mother had survived. The Soto Plaintiffs could, and, perhaps, would file a civil suit against them for the tort, wrongful death—which would have proceeded in tandem with the State’s criminal action—but, that would not have prevented the Soto Plaintiffs from adding Defendants—manufacturer, supplier, distributor, and dealer to their—civil suit. This brings us to the critical question:

WHAT IS IT THAT THE SOTO PLAINTIFFS REALLY WANT; WHAT ARE THEY REALLY AFTER; AND WHO ARE THEY REALLY "GUNNING" FOR?

We speculate that, although the Soto Plaintiffs seek damages for wrongful death, against Defendants, what it is that they really want and what it is that they are really after—what it is they have sought all along—is to end the marketing of AR-15 model semiautomatic rifles in Connecticut and, further, to induce the manufacturer to forsake the manufacture of new AR-15 model semiautomatic rifles, in Connecticut, on the ground that it would be unprofitable for the Company to continue to fabricate new AR-15 model semiautomatic rifles—which, in fact, would be the case if party plaintiffs in other jurisdictions jump on the band wagon, and bring successful lawsuits against the Company in their own States. This is a goal of the antigun movement—to attack guns at the source—the manufacturers of firearms.If the Soto Plaintiffs are successful in their lawsuit, this will constitute a significant victory for antigun proponents and for their billionaire internationalist, trans-nationalist, globalist benefactors. In their endeavor to destroy gun possession and ownership in this Country, they know that it would be impossible to confiscate firearms from millions of law-abiding Americans—200 or 300 million firearms—a good number of them, semiautomatic rifles. If they can, though, preclude the fabrication of new semiautomatic firearms—on the ground that it would not be cost-effective for firearms manufacturers to fabricate new semiautomatic firearms—then they can slowly strangle the availability of weapons to civilians, as the availability of new semiautomatic firearms will be cut off at the source—at the front-end, the level of the manufacturer, rather than at the tail end, the level of the dealer.At the moment, several jurisdictions around the Country ban the sale and transfer of a certain category of firearms—‘assault weapons’, as the expression is defined in those jurisdictions’ criminal code—but they do not ban the import of the rifles into their respective jurisdiction; and their laws do not directly affect the firearms manufacturers’ right and ability to fabricate new rifles in manufacturers’ manufacturing plants. But, if manufacturers cannot profitably market their firearms to the civilian population, then—so the reasoning goes, as a matter of economic reality, as antigun groups hope and expect—firearms manufacturers will cease to manufacture such firearms for the civilian population, as this would demonstrably affect their bottom line—their profit margins. We therefore see, behind the face of the Soto Plaintiffs effort to hold the Defendant manufacturer, Bushmaster, liable for the criminal acts of an individual, Adam Lanza, with whom the Company is not in privity, a secretive, diabolical effort and strategy, most likely insinuated by and orchestrated by and with the assistance of antigun advocacy groups, and by the groups’ billionaire internationalist, trans-nationalist, globalist benefactors, operating in the shadows—to accomplish their goal of reducing the availability of firearms in this Country through attrition. For, it is through this strategy of attacking firearms manufacturers, the original source of firearms, that these antigun groups, and antigun legislators, and internationalists and trans-nationalist billionaires, and the mainstream media propagandists, aim to disarm and dispossess, eventually, the entirety of the civilian population of this Country of firearms. In this effort, they deceive and hoodwink the American public. They seek, together, to convey the idea that they wish only to improve the lives of Americans, to promote their health, and safety, and well-being, and that this can be accomplished in great part by removing from the hands of the American citizenry, access to firearms. And some Americans, well-meaning but deluded Americans, buy into this claptrap, inculcating and internalizing this nonsense through careful sloganeering, incessantly repeated by the mainstream media. These Americans have bought into a false, seemingly comforting illusion. For, only an armed citizenry can, in the end, protect itself from the immediate danger posed by criminals, lunatics, gang members, and other assorted riffraff among us, and also protect itself, as well, from the dormant danger of tyranny hanging over the heads of all Americans.The founders of our Nation and the framers of our Constitution knew full well of the danger posed by tyranny, and they provided a perfect check against this by placing a Bill of Rights within the U.S. Constitution. And that Bill of Rights includes a Second Amendment, codifying a right existent in the American people—the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But, an armed citizenry is incompatible with the goal of those ruthless and secretive and extremely powerful and inordinately wealthy forces that seek to destroy our Country, who seek to bring to an end the very concept of independent sovereign Nation States, and who seek to dismantle our Constitution. It is these secretive, wealthy, powerful individuals, residing both here and abroad—a billionaire class that cares not one whit for the well-being of a Nation’s citizenry--of our Nation’s citizenry--who are working behind the scenes to encourage and cajole Congress to enact restrictive firearms legislation and who are working behind the scenes to fund lawsuits aimed at imperiling a fundamental, natural, and sacred right. Thus, if the Soto Plaintiffs prevail in their lawsuit against the Defendant manufacturer, Bushmaster, and against Defendant suppliers, distributors, and sellers in Connecticut, antigun groups will certainly become emboldened and will bring similar actions—a flurry of them—in other jurisdictions. So, then, while the Soto suit has direct dire results in Connecticut, alone, in the event the Soto Plaintiffs ultimately prevail in their action against Defendants, the ramifications of such result could very well have a ripple effect across the Country, creating, worst of all, the impetus for antigun Legislators in Congress—assuming that Democrats take control of both Houses of Congress—to enact legislation like the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), targeting and negatively impacting the marketing and selling of semiautomatic firearms to the civilian population of this Country. The NFA bans manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to the civilian population. Production of new machine guns, submachine guns, and selective fire assault rifles are only available for sale to the military and to law enforcement, which are not legally available to the civilian population.One can only wonder that, had millions of law-abiding NRA members the clout in 1934 that they have today, the NFA would never have been enacted. The NFA is a dinosaur, a relic of a time when Americans had little clout to assert their natural right to keep and bear arms. Once enacted, the NFA should have been repealed by Congress. It never was. The antigun groups obviously wish to piggy-back off the NFA, to ban a vast category of semiautomatic weapons. Eventually the antigun groups and the shadowy, ruthless billionaire internationalist, trans-nationalist benefactors that support them, who seek to undermine the very concept of the Nation State, would like to see enacted, at the federal level, NFA type legislation that would effectively ban new fabrication of semiautomatic firearms. Once the present supply of such weapons dries up, as the supply of fully automatic weapons is now drying up, fewer semiautomatic firearms will be available for disposition to the civilian population, as the existing supply of semiautomatic weapons will be exhausted and those still remaining in existence will, at some point, require repair which will become significantly difficult to accomplish as components for these semiautomatic weapons, too, become increasingly scarce and eventually unavailable at any cost. Scarcity of semiautomatic weapons and scarcity of parts for them will inevitably drive up the cost of ownership of semiautomatic weapons as the present supply of semiautomatic weapons dries and of component parts dries up. Thus, semiautomatic weapons, as with the present supply of fully automatic weapons and with the present supply of selective fire weapons will only be available to those having the means to afford them—that is to say, those of us, damned few, who have exorbitant sums of money. Those who wish to obtain a semiautomatic weapon, as is the case for those members of the civilian population who presently wish to acquire a machine gun, or submachine gun, or selective fire assault rifle, and who are able to amass the dollars necessary to purchase a semiautomatic weapon, will, in addition to being required to have, on hand, the necessary funds, must be willing to jump through the hoops of a lengthy, complicated, bureaucratic process to acquire a federal firearms license (FFL) required for the acquisition of such weapons. But, A person cannot acquire an FFL overnight; and it is not the sort of license that the typical, average, law-abiding, rational American citizen, at present, possesses or is likely ever to have the ability to obtain. As for these average Americans, it could very well come to pass that possession of semiautomatic firearms, as is true with fully automatic or selective fire weapons, would be prohibitively expensive, outside the range of what the average law-abiding American citizen is able ever to afford, presenting, for the general civilian population, an insurmountable goal, an unmet wish, an empirical impossibility. And the right of the people to keep and bear arms will then become a tantalizing and taunting chimera—a right that no longer can be exercised—an empty promise.

IS THE SOTO CASE THE FIRST CASE OF ITS KIND OR HAVE THERE BEEN OTHER CASES BROUGHT AGAINST FIREARMS MANUFACTURERS AND SUPPLIERS OF FIREARMS?

The Soto case is not the first case of its kind. It is merely the latest and, rest assured, it will not, unfortunately, be the last. The Arbalest Quarrel has catalogued 460 cases against firearms manufacturers, according to our research—going back in time at least to 1966—all of these cases a naked, bald attempt to hold firearms manufacturers liable for misuse of their products by those individuals--criminals and lunatics--whom they have no connection with and those who should not have access to firearms in the first place. These cases, brought by party plaintiffs against firearms manufacturers are generally grounded in various common law theories of negligence and/or State products liability statutes, where, in some jurisdictions, the one theory of liability is merged into the other. Most of these cases were filed in the last twenty years.One can see, but hardly fathom, the ruthlessness of antigun groups as they steadfastly, inexorably work toward the single-minded goal of ultimately depriving the civilian population, comprising average, hard-working, independent-minded, sane, rational, law-abiding American citizens of their natural and fundamental right to own and possess firearms—any firearm, depriving Americans of their fundamental right—in defiance of the will of the framers of the Nation’s Constitution and of the Constitution’s most important component, the Bill of  Rights—depriving Americans of their right to keep and bear arms, and doing so, with alacrity, one category of firearms at a time. We have seen the results of their efforts to date as they deprive Americans of their fundamental right to own and possess fully automatic firearms. Now they seek to deprive Americans of their right to own and possess the semiautomatic firearms. If they succeed in that effort, they will continue. What will be next on their agenda? They will attempt to deprive Americans of their right to own and possess double action and single action revolvers and lever action rifles—and so on. They will attempt to deprive Americans of their right to own black powder rifles and shotguns, and, ultimately, they will have the legislation and case law decisions as the purported legal foundation to ban and confiscate whatever kind of firearm is left to be banned and confiscated. Of course, as these antigun groups are fed with an unlimited amount of money by billionaire backers such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg, the antigun movement will not be sated until all manner of firearms are banned from civilian possession. While one may believe that the citizens should not have the right to keep and bear fully automatic weapons, why is that? Is there anything inherently true in that belief? Of course not. The idea may seem odd to some only because, for decades, since enactment of the NFA, possession of fully automatic weapons has been, for all intents and purposes, illegal. Decades from now, if a semiautomatic weapons' NFA were enacted, similar attitudes would exist as to the notion that a civilian ought not to be able to possess those firearms. Even now, we see through mainstream media propaganda, a concerted effort to manipulate public opinion toward opposing civilian ownership of semiautomatic firearms. Children, at one time, played, innocently, with toy firearms. Now, the idea is an anathema. The ability of the media to transform attitudes away from Americans’ own natural birthright—the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms—is real; it is ominous; it is gaining momentum; it is disturbing and it is singularly depressing.This attempt by party plaintiffs, who often file suits with the encouragement of, if not the active assistance of and participation of antigun groups, had to be stopped; and, indeed, a wrench was thrown into this assault on firearms manufacturers once the President of the United States, George W. Bush, approved the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (the ‘PLCAA’), Pub. L. No. 109-92, 119 Stat. 2095. 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-03 (2005). The PLCAA provides immunity to firearms manufacturers and dealers from any lawsuit, pending or otherwise, fitting the Act's definition of a ‘qualified civil liability action.’ 15 U.S.C. §§ 7902-03. After enactment of the PLCAA—the first federal legislation, in recent years that serves to strengthen, rather than weaken, the Second Amendment—party plaintiffs must contemplate and take into account, in their Court pleadings, the impact of federal legislation and must factor in the PLCAA when lodging complaints against and presenting arguments against manufacturers and  against distributors, or suppliers, of firearms. Without expressly referring to the PLCAA, it is clear enough that this legislation falls in the crosshairs of those Congressional leaders in the Democratic Party who would like very much to repeal it. The reader may recall that, during the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential debates, the U.S. Presidential candidates, primarily Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley, and Lincoln Chaffee, fell over each other, attempting to convince their liberal thinking audience—individuals who uniformly and universally despise the right of the people to keep and bear arms—that he or she candidate maintains the strongest stance against civilian ownership and possession of firearms. Each of these candidates lied to the public when asserting that firearms manufacturers have absolute immunity from claims against them, pertaining to the misuse of firearms and that manufacturers, rather than avoiding liability ought to have, absolute liability. The claims of these political hacks are false in two critical respects. First, firearms manufacturers do not have and never did have absolute immunity from claims. The only entities that do have absolute immunity from decisions they make are few and far between, and include governmental employees such as judges and prosecutors—various governmental entities in certain circumstances. But that was never true of businesses. Second, the desire of individuals like Clinton, O’Malley, and Chaffee, and others, to impose, essentially, absolute liability on  firearms manufacturers flies in the face of decades of products liability law and the law of torts. It is a curious remark, too, that Clinton, O’Malley, and Chaffee would emphasize respect for the “rule of law”—and then be the instruments for creating ad hoc law—law made to conform to personal, not shared, views of the way these antigun proponents would like this Nation to look; the way they would like this Nation to be; and, on their world view, they would impose absolute liability on firearms manufacturers. oddly enough, too, during the Democratic Party Presidential debates, only Bernie Sanders, the Democratic Party Socialist candidate demurred at the suggestion of imposing absolute liability on firearms manufacturers. But, then, he represents and Libertarian State, Vermont.In its to-do list, the Arbalest Quarrel will, at some point, as time and demand permit, provide its readers with a survey of Court cases lodged against firearms manufacturers, along with a detailed exposition of Court resolution of those cases. This will involve an examination of the misapplication of products liability law and tort theory of negligence by party plaintiffs attempting to twist law in a manner inconsistent with the development of that great body of law through time. That is what we are seeing in the present Soto case. There is afoot, as anyone who follows lawsuits negatively impacting Americans’ exercise of their natural right to keep and bear arms knows full well, a desire by some State and Federal Legislatures and some State and Federal Jurists, to decimate natural law to conform to a bizarre personal view of the world at odds with our Bill of Rights and at odds with the philosophical underpinnings of our law and jurisprudence as the framers of our Constitution understood those underpinnings to be. The mainstream media reports in both news accounts and in opinion editorials that NRA merely supports firearms manufacturers, regardless of the interests and concerns of ordinary Americans. That remark, constantly reiterated, is not only false; it is a lie because those who set forth that remark in reporting know it to be false. Individuals—millions of Americans—comprise the membership of NRA, not firearms manufacturers. And firearms manufacturers provide an essential service to Americans, providing them with a product Americans want—a product that enables Americans to take full advantage of the sacred right codified in the Second Amendment. If Americans did not desire the products that firearms manufacturers produce, then Americans would not purchase those products. Members of the antigun establishment—comprising shadowy billionaire internationalists, trans-nationalists, and globalists; and comprising members of the mainstream media, and comprising legislators and jurists; and comprising ordinary Americans, misled by the orchestrated propaganda blasted incessantly through the newspapers, internet and airwaves—seek to dispossess Americans of their right to keep and bear arms—and that right includes the right to own and possess weapons in common use by Americans—those rifles that are descendants of the original Armalite AR-15 semiautomatic rifle.The antigun establishment knows full well the popularity of the AR-15 model semiautomatic rifle among millions of average, law-abiding, rational American citizens. Thus, since Americans wish to purchase a product that companies such as Bushmaster produce, the antigun establishment attacks the companies head-on, arguing falsely that firearms companies produce firearms because NRA lobbies for them. That makes no logical sense. If the public did not wish to purchase firearms, they would not do so, and no amount of money paid to lobbyists would serve to compel an American to purchase something he or she doesn’t wish to own and possess. So, as one strategy to defeat the Second Amendment, the antigun establishment attacks Firearms manufacturers through the filing of lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, with the aim of enjoining firearms manufacturers from marketing their goods, and, as another strategy, insinuating itself into Congress, urging Congress to enact laws that would proscribe the manufacture of a product that the American public wants. The Soto case is simply the latest active case involving an action directed against a firearms manufacturer, seeking, in substantial part, to enjoin that firearms manufacturer from marketing a product in Connecticut, predicating a prayer for injunctive relief on the ground—unsupported in law—that the firearms manufacturer, Bushmaster, and other Party Defendants, are liable for the criminal actions of an individual with whom none of the Defendants were ever in privity with. We look carefully, now, at the intricacies of this case. We begin with a dive deep into the Superior Court’s analysis of the Soto Plaintiffs’ claims. And, since the Supreme Court of Connecticut agreed to hear arguments, pro and con, proffered by the Soto Party Plaintiffs and Party Defendants, and since the Connecticut Supreme Court has, in fact, recently heard argument, we will do a comprehensive analysis of a few pertinent Briefs filed by Plaintiffs’ attorneys and Defendants’ attorneys in that case, and we will take a look, as well, at a few Amicus curiae (Friend of Court Briefs) filed by those antigun proponents who support Soto Plaintiffs claims and we will look at a few amicus Briefs filed in support of the Defendants in the case. Thus, readers of the Arbalest Quarrel will have an accurate, detailed account of the arguments, pro and con, far removed from the simplistic, false, deceptive, and ludicrous nonsense spouted by antigun legislators, spokespeople for antigun groups, and the mainstream media about this case. Note: over 50 Amicus curiae Briefs have been filed in the Soto case. That suggests—despite a mostly deceptive quiet undertone to this case—that much is at stake here--hence our attention to this case. Understand, a State’s “assault weapon” gun ban does not attack the right of manufacturers to design and manufacture a firearm for sale in the civilian population. But, Court cases that challenge the ability of firearms manufacturers to design, manufacture, and market a product that most Americans want constitutes an existential threat to the core of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms and challenges, and constitutes, too, a direct, existential threat to the very concept of property rights and free market capitalism upon which this Nation’s economic structure rests.

DETAILS OF THE SUPERIOR COURT DECISION IN SOTO, DISMISSING THE CASE AGAINST DEFENDANTS

A few years after the event—that has recently become a cause célebre for antigun groups—wended its way to Federal District Court and then back to State Court, the Soto case come to a crashing halt on October 14, 2016, when the Connecticut Superior Court judge dismissed the case on Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. As the Superior Court explains, Plaintiff individuals in their own capacity and executors and administrators of the estates of deceased (hereafter, referred to through the principal Plaintiff as the “Soto Plaintiffs”) filed an action for damages and injunctive relief against Defendant Bushmaster Firearms International and others (hereafter, referred to at times by the principal Defendant Bushmaster also known as, Remington) for damages and injunctive relief. As the Court explains:“In their thirty-three-count amended complaint dated October 29, 2015, the plaintiffs allege the following facts. On the morning of December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza entered Sandy Hook Elementary School, located in Newtown, Connecticut, carrying a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, model XM15-E2S. Lanza then used the weapon, which was designed for military use and engineered to deliver maximum carnage with extreme efficiency, to kill twenty-six people, including the plaintiffs' decedents, and to wound others, including Natalie Hammond, in less than five minutes. The weapon had been bought by Lanza's mother to give to and/or share with her son." The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants, all makers and sellers of the Bushmaster XM15-E2S, know that civilians are unfit to operate AR-15s, and yet continue selling the Bushmaster XM15-E2S to the civilian market, disregarding the unreasonable risks that the weapon poses "outside of specialized, highly regulated institutions like the armed forces and law enforcement," in an effort to continue profiting from the weapon's sale. In addition, the defendants knew, or should have known, the following: the sale of assault rifles like the XM15-E2S to the civilian market posed an unreasonable and egregious risk of physical injury to others, as a mass casualty event was within the scope of the risk created both by the Remington defendants' marketing and by the defendants' sale of the XM15-E2S to the civilian market; there was an unreasonably high risk that the XM15-E2S would be used in a mass shooting to inflict maximum casualties before law enforcement was able to intervene; schools are particularly vulnerable to—and frequently targets of—mass shootings; the utility of the XM15-E2S for hunting, sporting, or self-defense was negligible in comparison to the risk that the weapon would be used in its assaultive capacity; and the XM15-E2S, when used in its assaultive capacity, would be likely to inflict multiple casualties and serious injury. The plaintiffs also allege that, despite this knowledge, the Remington defendants "unethically, oppressively, immorally, and unscrupulously marketed and promoted the assaultive qualities and military uses of AR-15s to civilian purchasers," and all of the defendants "unethically, oppressively, immorally, and unscrupulously promoted the sale of AR-15s with the expectation and intent that possession and control of these weapons would be shared with and/or transferred to unscreened civilian users following purchase, including family members." Moreover, the Remington defendants knew, or should have known, that the Camfour defendants' use of the product—supplying it to dealers who sell directly to civilians—involved an unreasonable risk of physical injury to others, while the Camfour defendants knew, or should have known, that the Riverview defendants' use of the product—supplying it to the civilian population—involved an unreasonable risk of physical injury to others. Counts one through nine and thirteen through thirty of the amended complaint sound in wrongful death against the three groups of defendants on behalf of the plaintiffs' decedents. These counts allege that the defendants' conduct was a substantial factor resulting in the injuries, suffering, and death of the plaintiffs' decedents in that the decedents suffered terror, ante-mortem pain and suffering, destruction of the ability to enjoy life's activities, destruction of earning capacity, and death.These counts also allege that as a result of the injuries and deaths of the plaintiffs' decedents, their estates incurred funeral expenses to their financial loss. Counts ten through twelve sound in loss of consortium against the three groups of defendants [*7] by William Sherlach, the husband of Mary J. Sherlach. Finally, counts thirty-one through thirty-three are brought against the three groups of defendants by Natalie Hammond, alleging that the defendants' conduct was a substantial factor resulting in the injuries of Hammond in that she suffered terror; pain and suffering; severe, permanent, and painful injuries to her left calf, foot, thigh, and hand; destruction of the ability to enjoy life's activities; and destruction of earning capacity. Hammond also alleges she incurred medical expenses to her financial loss. Within each of these thirty-three counts, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants' conduct constituted a knowing violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes §42-110a et seq. On April 22, 2016, the Remington defendants,6 Camfour defendants, and Riverview defendants8 each filed a motion to strike the amended complaint for failure to state legally sufficient claims upon which relief may be granted, on the grounds that the defendants are immune from the claims by virtue of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), 15 U.S.C. §7901 et seq. (2012), because they have not sufficiently alleged causes of action that are permitted under any exception to immunity set forth in PLCAA, namely, the negligent entrustment exception, 15 U.S.C. §7903(5)(A)(ii),10 and/or the predicate exception, 15 U.S.C. §7903(5)(A)(iii). On May 27, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an omnibus objection to the defendants' motions to strike, and on June 10, 2016, the Remington and Camfour defendants filed reply memoranda. Oral argument on the motions was heard on June 20, 2016, at which time the court reserved judgment.”

WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN?

Plaintiffs’ suit is principally an attack on manufacturers of semiautomatic rifles, those rifles that constitute the progeny of semiautomatic rifles descending from the original ArmaLite AR-15 semiautomatic rifle. Plaintiffs allege the AR-15 rifle is a military and law enforcement rifle that has no legitimate, lawful, civilian use. The allegations of the first amended complaint aptly and amply illustrate Plaintiffs’ false assumptions regarding this point, positing that no tenable distinction exists between the military M-16 selective fire rifle and the civilian semiautomatic only AR-15 version—thereby collapsing the two rifles—one for the civilian market and the other for the military and law enforcement market, into one. This false idea became the central claim of Plaintiffs’ Complaint—the idea that the weapon Adam Lanza used to commit multiple murders is, in effect, a military rifle that has no legitimate civilian use. As you read through the allegations of the CM as posited below, pay close attention to the Soto Plaintiffs’ notions of the AR-15 rifle that Bushmaster manufactures and markets to the civilian population.

PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT COMPLAINT

There are 230 allegations in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, which superseded the original Complaint. Since a Complaint (“CM”) sets forth the basis for a cause of action and the parameters of it, it is best to proceed with an analysis of a case from the standpoint of Plaintiffs allegations. Allegation, No. 4, for example, refers to the AR-15 as “a military weapon.” It isn’t, and was never designed to be a military weapon; and it isn’t marketed to the military. Many of Plaintiffs’ allegations amount to hyperbole and propaganda directed to a Court of Law. Those allegations may be considered the kinds of remarks one hears by hosts on CNN or MSNBC, or by jokesters on late night comedy programs, or in newspapers such as the New York Times and Washington Post, and as a person has come to expect and therefore, not to be taken seriously, but, they bespeak, on their face, lack of respect for a Judge presiding over the case in a Court of Law, such imbecilic remarks have no place in a formal legal document and should be regarded as a disgraceful attempt “to floor” a judge with rhetorical, inflammatory, emotive, empty banter, rather than to lay the basis for a cogent, rational, deliberative legal argument in support of a plaintiff’s legal claims and in support of a plaintiff’s prayer for relief.It is also clear from a perusal of a sampling of the allegations of the First Amended Complaint that Plaintiffs do not cast blame for the tragedy, on the killer Lanza—the one person, along with the killer’s mother—who bears responsibility for the tragedy that ensued at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Of course, both the killer, Adam Lanza, and his mother are dead and likely would be judgment proof—that is to say, they would have little funds to make the Soto Plaintiffs whole apropos of their claim for damages for wrongful death—had Adam Lanza and his mother lived. Rather, the Soto Plaintiffs blame the manufacturer, Bushmaster, for manufacturing a rifle that, as Soto alleges, has no legitimate civilian purpose, grounded on the false, imbecilic notion that the AR-15 is a “weapon of war” and, as Soto further alleges, is a weapon unlawfully marketed to civilians. Again, it is clear, from a reading of the First Amended Complaint, that the Soto Plaintiffs relish the same rhetorical flourishes that we read and hear and see, ad nauseum, in the mainstream media, along with the inflammatory oratory of politicians, which have no place in a legal pleading. But, we see it here anyway.We have produced for you, in substantial part, the allegations of Soto’s First Amended Complaint which demonstrates at once the Soto Plaintiffs lack of understanding of firearms and, as well, the sarcasm that turns a formal legal pleading into a bald homily or comic skit for a “Saturday Night Live” routine.

SOTO’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (CM) (SELECTED ALLEGATIONS)

INTRODUCTION 1. This is a civil action for damages and injunctive relief stemming from the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012. 2. In less than five minutes, 20 first-grade children and 6 adults were killed. Two others were wounded. 3. The number of lives lost in those 264 seconds was made possible by the shooter's weapon of choice: a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, model XM15-E2S. 4. The AR-15 was designed as a military weapon. Bora [sic] out of the exigencies of modern combat, the AR-15 was engineered to deliver maximum carnage with extreme efficiency. 5. The AR-15 proved to be very good at its job. It has endured as the United States Army's standard-issue rifle and has more recently become a valuable [*2] law enforcement weapon. In both contexts, soldiers and officers must undergo advanced training and adhere to regimented safety protocols. 6. The AR-15, however, has little utility for legitimate civilian purposes. The rifle's size and overwhelming firepower, so well adapted to the battlefield, are liabilities in home defense. 7. But there is one civilian activity in which the AR-15 reigns supreme: mass shootings. Time and again, mentally unstable individuals and criminals have acquired an AR-15 with ease, and they have unleashed the rifle's lethal power into our streets, our malls, our places of worship, and our schools. 8. Defendants - makers and sellers of the Bushmaster XM15-E2S - have, like all Americans, watched mass shootings become a harrowing yet predictable part of modern life. 9. Defendants know that, as a consequence of selling AR-15s to the civilian market, individuals unfit to operate these weapons gain access to them. 10. And defendants know that the AR-15's military firepower, unsuited to personal defense or recreation, enables an individual in possession of the weapon to inflict unparalleled civilian carnage. 11. Despite that knowledge, defendants continued to [*3] sell the Bushmaster XM15-E2S to the civilian market. 12. In order to continue profiting from the sale of AR-15s, defendants chose to disregard the unreasonable risks the Bushmaster XM15-E2S posed outside of specialized, highly regulated institutions like the armed forces and law enforcement. 13. Plaintiffs seek nothing more and nothing less than accountability for the consequences of that choice. PARTIES 14. Defendant Bushmaster Firearms, also known as B.F.I, and B.F.I., Inc., was a Maine corporation created in 1973 and located in Windham, Maine. At all relevant times, Bushmaster Firearms manufactured and sold AR-15s. Bushmaster Firearms is now part of Freedom Group, Inc. 15. Defendant Bushmaster Firearms, Inc. was another Maine corporation that manufactured and sold AR-15s. Upon information and belief, Bushmaster Firearms, Inc. manufactured and sold AR-15s. Bushmaster Firearms, Inc. is now part of Freedom Group, Inc. 16. Defendant Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC was a Delaware corporation that was formed in 2006. (When originally created, it was named Rambo Acquisition, LLC.) According to corporate filings, Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC was merged into [*4] Remington Arms Company, LLC in 2011. 17. At all relevant times, Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC manufactured and sold AR-15s. 18. Upon information and belief, Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC manufactured the XM15-E2S that was used in the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012. 19. Defendant Remington Arms Company, LLC is a Delaware limited liability corporation. Defendant Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC was merged into Defendant Remington Arms Company, LLC in 2011. At all relevant times, Remington Arms Company, LLC manufactured and sold AR-15s. THE GUN A. The Bushmaster XM15-E2S is a Military Weapon 47. Bushmaster's XM15-E2S is an AR-15 rifle, a weapon adopted by the United States military and other armed forces around the world because of its efficiency as a military assault rifle. 48. After World War II, the U.S. Army's Operations Research Office analyzed over three million casualty reports from World War I and World War II. In its final report, the group observed that modern combat occurred at short range and was highly mobile. More importantly, they determined that the number one predictor of casualties was the total number of shots fired. 49. These findings led the U.S. Army to develop specifications for a new combat weapon: a lightweight firearm that would hold a large detachable magazine and rapidly expel ammunition with enough velocity to penetrate body armor and steel helmets. 50. A company called Armalite designed the AR-15 in response. Lightweight, air-cooled, gas-operated, and magazine-fed, the AR-15's capacity for rapid fire with limited recoil meant its lethality was not dependent on good aim or ideal combat conditions. [*10] 51. After extensive testing, the military concluded that a five-man squad armed with AR-15s had equal or superior "hit-and-kill" potential in combat situations when compared with an 11-man squad armed with M14 rifles, the AR-15's predecessor. Troops field-testing the AR-15 reported instantaneous deaths, as well as routine amputations, decapitations, and massive body wounds. The military ultimately adopted the AR-15 as its standard-issue service rifle, renaming it the M16. 52. After Armalite sold its licensing rights, Colt took over its military contracts and began mamifartfiirinu the M16. 53. Today, Colt remains the largest supplier of combat rifles to the military. 54. Bushmaster, meanwhile, holds the distinction of being the largest supplier of combat rifles to civilians. 55. The XM15-E2S is one such rifle. B. A "Civilian" Weapon Designed for Combat 56. As an AR-15 rifle, the Bushmaster XM15-E2S is substantially similar to its military sibling, the M16. Both weapons are designed for mass casualty assaults. Both share design features of exceptional muzzle velocity, the ability to accommodate large-capacity magazines, and effective rapid fire. Muzzle Velocity [*11] 57. The term "muzzle velocity" refers to the speed a bullet possesses at the moment it leaves the muzzle of a firearm. 58. The velocity of a bullet on impact is the main determinant of its destructive capacity. 59. Typical handgun muzzle velocities range from approximately 750 feet per second to approximately 1,300 feet per second. 60. Because longer barrels give the ammunition's propellant more time to work, long guns eject projectiles at significantly higher velocities than short-barreled firearms. 61. According to a study by physicians who performed autopsies on soldiers killed by gunfire in Iraq, the greater the speed of the bullet on impact, the greater the extent of tissue deterioration. The study found that rounds with a velocity exceeding 2,500 feet per second cause a Shockwave to pass through the body upon impact that results in catastrophic injuries even in areas remote to the direct wound. 62. AR-15 rifles like the XM15-E2S are capable of propelling ammunition at 4,000 feet per second. Large-Capacity Magazines 63. In addition to exceptional muzzle velocity, AR-15 rifles are also designed to accept large-capacity magazines. 64. A large-capacity magazine [*12] is defined as a magazine that holds more than ten rounds. 65. Large-capacity magazines were first designed and produced for the military in order to increase the firepower of U.S. infantry by minimizing time spent reloading. 66. "Civilian" AR-15 rifles, including the XM15-E2S, are manufactured to be compatible with magazines that hold as many as 100 rounds. Effective Rapid Fire 67. All AR-15 rifles, including the XM15-E2S, can empty their magazines with exceptional speed. 68. The rifles carried by U.S. forces are capable of both full automatic and semiautomatic fire. Full automatic fire can empty a 30-round magazine in two seconds. Semiautomatic fire can empty the same 30-round magazine in five to ten seconds. 69. The United States Army considers semiautomatic fire more effective than automatic fire in most combat situations. 70. "Civilian" semiautomatic rifles like the XM15-E2S, therefore, are capable of the same rapid fire that the U.S. Army deems optimal for the military theater. 71. Structurally and mechanically, AR-15 rifles remain the progeny - and instruments - of war. 72. Semiautomatic fire unleashes a torrent of bullets in a matter of seconds; large-capacity [*13] magazines allow for prolonged assaults; and powerful velocity makes each hit catastrophic. 73. The net effect is more wounds, of greater severity, in more victims, in less time. 74. This superior capacity for lethality - above and beyond other semiautomatic weapons - is why the AR-15 has endured as the U.S. military's weapon of choice for 50 years. C. A "Civilian" Weapon Marketed for Combat 75. The uniquely military characteristics of the AR-15 are not lost on the Bushmaster Defendants. 76. Indeed, the Bushmaster Defendants attract buyers by extolling the militaristic and assaultive qualities of their AR-15 rifles, including the XM15-E2S. 77. The Bushmaster Defendants promote their AR-15s by advertising that the most elite branches of the military - including Special Forces, SEALs, Green Berets, and Army Rangers - have used them. 78. The Bushmaster Defendants tout Bushmaster rifle barrels as "the finest AR15-Type/M16-Type barrels made," promising that they "provide the same matte black, non-reflective finish found on quality military-type arms." 79. When the Bushmaster Defendants rolled out a new AR-15 rifle model, defendants' advertising lauded the gun as "the uncompromising [*14] choice when you demand a rifle as mission-adaptable as you are." 80. A Bushmaster product catalogue shows soldiers moving on patrol through jungles, armed with Bushmaster rifles. Superimposed over the silhouette of a soldier holding his helmet against the backdrop of an American flag is text that reads: "When you need to perform under pressure, Bushmaster delivers." 81. In another Bushmaster product catalogue, firearms like the XM15-E2S are advertised with the slogan, "military-proven performance." 82. The Bushmaster Defendants have promoted one of their "civilian" rifles as "the ultimate combat weapons system." 83. The Bushmaster Defendants' marketing invokes the unparalleled destructive power of their AR-15 rifles. In one product catalogue, advertising copy above a close-up of an AR-15 reads: "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered." 84. The Bushmaster Defendants' militaristic marketing reinforces the image of the AR-15 as a combat weapon used for the purpose of waging war and killing human beings. 85. This marketing tactic dovetails with the widespread popularity of realistic and addictive first-person shooter games - such as "Call of Duty" - that [*15] prominently feature AR-15s and reward players for "head shots" and "kill streaks," among other assaultive and violent "achievements." 86. It is widely known that such games expose players to intensely realistic tactical scenarios and teach assaultive weapon techniques such as taped reloads, by which high-capacity magazines are taped together to reduce reloading time. 87. The Bushmaster Defendants further promote the use of the XM15-E2S and similar rifles as combat weapons by designating in their product catalogues that 30-round magazines are "standard" for those models. The Bushmaster Defendants even include a 30-round magazine with each purchased AR-15. 88. By contrast, the Bushmaster Defendants' hunting and sporting rifles come equipped with significantly less ammunition. 89. According to the Bushmaster Defendants, 5-round magazines are "standard" for the .450 Bushmaster rifle, which is advertised as "suitable for all North American big game." 90. According to the Bushmaster Defendants, 5-round magazines are "standard" for the Bushmaster "Predator Rifle," which is described as "the ultimate predator-hunting carry rifle." 91. According to the Bushmaster Defendants, 5-round magazines are "standard" for the Bushmaster "Varminter Rifle," which is "built specifically for varmint hunters." 92. According to the Bushmaster Defendants, 10-round magazines are "standard" for the Bushmaster "Competition Rifle." D. A "Civilian" Weapon with no Legitimate Civilian Purpose 93. As set forth above, the AR-15's combination of exceptional muzzle velocity, ability to accept large-capacity magazines, and effective rapid fire has significant utility in the military context. These same features make the weapon grossly ill-suited for legitimate civilian purposes. Self-Defense 94. There is no evidence that semiautomatic rifles are commonly used for, or necessary for, legitimate self-defense by law-abiding citizens. 95. Semiautomatic rifles' length makes them inferior to smaller guns in the confines of a home. 96. It is handguns, and not long guns, that are widely considered to be the optimal weapon for home defense. 97. In D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 629 (2008), the Supreme Court of the United States extolled the handgun as the "quintessential self-defense weapon." The Court cited several reasons for this: "It is easier to store in a location [*17] that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police." These characteristics are absent from the AR-15. 98. Semiautomatic rifles are not only ill-suited to home defense, they are dangerous when used in that capacity. 99. The velocity and rate of semiautomatic fire in the home creates a significant risk of what is referred to as "over-penetration," where bullets breach walls and doors, putting family members, neighbors, and even passers-by at risk. 100. The military has concluded that use of the Ml 6 in close quarters greatly increases the risk of fratricide and noncombatant casualties, and trains soldiers accordingly. 101. When Bushmaster's AR-15 was reviewed by Guns & Ammo Magazine in 1983, the reviewer commented: "As a home defense weapon, it certainly possesses ample firepower with a 30-round magazine, but the .223 cartridge is a mite too powerful and penetrating for this use." It concluded that the rifle would instead be of value to "a police S.W.A. [*18] T. team in close-quarter encounters with evil-doers." 102. Moreover, the ability to accept large-capacity magazines, vital for modern combat, is unnecessary for home defense. 103. The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action ("NRA-ILA") maintains a database of "armed citizen" stories describing private citizens who have successfully defended themselves or others using a firearm. According to a study of all incidents in that database from 1997 to 2001, an average of 2.2 shots were fired by defenders; and in 28% of incidents, no shots were fired at all. A follow-up study of incidents that occurred from 2011 to 2013 revealed that defenders fired an average of 2.1 shots. 104. The likelihood of an AR-15 causing accidental harm when used for home defense substantially exceeds the likelihood that large quantities of semiautomatic fire will be necessary for protection. ENTRUSTMENT OF MILITARY WEAPONS TO THE PUBLIC 144. The military and law enforcement have a legitimate need for a weapon as lethal as the AR-15, but they also recognize that strict safety measures and rigorous oversight are necessary to protect soldiers, police officers, and innocent civilians from physical harm. 145. When AR-15s are entrusted to the public, [*25] no legitimate need is served and no institutional structure is in place to oversee the safe and intelligent use of those weapons.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

In lieu of filing an Answer to Defendants’ First Amended Complaint, the Defendants’ filed their Motion to Strike the Complaint. What is a ‘motion to strike’; what is its purpose; what is it supposed to do? The Connecticut Supreme Court the purpose of a motion to strike, in Santorso v. Bristol Hosp., 308 Conn. 338; 63 A.3d 940; 2013 Conn. LEXIS 120, explains:"A motion to strike challenges the legal sufficiency of a pleading . . . and, consequently, requires no factual findings by the trial court. As a result, our review of the court's ruling is plenary. . . . We take the facts to be those alleged in the complaint that has been stricken and we construe the complaint in the manner most favorable to sustaining its legal sufficiency. . . . Thus, [i]f facts provable in the complaint would support a cause of action, the motion to strike must be denied. . . . A motion to strike is properly granted if the complaint alleges mere conclusions of law that are unsupported by the facts alleged." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Bridgeport Harbour Place I, LLC v. Ganim, 303 Conn. 205, 212-13, 32 A.3d 296 (2011)." The motion to strike a complaint (pleading) is the same thing as a motion to dismiss as the latter concept is understood and utilized in most jurisdictions. The Soto Defendants are claiming that, on no set of facts—when accepted as true—do the Soto Plaintiffs have a basis for having their case heard. A motion to strike, if granted, obviates the need for trial on the merits. Basically, Defendants are saying that, for purposes of argument, the Court can accept the truth of every allegation of the Complaint and that, it doesn’t matter because, as a matter of law, not fact, the Soto Plaintiffs case must be dismissed. The motion to strike is, then, a very powerful legal maneuver. The Superior Court then looked at the allegations of the First Amended Complaint to ascertain whether, as a matter of law, there was at least one factual allegation that warranted a trial on the merits. The Superior Court looked carefully at Plaintiffs’ allegations and determined that, as a matter of law, the Soto Plaintiffs’ case is meritless, and granted the Defendants’ motion to strike in total. The Soto Plaintiffs thereupon appealed the adverse decision directly to the Connecticut Supreme Court. The Court accepted review and listened to arguments on both sides. Given the importance of Defendants’ challenge, the Arbalest Quarrel analyzes the Superior Court’s reasoning, in depth below. In the next article on Soto, we will look at arguments presented by both Defendants and Plaintiffs and we will look at a few amicus curiae (friend of court) briefs as well. Once the Connecticut Supreme Court issues its ruling, we will then report on the Connecticut high Court’s findings.

CAN FIREARMS MANUFACTURERS BE HELD LIABLE FOR MISUSE OF FIREARMS BY PERSONS WHOM THE MANUFACTURERS ARE NOT IN PRIVITY WITH—THAT IS TO SAY, CAN FIREARMS MANUFACTURERS BE HELD LIABLE FOR MISUSE OF FIREARMS BY INDIVIDUALS WHOM FIREARMS MANUFACTURERS HAVE NEVER SOLD FIREARMS DIRECTLY TO AND, THEREFORE, HAVE HAD NO DIRECT CONTACT WITH AND, SO, HAVE HAD NO DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF?

You may recall that, during the 2016 Democratic Party Nomination Debates, U.S. Presidential Candidates Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley, and Lincoln Chafee, playing to their audience, comprised of individuals who have no understanding of firearms—apart from the false and even absurd ideas about firearms they see in the movies, given Hollywood’s ludicrous cinematic treatment of firearms and what they read in the Press or what they hear when tuning in to their favorite liberal pundits on PBS, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC or what they gather from comedians like Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert, peppering and lacing their comments with imbecilic notions regarding firearms—falling over each other, trying to convince their audience that one rather than the other had the most virulent attitudes toward firearms. Each of them argued that manufacturers of firearms could and should be held for criminal misuse of firearms. Curiously, the one “Socialist” Democratic Party Candidate, Bernie Sanders offered up that manufacturers, as third parties cannot and ought not be held liable for criminal misuse of firearms. Of course, Sanders hales from a Libertarian State, Vermont, and it would hardly do for Sanders to take as hard and unequivocal stand against gun ownership and possession as the other Democratic Party Candidates. But, Sanders was right. Firearms manufacturers cannot be held liable for the misuse of firearms by individuals. That doesn’t stop lawsuits. That doesn’t stop plaintiffs from attempting to hold firearms manufacturers liable for homicides and other mayhem committed with firearms by lunatics and maniacs, by psychopathic criminals, and by assorted mental incompetents and misfits with whom the manufacturers have no knowledge of.

SOTO PLAINTIFFS’ THEORY OF LIABILITY AGAINST BUSHMASTER

A. PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT (PLCAA)

Soto’s theory of liability against Bushmaster rests in principal part on a misguided attempt to shoehorn federal law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), 15 U.S.C. §7901 et seq. (2012), into a cause of action against Bushmaster to hold Bushmaster liable for the harm committed by a lunatic, Adam Lanza, whom Bushmaster has had absolutely no connection with. Soto’s reliance on the PLCAA is particularly misguided because Congress enacted the PLCAA for the express purpose of protecting firearms manufacturers from claims brought by individuals harmed by parties with whom those firearms manufacturers have no connection with. The PLCAA was designed specifically to protect manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits against them when Plaintiffs flail about looking to cast blame on the wrong party rather than on the right party—the criminal, lunatic, maniac, psychopath—that misused the firearm in the first place. What does the PLCAA say? In principal part, the Act says this:(a) Findings. Congress finds the following: (1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms. (3) Lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms that operate as designed and intended, which seek money damages and other relief for the harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals. (4) The manufacture, importation, possession, sale, and use of firearms and ammunition in the United States are heavily regulated by Federal, State, and local laws. Such Federal laws include the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National Firearms Act [26 USCS §§ 5801 et seq.], and the Arms Export Control Act [22 USCS §§ 2751 et seq.]. (5) Businesses in the United States that are engaged in interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale to the public of firearms or ammunition products that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce are not, and should not, be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended. (6) The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system, erodes public confidence in our Nation's laws, threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil liberty, invites the disassembly and destabilization of other industries and economic sectors lawfully competing in the free enterprise system of the United States, and constitutes an unreasonable burden on interstate and foreign commerce of the United States. (b) Purposes. The purposes of this Act are as follows: (1) To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended. (2) To preserve a citizen's access to a supply of firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting. (3) To guarantee a citizen's rights, privileges, and immunities, as applied to the States, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to section 5 of that Amendment. (4) To prevent the use of such lawsuits to impose unreasonable burdens on interstate and foreign commerce.Now, 15 U.S.C. § 7901(b)(1), especially, prohibits the very cause of action under the Act that the Soto Plaintiffs wrongly believe follows from an application of the Act unless there exists an exception. But, this is not to say that firearms manufacturers have absolute liability from suit, contrary to charges made by Hillary Clinton and those of her ilk—amounting to epitaphs against the entire firearms’ industry. Congress gives, under PLCAA, firearms manufacturers qualified immunity only.One exception that the Soto Plaintiffs attempt to rely on to shoehorn a cause of action against Bushmaster under the PLCAA is negligent entrustment (negligence per se). The paramount question is, then, whether, negligent entrustment can be imposed on Bushmaster for the harm that Adam Lanza caused. It can unless Bushmaster is immune from liability under the concept of qualified immunity, under 15 U.S.C. §7903(5)(A)(ii) (2012). We have to look at the meaning of ‘qualified immunity’ as used in and under PLCAA.

1. WHAT IS QUALIFIED IMMUNITY UNDER THE PLCAA

Qualified immunity is defined in 15 U.S.C. §7903(5)(A) (2012) of the PLCAA. That section says this: “In general. The term ‘qualified civil liability action’ means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party.”Qualified immunity under the PLCAA means then that firearms manufacturers generally have no liability for the harm their products caused another through the misuse of its firearms by a third party but that exceptions exist, as further set forth in that statutory section—hence the use of the legal expression, ‘qualified immunity,’ rather than ‘absolute immunity’, the latter term of which would shield a firearms manufacturer from all liability brought by a party plaintiff against the firearms manufacturer for harm that the firearms manufacturer caused to another through misuse of its products by a third party. Qualified immunity, acts, then as a shield, which does protect a firearms manufacturer from liability, unless that qualified immunity is lost—essentially shattered, which opens a firearms’ manufacturer up to liability. Qualified immunity may share an attribute of absolute immunity in the sense that qualified immunity, if it attaches, is an entitlement not to stand trial. But, unlike absolute immunity that entitlement may in certain circumstances be lost. Those circumstances are set forth in 15 U.S.C. §7903(5)(A) (2012). For a discussion on immunity, qualified and absolute, see generally,  Mitchell vs. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 ; 105 S. Ct. 2806; 86 L. Ed. 2d 411; 1985 U.S. LEXIS 113, discussing immunity as applied to Government official, where the concept of immunity ordinarily applies. But, in the context here, where qualified immunity applies to a firearms manufacturer (Congressional Statute based immunity), this means that Bushmaster is not liable for the harm that the maniac, Adam Lanza, caused students and staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut unless Bushmaster’s qualified immunity shield is lost through an exception, and Plaintiffs’ that are bringing the suit against Bushmaster and other Defendants, has the burden of showing that an exception, under PLCAA exists through which liability can be imposed upon Bushmaster and others in the lawsuit.Plaintiffs’ that are bringing the suit against Bushmaster and other Defendants, have the burden of showing that an exception, under PLCAA exists through which liability can be imposed upon Bushmaster and others in the lawsuit.One exception that causes a firearms manufacturer to lose its liability is predicated on the legal principle of ‘negligent entrustment.’ Soto claims that Bushmaster can and should be held liable under this principle of ‘negligent entrustment’ and the PLCAA does refer to ‘negligent entrustment’ as one of six stated exceptions to a firearm manufacturer’s defense of qualified immunity. This notion of ‘negligent entrustment’ has a very specific meaning in the PLCAA and, for a party plaintiff to claim the negligent entrustment exception to qualified immunity, the party plaintiff must, in the first instance, allege facts that comport with the elements of negligent entrustment. The negligent entrustment exception to a firearms manufacturer’s defense of qualified immunity falls under 15 U.S.C. §7903(5)(A)(ii) (2012) of the PLCAA.

2. WHAT DOES THE LEGAL EXPRESSION, ‘NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT,’ UNDER THE PLCAA MEAN?

In this Act, 15 U.S.C. §7903(5)(B) (2012): “As used in subparagraph (A)(ii), the term ‘negligent entrustment’ means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.”Can negligent entrustment be imposed on Bushmaster for the harm that Adam Lanza caused? On its face, the answer is “no.” Bushmaster did not sell the weapon that Adam Lanza used in the murdering innocent children and staff at the elementary school. Hence, it cannot be said that Bushmaster knew or reasonably should have known that “the person to whom the product was supplied was likely to and did use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.” Generally, negligent entrustment would be applied to firearms dealers, not firearms manufacturers as it is the dealers, not the manufacturers who are in direct contact with. But, then, the PLCAA does not protect firearms dealers anyway. It was designed to protect firearms manufacturers from suit. In any event, the gun dealer who sold the weapon that Adam Lanza used in committing murder did not sell the weapon to Lanza as he was prohibited under law from owning and possessing firearms. The weapon was sold to Adam Lanza’s mother and Lanza’s mother failed to properly secure the firearm. It is Adam Lanza’s mother who, in the first instance, is the party responsible for the murderous shooting spree that followed.

3. WHAT DID THE CONNECTICUT SUPERIOR COURT SAY CONCERNING APPLICATION OF PLCAA TO THE CASE?

The Superior Court of Connecticut made clear the point that, for a party plaintiff to overcome or override a manufacturer’s qualified immunity under the PLCAA—in other words, to state cause of action, say, negligent entrustment—such claim, must arise under State law, not federal law. The Superior Court explicitly asserts that PLCAA only preserves those State claims that fall within one of the enumerated exceptions, such as negligent entrustment actions. Exceptions to PLCAA do not constitute a basis for a cause of action. The Court said:“Although PLCAA explicitly preserves claims that fall within its enumerated exceptions, such as negligent entrustment actions, it does not create them. 15 U.S.C. §7903(5)(A)(ii) and (5)(C) (2012). PLCAA explicitly provides that ‘no provision of this chapter shall be construed to create a public or private cause of action or remedy.’ 15 U.S.C. §7903(5)(C) (2012). By its own terms, therefore, PLCAA cannot be read as creating a cause of action. Accordingly, the court concludes that for a plaintiff's negligent entrustment claim to be permitted under PLCAA. it must arise under state law. See Phillips v. Lucky Gunner, LLC, 84 F.Sup.3d 1216 (2015) (‘Although the PLCAA identifies negligent entrustment as an exception to immunity, it does not create the cause of action . . . Accordingly, the claim arises under state law’). Nonetheless, because Congress specifically included a definition of "negligent entrustment" in PLCAA, the court presumes that the definition serves a purpose and carries a meaning beyond merely referencing state common-law claims. Therefore, any state law negligent entrustment claim must also satisfy the PLCAA definition of ‘negligent entrustment.’ See, e.g., Delana v. CED Sales, Inc., 486 S.W.3d 316 (Mo. 2016), reh'g denied (May 24, 2016) ("a state-law claim may continue to be asserted . . . if it falls within the definition of a 'negligent entrustment' claim provided in the PLCAA"). Accordingly, the court will examine whether the plaintiffs' allegations meet the requirements for negligent entrustment claims under both Connecticut common law and the statutory definition set forth in PLCAA.”The Superior Court of Connecticut made clear that, if the Soto Plaintiffs' claim predicated on “negligent entrustment is tenable, Soto must satisfy the elements for a cause of action of negligent entrustment against Bushmaster as set forth in State law, as well as meeting the definition of ‘negligent entrustment’ set forth in PLCAA. So, the question is what are the elements of a cause of action for “negligent entrustment” in Connecticut and, second, has Soto, adequately pled those elements in its CM?

B. DOES SOTO’S CM SATISFACTORILY ALLEGE A VALID CLAIM OF NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT UNDER CONNECTICUT LAW?

1. WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT?

In Connecticut, there are two elements that comprise negligent entrustment. The Superior Court said this about negligent entrustment:"More specifically, the Superior Court has determined that an entrustment can be considered negligent only if (1) there is actual or constructive knowledge that the entrustee is incompetent or has a dangerous propensity, and (2) the injury resulted from that incompetence or propensity. See, e.g., Arocho v. Simonelli, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, Docket No. CV-12-6013221-S, 2015 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1635 (June 23, 2015, Adams, J.T.R.); Kaminsky v. Scoopo, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV-08-6002084-S (July 30, 2008, Bellis, J.) (46 Conn. L. Rptr. 82, 83, 2008 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1910). "Actual knowledge is based on incompetency or a failure to appreciate some visible or demonstrable impairment . . . whereas constructive knowledge . . . is based on facts that are openly apparent or readily discernible." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Morillo v. Georges, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-15-6058761-S (December 31, 2015, Peck, J.) (61 Conn. L. Rptr. 541, 544, 2015 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3191). Whether actual or constructive, knowledge "is the essential element of a cause of action for negligent entrustment." Beale v. Martins, Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Docket No. CV-13-6020940-S (December 1, 2015, Brazzel-Massaro, J.) (61 Conn. L. Rptr. 389, 390, 2015 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2989) ("[w]ithout the key allegation of knowledge, the plaintiff has not sufficiently pled a claim for negligent entrustment"); see also Kaminsky v. Scoopo, supra. . . ."On the basis of the Court’s reasoning it’s clear that Bushmaster must have knowledge, whether constructive or actual, that Adam Lanza, the “entrustee,” was incompetent or dangerous and therefore should not have had access to firearm or firearms that were manufactured by Bushmaster and that were used in the deadly shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in Newtown, Connecticut. So, the question is:

2. FROM THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT, DID BUSHMASTER HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF ADAM LANZA’S MENTAL INCOMPETENCY OR DANGEROUS PROPENSITY TO HARM SELF OR OTHERS WITH BUSHMASTER’S FIREARMS?

The Court acknowledged that Soto Plaintiffs admitted: “In the present case, the court agrees with the plaintiffs that the theory of common-law negligent entrustment rests on the foreseeability of the likelihood of misuse of the chattel.” But, what is the nature of the foreseeability that satisfies the knowledge requirement of negligent entrustment? According to the Court, “The plaintiffs . . . have explicitly stated that their claims are not dependent on these parties' propensities; instead, the plaintiffs argue, ‘in a top-down case like this [the court looks] to the propensities of a class of individuals and the environment in which those individuals are likely to use [the instrument].’ In other words, the plaintiffs suggest that a claim of negligent entrustment can be sufficiently alleged where the chattel will ultimately reach individuals who are likely to misuse it.” But, are the Soto Plaintiffs' correct? The Court said this, about foreseeability:“. . . [I]n order to allege a legally sufficient negligent entrustment claim, the plaintiffs must allege that each entrustment was initially negligent. In other words, the plaintiffs must identify what foreseeable misuse rendered the initial entrustees incompetent. In the operative complaint, the plaintiffs have alleged the following relevant facts: The defendants knew or had reason to know that their respective entrustees were engaging in substantial sales of military caliber AR-15s, meant for specialized, highly regulated institutions, such as the armed forces and law enforcement, to the civilian market on a consistent basis and that such sales would give individuals who are unfit to operate the weapons access to them. Complaint, ¶¶9, 12. This, the defendants knew or should have known, posed an unreasonable and egregious risk of physical injury. Complaint, ¶213. Finally, each defendant knew, or should have known, that their respective entrustee's use of the product involved an unreasonable risk of physical injury to others. Complaint, ¶¶224, 225. Despite this knowledge, the plaintiffs allege, by transferring the XM15-E2S to each entrustee, the defendants continued to entrust the XM15-E2S to the civilian population. Complaint, ¶¶171, 172, 176, 177, 178, 182. Accordingly, the plaintiffs allege, selling to the civilian market is a misuse that renders each entrustment tortious.”The Superior Court of Connecticut thereupon concluded “that such sales do not constitute misuse as a matter of law. The court does not agree with the plaintiffs' assertion that the common law recognizes a class as broad as civilians to support a claim for negligent entrustment.”The Soto Plaintiffs  would have the Court hold a firearms manufacturer liable for any misuse of a firearm among the entirety of the civilian population, consisting of over three hundred million individuals residing in this Country. If the Court bought into that argument that would essentially negate the import of PLCAA and essentially create absolute liability for a firearms manufacturer. This in essence is what Soto and, indeed, antigun groups and antigun legislators seek to do. It is what antigun proponents like Feinstein, and Pelosi and Clinton and Schumer would like to see. They wish to make firearms manufacturers liable for every instance of misuse of a firearm. The risk of liability would thus be so great that firearms manufacturers would be either forced out of business or would have to raise the price of any given firearm they manufacture to tens of thousands of dollars in order to offset the risk of a costly lawsuit. Obviously, very few individuals could afford to purchase a firearm and the result would again be that firearms manufacturers would be forced out of business. Thus, this would amount to end-run around the Second Amendment, resulting in de facto repeal of the Second Amendment.Since, fortunately, the Superior Court of Connecticut determined that the Soto Plaintiffs had failed to allege facts sufficient to support a claim of negligent entrustment under Connecticut law, the Court said it was unnecessary to consider whether facts alleged meet the definition of negligent entrustment under PLCAA. The Court said, “In light of this court's conclusion above that the plaintiffs' negligent entrustment allegations are legally insufficient under Connecticut's common law, it is not necessary for this court to consider whether those claims meet the narrower definition of such claims set forth in PLCAA. Nevertheless, in the interest of thoroughness, and to provide an alternative basis for this court's decision with regard to the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs' negligent entrustment claims, the court will also consider whether the plaintiffs' claims satisfy the narrower definition of negligent entrustment under PLCAA.” Since the Soto Plaintiffs' negligent entrustment claim as an exception to PLCAA qualified immunity fails, did the Soto Plaintiffs allege any other exception to PLCAA qualified immunity, as there exist six predicate statutory exceptions in PLCAA. The answer is, "yes."

C. CUTPA AS A PREDICATE STATUTE EXCEPTION?

The Soto Plaintiffs “allege that the defendants' conduct constituted a knowing violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes §42-110a et seq.” Why did the Soto Plaintiffs bring up CUTPA?Once again, keep uppermost in mind that, in order for a party plaintiff to proceed with a case against a firearms manufacturer, supplier, distributor, or seller, the plaintiff must breach the shield of qualified immunity under federal law: the PLCAA. There are six ways to do this. That is to say, there are six exceptions to qualified immunity under PLCAA. The Soto Plaintiffs rely on two that appear to be at least theoretically feasible. One exception is the negligent entrustment exception to qualified immunity but the Superior Court determined that this exception is not available to the Soto Plaintiffs for the reasons given, supra. The other possible basis is grounded on violations of Federal or State trade practices related to the marketing or sale of a firearm. The Soto Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated State law pertaining to commercial trade practices, CUTPA.

1. WHAT DOES CUTPA SAY?

The import and purport of  CUTPA is expressed in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b, titled Unfair trade practices prohibited. Legislative intent. The Statute says this:(a) No person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. (b) It is the intent of the legislature that in construing subsection (a) of this section, the commissioner and the courts of this state shall be guided by interpretations given by the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts to Section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 USC 45(a)(1)), as from time to time amended. (c) The commissioner may, in accordance with chapter 54, establish by regulation acts, practices or methods which shall be deemed to be unfair or deceptive in violation of subsection (a) of this section. Such regulations shall not be inconsistent with the rules, regulations and decisions of the federal trade commission and the federal courts in interpreting the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act. (d) It is the intention of the legislature that this chapter be remedial and be so construed. The question is whether the Soto Plaintiffs can shoehorn CUTPA into PLCAA. If so, then CUTPA becomes the predicate statute exception necessary to strip Bushmaster of its qualified immunity under PLCAA. The Superior Court of Connecticut explained that nothing existed in PLCAA to suggest that CUTPA is to be read broadly, as the Soto Plaintiffs allege, to implicate the sale or marketing of firearms. To answer this question, the Superior Court of Connecticut looked to the “sale or marketing of the product” exception to a firearm manufacturer’s qualified immunity that might feasibly apply to this case. That exception as written in PLCAA is found in 15 U.S.C. §7903(5)(A)(iii), which says: The term ‘qualified civil liability action’ means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include . . . (iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including— (I) any case in which the manufacturer or seller knowingly made any false entry in, or failed to make appropriate entry in, any record required to be kept under Federal or State law with respect to the qualified product, or aided, abetted, or conspired with any person in making any false or fictitious oral or written statement with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of a qualified product; or (II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code;In order for an unfair trades practice to PLCAA to operate as an exception to a firearms manufacturer’s qualified immunity, it is necessary for the manufacturer to either have to have engaged in an action amounting to fraud or to have aided, abetted, or conspired with any person, such as a firearms dealer, to sell a firearm to a buyer whom the firearms’ manufacturer knows or has “reasonable cause to believe” that the actual buyer of the firearm is prohibited under federal law “from possessing or receiving. In Soto, the Plaintiffs made no allegation in their lengthy First Amended CM to so much as suggest that Bushmaster had either committed fraud or aided another in the commission of fraud in the sale of its AR-15, or that Bushmaster had aided, abetted, or conspired with any other named Defendant Seller or Distributor of the AR-15 semiautomatic Rifle to sell the rifle to someone whom Bushmaster knew or had reasonable cause to believe could not lawfully possess or receive a firearm under applicable federal law, namely, under 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g) or under 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(n). For, it is clear that none of the Defendants in Soto had been engaged in a sale of the AR-15 Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle That should have been sufficient to preclude the Soto Plaintiffs from relying on 15 U.S.C. §7903(5)(A)(iii) of PLCAA as an exception to qualified immunity since, whether CUTPA applies or not, there is nothing to suggest, in the allegations of the First Amended CM, that Bushmaster had engaged in fraud or had conspired or aided or abetted the selling of a firearm to a person who is not lawfully permitted to possess or receive a firearm. But, the Superior Court seemed to avoid that conclusion and looked to whether CUTPA, in the first instance, applies as a predicate statutory exception to qualified immunity, notwithstanding that, nothing in the myriad allegations of the pleading set forth anything suggesting that Bushmaster engaged in fraud or had knowingly conspired to sell its model AR-15 semiautomatic rifle to a lunatic and maniac, Adam Lanza. Of course, the Soto Plaintiffs’, wish to make “a go” of their attack against Bushmaster. In that effort they allege that, although, obviously, Bushmaster did not knowingly sell its model AR-15 to Adam Lanza, who was under legal disability and could not legally possess any firearm anyway—and, after all, the model AR-15 semiautomatic rifle was lawfully sold to Adam Lanza’s mother, who was not under legal disability. The Soto Plaintiffs’, in their First Amended CM, make much of the idea that Bushmaster’s marketing targeted the entirety of the civilian population in this Nation, and that some members of that civilian population embrace, criminal elements, sociopaths, psychopaths, and other assorted lunatics and maniacs. But, the Superior Court found nothing in CUTPA that provided a hook upon which the Soto Plaintiffs could argue an exception to Bushmaster’s qualified immunity. As the Court said: “There is no appellate authority resolving the issue of whether CUTPA qualifies as a predicate statute or discussing the breadth of the predicate exception.” Since the Superior Court found nothing in Connecticut’s unfair trade practices law upon which the Soto Plaintiffs could obtain the hook necessary to break through the Defendants’ shield of qualified immunity under the PLCAA, the Superior looked to federal law—specifically, to the law of the Second Circuit, which covers the territory of Connecticut, New York, and Vermont—to see if there is anything in federal law that would support an exception to Bushmaster’s qualified immunity under the PLCAA. As the Superior Court said: “under principles set forth previously in this memorandum, the court must follow the plain meaning rule to interpret the federal statute and, accordingly, will look to the decisions of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals as particularly persuasive authority.”Looking at Second Circuit opinion, the Superior Court drilled down to determine whether the word, ‘applicable,’ as it appears in the PLCAA: "The term ‘qualified civil liability action’ means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include . . . (iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought. . . .”  The term, 'applicable,' appears in the third exception to qualified immunity set forth in the PLCAA, applies to the sale or marketing of firearms. The reasoning of the Court is insightful, and is cited here at length:"In New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., supra, 524 F.3d 384, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals specifically addressed the meaning of the term ‘applicable’ as Congress used that word in the phrase ‘statute applicable to the sale or marketing of [firearms].’ In Beretta, the city of New York brought an action against various firearms manufacturers to decrease the alleged public nuisance caused by the defendants' negligent and reckless merchandising of handguns. While the plaintiffs relied on the dictionary definition of ‘applicable,’ i.e., ‘capable of being applied,’ the defendants argued that “‘the phrase ‘statute applicable to the sale or marketing of [a firearm]’ in the context of the language in the entire statute limits the predicate exception to statutes specifically and expressly regulating the manner in which a firearm is sold or marketed—statutes specifying when, where, how, and to whom a firearm may be sold or marketed.’” Id., 400. After determining that both groups of parties in Beretta relied on a reasonable meaning of the term, the Second Circuit conducted a statutory interpretation of the word using canons of statutory construction and the legislative history of PLCAA. Ultimately, the court held that the exception created by 15 U.S.C. §7903(5)(A)(iii) ‘does encompass statutes (a) that expressly regulate firearms, or (b) that courts have applied to the sale and marketing of firearms; and . . . does encompass statutes that do not expressly regulate firearms but that clearly can be said to implicate the purchase and sale of firearms.’ Id., 404. In light of this highly persuasive interpretation of the term ‘applicable,’ and because CUTPA does not expressly regulate firearms, the court must next analyze whether: (1) courts have applied CUTPA to the sale and marketing of firearms, or (2) CUTPA clearly can be said to implicate the purchase and sale of firearms. With regard to whether CUTPA is a statute that courts have previously applied to the sale or marketing of firearms, the answer is yes. Specifically, in Salomonson v. Billistics, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of New London, Docket No. CV-88-508292, 1991 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2231 (September 27, 1991, Freedman, J.T.R.), the court held that ‘[t]he instant transactions for the sale, manufacture and delivery of remanufacturer weapons to Plaintiff meets the statutory definition of trade or commerce, General Statutes §42-110a(4) . . .’ In addition, in Ganim v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 258 Conn. 313, 780 A.2d 98 (2001), the plaintiffs, the city of Bridgeport and its mayor, Joseph Ganim, asserted CUTPA claims against the defendants, various firearm manufacturers, trade associations, and retail sellers, arising from the defendants' alleged misconduct in the advertising, marketing, and selling of handguns. Id., 315-16, 334-35. Although the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the CUTPA claims on standing grounds; id., 373; it expressed no concern regarding whether the statute applied to such transactions. To the contrary, the Supreme Court expressly left open the possibility that a CUTPA claim based on a defendant's misleading marketing of firearms could be maintained by appropriate plaintiffs who are less removed than those in the Ganim case. Therefore, the test set forth in New York v. Beretta is satisfied because the Superior Court has applied CUTPA to the sale and marketing of firearms. Accordingly, CUTPA is a valid predicate statute.”Boiled down to its essence, the Superior Court determined that, because, under the law of the Second Circuit, CUTPA does apply to the sale and marketing of firearms, the Superior Court concluded that CUTPA does operate as a proper predicate statute. But, that isn’t the end of the inquiry. Even though the Superior Court ruled that CUTPA is a valid predicate statute that can therefore be availed upon by party plaintiffs to be utilized against the firearms manufacturers to attack the shield of qualified immunity, that isn’t the end of the inquiry. That alone does not suffice to break through the shield of qualified immunity. For, the question then arises, according to the Superior Court whether a proper commercial or proper consumer relationship exists between a defendant firearms manufacturer, supplier, distributor, or seller, and the party plaintiffs who have filed suit against the defendant manufacturer, supplier, distributor, or seller. So, the Superior Court asked, and we ask here:

2. DOES A PROPER COMMERCIAL OR CONSUMER RELATIONSHIP EXIST BETWEEN THE SOTO PLAINTIFFS ON THE ONE HAND AND THE SOTO DEFENDANTS ON THE OTHER SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT AN ACTION BY THE PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANTS BUSHMASTER GROUNDED ON UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES UNDER CONNECTICUT’S CUTPA, THEREBY BREAKING THROUGH THE SHIELD OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY OF THE PLCAA, ALLOWING PLAINTIFFS TO ARGUE THE MERITS OF THEIR CASE SUPPORTING THEIR PRAYER FOR DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL DEATH AND PRAYER FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF?

If a proper commercial or consumer relationship connection can be legally drawn between Bushmaster and the killer, Adam Lanza, then, in that event, that would allow the Soto Plaintiffs to pierce the shield of the PLCAA, stripping Defendants’ PLCAA qualified immunity and allowing Soto Plaintiffs the opportunity they want to argue the case on the merits. But, then, we must ask whether a proper commercial or consumer relationship exists grounded on the allegations of the First Amended CM.The Defendants argue that the Soto Plaintiffs’ claims, as set forth in their pleading are deficient, and, so, legally insufficient to support the necessary connection between Defendant Bushmaster and the killer of children, Adam Lanza. The Superior Court wrote: “the defendants contend that the CUTPA counts are legally insufficient because CUTPA does not provide protection for persons who do not have a consumer or commercial relationship with the alleged wrongdoer, and such a relationship does not exist between the plaintiffs and the defendants in the present action. In response, the plaintiffs argue that any person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property may sue under CUTPA, regardless of whether they have a consumer or commercial relationship with the defendant. ‘In 1973, when CUTPA was first enacted, the predecessor to §42-110g contained language that limited standing to [a]ny person who purchases or leases goods or services . . . In 1979, however, the legislature amended [CUTPA], deleting all references to purchasers, sellers, lessors, or lessees . . . Notwithstanding the elimination of the privity requirement, [our Supreme Court] previously ha[s] stated that it strains credulity to conclude that CUTPA is so formless as to provide redress to any person, for any ascertainable harm, caused by any person in the conduct of any trade or commerce.’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Vacco v. Microsoft Corp., 260 Conn. 59, 87-88, 793 A.2d 1048 (2002). More recently in Pinette v. McLaughlin, 96 Conn.App. 769, 901 A.2d 1269, cert. denied, 280 Conn. 929, 909 A.2d 958 (2006), our Appellate Court reiterated this point, stating that ‘[a]lthough our Supreme Court repeatedly has stated that CUTPA does not impose the requirement of a consumer relationship . . . the court also has indicated that a plaintiff must have at least some business relationship with the defendant in order to state a cause of action under CUTPA.’ (Citation omitted; emphasis in original.) Id., 778; see also Ventres v. Goodspeed Airport, LLC, 275 Conn. 105, 157-58, 881 A.2d 937 (2005) (rejecting defendants' argument that CUTPA plaintiff is not required to allege any business relationship with defendant), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1111, 126 S.Ct. 1913, 164 L.Ed.2d 664 (2006). ‘Although the doctrine of stare decisis permits a court to overturn its own prior cases in limited circumstances, the concept of binding precedent prohibits a trial court from overturning a prior decision of an appellate court. This prohibition is necessary to accomplish the purpose of a hierarchical judicial system. A trial court is required to follow the prior decisions of an appellate court to the extent that they are applicable to the facts and issues in the case before it, and the trial court may not overturn or disregard binding precedent.’ (Emphasis omitted.) Potvin v. Lincoln Service & Equipment Co., 298 Conn. 620, 650, 6 A.3d 60 (2010). In both Ventres and Pinette, our Supreme Court and Appellate Court, respectively, rejected the plaintiffs' assertions that they need not allege any business relationship with the defendants in order to bring claims against them under CUTPA. Although this court acknowledges that, consistent with the plaintiffs' argument, the language of CUTPA itself makes no mention of a business relationship requirement, this court is bound by the appellate court precedent set by Ventres and Pinette. The plaintiffs here do not contend that a consumer, competitor, or other commercial relationship exists between themselves, i.e., the Sandy Hook shooting victims, and the defendants, i.e., the manufacturers and/or sellers of the gun allegedly used in the Sandy Hook shooting. Because the plaintiffs do not allege at least some business relationship with the defendants, pursuant to Ventres and Pinette, they have not set forth legally sufficient violations of CUTPA. Therefore, to the extent that the plaintiffs have relied on CUTPA as a predicate statute, the plaintiffs have not set forth legally sufficient claims permitted under the predicate exception to PLCAA.”What the Superior Court’s reasoning boils down to is this: To break through the shield of qualified immunity of the PLCAA The Soto Plaintiffs must allege that they have a business relationship of some sort with the Defendants. The law of the Second Circuit demands this. Otherwise a party plaintiff is unable, legally, to proceed with their case. In the 230 allegations of the First Amended Complaint, the Soto Plaintiffs allege nothing that so much as suggests the existence of a business relationship between the Plaintiffs and Defendants. Thus, Plaintiffs cannot utilize the State’s CUTPA to break through the Federal PLCAA shield of qualified immunity. And, even if they had, Plaintiffs would still have to allege in the pleadings that, “. . . the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code. In this case, the actual buyer of the product was Adam Lanza’s mother. She was under no federal disability that would have precluded her from owning and possessing a firearm. Defendants did not conspire to market or sell a firearm to Adam Lanza or, for that matter, to anyone who was not legally permitted, under State or federal law, to receive a firearm—any kind of firearm."The Superior Court of Connecticut considered further arguments’ as set forth in the Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Soto Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, but did so merely for completeness. Having found that Plaintiffs’ pleadings failed to allege any facts supporting a basis in law to overcome Defendants’ qualified immunity under the federal PLCAA, the Court, Judge, Barbara N. Bellis, properly disposed of the case. The last sentence of the Memorandum Opinion reads: “For all of the foregoing reasons, the court grants in their entirety the defendants' motions to strike the amended complaint.” Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms Int'l, LLC, 2016 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2626

WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE SOTO CASE AT THE TIME OF POSTING THIS ESSAY?

Having lost at the trial Court level, The Soto Plaintiffs appealed the adverse decision of the trial Court directly to the Connecticut Supreme Court and there the case wended its way--the high Court of Connecticut agreeing to hear Plaintiffs’ challenge to the trial Court’s thorough and well-reasoned Opinion. The Arbalest Quarrel could obtain no document relating to the appeal but we note that an Appellate Court does assert appropriate jurisdiction to hear a decision on a Motion to Strike a pleading when the granting of a Motion to Strike is in full, or at least in part, a trial Court’s final judgment and that a party can choose to skip an appeal to the intermediate Court, appealing directly to the highest State Court, and this, obviously, is exactly what happened, as there exists nothing to suggest that the Soto Plaintiffs asked a Connecticut Appellate Court to review the adverse decision of the Superior Court of Connecticut. But, as for the legal basis for a higher Court hearing on a Motion to Strike, which is not a decision on the merits of the case, but on the very sufficiency of the pleadings, a Connecticut appellate Court said this:“‘Generally, the denial of a motion to strike does not constitute a final judgment because it neither terminates a separate and distinct proceeding nor concludes the rights of the parties so that further proceedings could not affect them.’ White v. White, 42 Conn. App. 747, 749, 680 A.2d 1368 (1996); see also Costecski v. Skarulis, 103 Conn. 762, 762-63, 131 A. 398 (1925) (holding no final judgment when case remains pending in trial court "to be thereafter heard upon its merits, upon the pleadings in the court below, or upon such amended pleadings as might legally be filed"). Our Supreme Court, however, has held that we do have jurisdiction to review a ruling on a motion to strike when it is before us as part of an appeal from a valid final judgment. See Breen v. Phelps, 186 Conn. 86, 88-91, 439 A.2d 1066 (1982). Because the present request to review a motion to strike is coupled with an appeal from the court's rendering of a summary judgment, we have jurisdiction to reach all of the plaintiff's claims. Id.” Campbell v. Town of Plymouth, 74 Conn. App. 67, 811 A.2d 243, 2002 Conn. App. LEXIS 608.A local newspaper, the “Hartford Currant,” reports in an article titled, “Sandy Hook Families' Lawyer To Connecticut Justices: Adam Lanza Heard Gunmaker's Marketing Message,” pointed out that the Connecticut Supreme Court heard arguments on November 14, 2017. The newspaper reports, “A Superior Court judge in Bridgeport dismissed the lawsuit in 2016 agreeing with attorneys for Remington that the lawsuit "falls squarely within the broad immunity" provided to gun manufacturers and dealers by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA. The lawsuit also named Camfour Holding LLP, the gun's distributor, and Riverview Gun Sales Inc., the East Windsor gun shop where Nancy Lanza purchased the AR-15 right around her son’s 18th birthday. Legal experts said the case will come down to how the state Supreme Court will interpret two possible exceptions allowed under PLCAA — whether Remington can be held liable for so-called “negligent entrustment” or whether it violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Negligent entrustment is defined as “supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.” Koskoff started his argument taking the courtroom back to the morning of Dec. 14, 2012 to a “young man on a mission” who knew exactly what weapon to choose to carry out the killings — a Bushmaster assault weapon. “Remington may have never known Adam Lanza but they had been courting him for years,” Koskoff said. “It wasn’t just that [Remington] marketed the weapon looking for people with characteristics of Adam Lanza but that Adam Lanza heard the message. He idolized the military and wanted to be an Army Ranger and Remington marketed the AR-15 as the weapon used by the Army Rangers.”The case will indeed come down to whether the Connecticut Court accepts Plaintiffs’ arguments over those of Defendants as to whether the Plaintiffs arguments claiming a valid negligent entrustment exception or unfair trade practices exception to the qualified immunity defense under the federal PLCAA.The assertion of Plaintiffs’ Counsel, Koskoff, as reported by the newspaper, is rhetorical, and obviously directed to the lay public, with the aim, obviously, to arouse anger and sympathy. But, from a legal and logical perspective, the remarks are devoid of intellectual honesty and are, on that score, utter nonsense.The New York Times, for its part, in an editorial about the Soto case, titled “Parents Fight to Heal Wounds of Sandy Hook,” published on Tuesday, November 28, 2017, and posted a day earlier on the internet, under the title, "Scarred Parents Fight to Rebound After Sandy Hook Massacre," that the case, presently before the Connecticut Supreme Court boils down to this, as apparently perceived by the Soto Plaintiffs: “They’re asking why fast-firing, modified battlefield weapons with large ammunition clips should ever be legally marketed to disturbed and in many cases unhinged civilians via lurid macho-steeped advertising. The adapted wartime rifle like the one used in the Sandy Hook spree has become the weapon choice in mass shooting across the last five years, in which hundreds of people have been murdered.” We can dismiss the simplistic comment in short order. First, the AR-15 model semiautomatic rifle manufactured by Bushmaster and marketed to qualified American civilians is not a “battlefield weapon” and was not manufactured to be a battlefield weapon and is not marketed for sale to the military. Second, the AR-15 model semiautomatic rifle was not marketed to individuals who are under disability as such individuals are not legally permitted to possess that firearm; nor, for that matter, are such individuals permitted to own any firearms. Third, the lunatic, Adam Lanza, obtained the firearm from his mother, whose irresponsibility in properly securing the weapon resulted in her own death and in the subsequent deaths of innocent children and adults. Had Adam Lanza’s mother, Nancy, survived, she, undoubtedly, would face multiple civil lawsuits, and, likely, criminal prosecution as well. For, she, and her son, Adam Lanza—unless he were adjudged incompetent—are the responsible parties for the awful harm done, and not the named Defendants in Soto. The legal claims are against Nancy and Adam Lanza. But, as they are both dead, the claims for wrongful death would have to be lodged against the administrators of Nancy Lanza’s estate, assuming she has an estate to go after. But, simply lashing out at the manufacturer, supplier, distributor, or seller of firearms because those who have been harmed through criminal misuse of their products desire a release valve for their pent-up hurt, and anguish, and rage is not legally, or logically, or rationally justified. The Soto Plaintiffs’ claims are not supported in law. Indeed, there isn’t even a moral basis for their claims. While any normal person can commiserate with the hurt of those who have suffered through this tragedy or, for that matter, through any tragedy, we, as Americans must be circumspect on use of law as a blunt force to promote political, or emotional, or public policy ends. On the matter of the Second Amendment, though, as with the First Amendment, and the Fourth Amendment, it appears the public is whipped up into a continuous frenzy through the machinations of the mainstream media. In that frenzy, the public realizes too late, that they have given up, in one frenetic moment, but for all time, their most cherished rights. —And, might we at least see some consistency. If some, in the public domain, are so willing to take up the sword against firearms and against the manufacturers, suppliers, distributors and sellers of them, why the reticence displayed for those responsible for directing and producing the horrific displays of violence in cinematic releases and why the jaundiced view toward the mayhem presented in the creators of video games? Using the Soto Plaintiffs’ own argument, we may, by the same token, ask: Should these cinematic “violent treats” and games of violence “ever be legally marketed to disturbed and in many cases unhinged civilians via lurid, macho—steeped advertising?” Yet, we know that it would have been perfectly lawful for a fragile, delusional mind like that of Adam Lanza to view all the violent films he wished to see and to immerse himself in all the violent video games he wished to play—all with the blessing and thank you of the Hollywood moguls and of the video game industry honchos. Might we dare ask: How many movies depicting violence and horror had Adam Lanza seen and how many violent video games did Adam Lanza play that, themselves, served as the true impetus for the horror he unleased on the hapless innocent souls once he happened to obtain his mother’s improperly secured firearms? Perhaps Adam Lanza thought, in his feverish mind that, in the carnage he caused, he was in a dream-world. Perhaps he thought he was role-playing in a movie, or role-playing in a game. The fault may rest somewhere, to be sure. We can speculate, of course. That fault may rest in the realistic movies of violence and horror that Adam Lanza was lawfully permitted to see; or in the increasingly realistic games of violence and horror that Adam Lanza was lawfully permitted to play. But, the fault does not rest in firearms; for those, Adam Lanza was not lawfully permitted to own, or to keep, and certainly not permitted to use. And, Adam Lanza never would have obtained those firearms had a responsible adult properly secured them, or refrained from keeping them in her home, knowing full well the nature of her severely mentally ill son.In the Arbalest Quarrel’s next comprehensive essay on the Soto case, we will take a close look at selected legal briefs of the Soto Plaintiffs and Defendants and at a few amicus briefs as well._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

SOTO vs. BUSHMASTER: THE NEW YORK TIMES TRUMPETS SANDY HOOK PLAINTIFFS’ ATTACK AGAINST MAKERS OF SEMIAUTOMATIC “ASSAULT WEAPONS”

ANTIGUN PROPONENTS GO AFTER FIREARMS MANUFACTURERS IN CONNECTICUT

NY Times reporters discuss, of late, a lawsuit filed in 2015 in Connecticut Superior Court by individuals, in their own capacity, and by the administrators of the estates of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy, in Newtown Connecticut, that occurred on December 14, 2012. The killer, Adam Lanza, age 20, severely mentally disturbed, arguably psychotic, who could not legally own or possess firearms, gained access to his mother’s firearms, murdered her, and then, not content with that murder, sallied forth to a school in Newtown, Connecticut, where--still in fit of murderous rage--continued with a heinous shooting spree, murdering 20 children and six adults, before turning a handgun on himself and ending his own life.As for a motive, don’t try to find one, for there is none. Indeed, there can never exist a rational motive for a decidedly and decisively irrational, reprehensible act, try as criminologists and psychiatrists might to find one. Nonetheless, this tragedy should never have occurred and would not have occurred had Lanza’s mother properly secured her firearms, preventing her deranged son from gaining access to them in the first place. But, as the tragedy did occur, due to the irresponsibility of Lanza’s mother, we see antigun proponents in the State Legislatures and in the United States Congress using the tragedy, as they invariably do, as a pretext for enactment of ever more extraordinarily draconian firearms legislation—legislation directed less to curbing gun violence and directed more—much more—to curtailing the sacred, natural and fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms that millions of ordinary, rational, law-abiding American citizens wish to, and have the right to, exercise for the lawful, legitimate purpose of self-defense.

A TIME LINE AND HISTORY OF THE NEW YORK TIMES’ COVERAGE OF THE CONNECTICUT LAWSUIT AGAINST MANUFACTURERS OF FIREARMS

Roughly one and a half years ago, on June 14, 2016, the New York Times ran a story, titled, “Newtown Victims’ Families Look On as Gun Makers Ask Court to Dismiss Lawsuit.”  The Times’ reporters, Kristin Hussey and Marc Santora explained the case, thus:“At issue is a 2005 federal law, which shields gun companies from lawsuits when guns are used in a crime. This case — brought by 10 families in the 2012 shooting — has already made it further than many experts had predicted and represents one of the most serious legal threats to the industry in years. . . . Following the school massacre, Connecticut lawmakers passed a measure banning the sale of many semiautomatic rifles. On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear a Second Amendment challenge to the statute.To overcome the broad federal immunity granted by Congress, lawyers for the plaintiffs are arguing that both the manufacturers and distributors of assault rifles modeled on the AR-15, like the Bushmaster that was used at Sandy Hook Elementary School, have been negligent.Such guns are weapons of war, they argue, and they should never have been marketed and sold to civilians.

Near the body of a teacher, Victoria Soto the police found a weapon ‘designed to be used in combat to assault and kill enemies of war, in the fields of Vietnam and in the streets of Falluja,’ said Joshua D. Koskoff, a lawyer for the family members.

‘And there it was lying not on a battlefield but on the floor of Vicki Soto’s first-grade classroom,’ he continued. ‘How did it get there?’

The AR-15, which dates to the 1950s, is one of the most popular weapons in history, with dozens of gun makers issuing their own models and millions having been sold in this country.

James B. Vogts, a lawyer for Remington Arms Company, the maker of the gun used in Newtown, argued that that case was not ‘the place to debate gun laws.’”

As reported by the NY Times, Counsel for Soto Plaintiffs, Joshua Koskoff, explained the impetus for the lawsuit. But, Counsel for Soto Plaintiffs resorted to false remarks and rhetorical flourish--relying on antigun talking points and hyperbole--("[the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle] [is] designed to be used in combat to assault and kill enemies of war"), and relying, too, upon sloganeering ("such guns [the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle] are weapons of war")--rather than applying rational logical and legal discourse, when bringing to the public's attention the purported purpose of the lawsuit. In so doing Koskoff unabashedly and unashamedly targeted the public’s emotions, the lizard brain, not the public's intellect. Counsel’s aim in targeting the public's emotions was, obviously, to seduce, coax, distract, and horrify, not to educate and inform. Attorney for Defendant firearms manufacturer, Remington Arms Company's attorney, James Vogt, on the other hand, made the pertinent point that a debate on gun laws does not belong in a Court of law. Indeed, a critical examination of Soto Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint and its Brief on Appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court aptly demonstrates Plaintiffs explication of applicable law as Plaintiffs would like it to be, dismissing the law for as it is and for what it says and the manner, then, in which it actually operates. In that respect the Soto case is not unlike other cases brought by antigun proponents. Antigun proponents begin with the assumption that gun ownership and gun possession by American citizens, in a civilian capacity, is simply wrong. They then attempt, inappropriately and deceptively, to shoehorn a utilitarian consequentialist ethical philosophy into legal argument, shunning any discussion of, and ignoring out of hand and displaying a clear lack of concern for, the plain meaning of the law as the drafters intended, and in the context of a fundamental right, which they seek, ultimately, to curtail.The case as presented by Plaintiffs’ Counsel, at the Press conference, fell, then, well short of cogent legal argument and, apart from mentioning the death of Vicki Soto, has no basis in fact, apropos of the semiautomatic AR-15 rifle. Unsurprisingly, Plaintiffs’ attorney sought, in the lawsuit, against the Defendant arms manufacturer, to make the manufacturer of the AR-15 rifle, along with the rifle manufactured, the real culpable parties in the tragedy that unfolded in 2012 in an Elementary School, in Newtown, Connecticut, and, therewith, shied from placing blame, where, alone, blame is due. And, where is blame due? That blame should be placed squarely on the sentient perpetrator of the harm done, Adam Lanza. That name, 'Adam Lanza,' counsel either failed to mention at all at the Press conference or, if he had mentioned it, then the NY Times failed to relay that information to the reader of the Times newspaper. Perhaps the Times’ reporters felt that the name of the killer, Adam Lanza, was not worth mentioning, as the name of the killer would not further the narrative. The narrative is that guns are the singular cause of gun violence, not the perpetrators who use guns to do violence. Adam Lanza's mother also shares blame for the tragedy that ensued through her failure to properly secure the firearms from her severely mentally disturbed son--and paying the price for her failure to take responsibility in the securing of her firearms, through loss of her own life at the hands of her son.On Saturday, October 14, 2017, the New York Times ran a second story titled, “Judge Dismisses Suit Against Gun Maker by Newtown Victims’ Families.” The Times’ reporters, Kristin Hussey and Marc Santora, attempting, ultimately, and unsatisfactorily, to explain the lower Court’s decision, said this:"The judge, Barbara N. Bellis of State Superior Court, had surprised even some of the plaintiffs by allowing the case to move toward trial this year, despite a 2005 federal law that offers firearm manufacturers and sellers broad protection from lawsuits when guns are used in crimes.

But in a decision filed on Friday, Judge Bellis repeatedly cited the law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, as the basis for her reasoning. 'This action falls squarely within the broad immunity provided' by the act, she wrote.

Lawyers for Remington Outdoor, whose AR-15-style Bushmaster rifle was used by Adam Lanza in the attack at the school, in Newtown, Conn., had argued for dismissal of the lawsuit. The complaint also named the wholesaler and a local retailer as defendants.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs, who include relatives of nine of the 26 people who were killed in the shooting, as well as a teacher who survived, contended that the law’s exception for cases of negligent entrustment, in which a gun is carelessly given or sold to a person posing a high risk of misusing it, justified the complaint.Judge Bellis ruled that their claims were too broad to fall under negligent entrustment, and said Congress had already deemed the civilian population competent to possess the weapons by the nature of its law.'To extend the theory of negligent entrustment to the class of nonmilitary, nonpolice civilians — the general public — would imply that the general public lacks the ordinary prudence necessary to handle an object that Congress regards as appropriate for sale to the general public,' she wrote. 'This the court is unwilling to do.'"The Times’ reporters seeking to explain the Court’s decision succinctly, skirted over complex issues of law and quoted the Court on less critical points. The result is a simplistic, faulty, and essentially indecipherable accounting of the lower Court’s reasoning, which reasoning, on deep analysis, is thoughtful and flawless. The crux of the Superior Court's sound reasoning is that a claim of negligent entrustment must be grounded in Connecticut law in order to fall within the exception set forth in the applicable federal Statute. One salient point--and the most critical point--underlying the Superior Court's decision, granting Defendant Remington's (Bushmaster's) Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is as follows:"Although PLCAA [Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act] explicitly preserves claims that fall within its enumerated exceptions, such as negligent entrustment actions, it does not create them. 15 U.S.C. §7903(5)(A)(ii) and (5)(C) (2012). PLCAA explicitly provides that 'no provision of this chapter shall be construed to create a public or private cause of action or remedy."'15 U.S.C. §7903(5)(C) (2012). By its own terms, therefore, PLCAA cannot be read as creating a cause of action. Accordingly, the court concludes that for a plaintiff's negligent entrustment claim to be permitted under PLCAA. it must arise under state law." Donna L. Soto, Administratrix of the Estate of Victoria L. Soto, Conn. vs. Bushmaster Firearms International, Super Conn. 2016 Conn. Superior Court LEXIS 2626. Thus, to make a sound, cogent claim of negligent entrustment, in order to defeat Defendants' qualified immunity under PLCAA, Plaintiffs must cohere with Connecticut's definition of 'negligent entrustment' under Connecticut law. If the Soto Plaintiffs succeed, then those Plaintiffs can bootstrap that claim into the PLCAA, in which event Defendants' qualified immunity under PLCAA is defeated. In order to prove 'negligent entrustment' under Connecticut law, "entrustment can be considered negligent only if (1) there is actual or constructive knowledge that the entrustee is incompetent or has a dangerous propensity, and (2) the injury resulted from that incompetence or propensity." No one doubts that the entrustee, Adam Lanza, had a dangerous propensity. But, the question falls to whether Defendant manufacturers, the entrustors, knew or should have known of the entrustee's incompetence or dangerous propensity. On the legal principles of actual or constructive knowledge, the Soto Plaintiffs' claim of negligent entrustment fails. That is a fatal flaw in Plaintiff's claim of negligent entrustment. And that flaw is not overridden by a bald claim, unproved--but more to the point, irrelevant--that Defendants marketed the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle to the entire civilian population that included, ipso facto, deranged individuals, such as Adam Lanza. Thus, Plaintiffs attempt to make a sound claim of negligent entrustment fails. Defendants' qualified immunity from suit sticks. And the Superior Court properly dismissed the lawsuit.*On Monday, November 13, 2017 the New York Times ran a third story involving the suit against the manufacturer of the weapon that Adam Lanza utilized in his murderous shooting spree, titled, in the print edition of the newspaper, “High Stakes for Gun Companies As Court Weighs Newtown Suit.” A digital copy of the story, titled, “Appeal Offers Hope for Newtown Families in Suit Against Gun Companies,” was posted a day earlier."This week, the families of the victims plan to be in Hartford, listening as lawyers lay out in state Supreme Court their case that the companies that manufactured and sold the military-style assault rifle used by the gunman bear responsibility for the attack in which 26 people, including 20 children, were killed.

They are deploying a novel strategy that the families and their lawyers say could pierce the sweeping shield created by federal law that protects gun companies from litigation and has thwarted countless lawsuits after their weapons were used to commit crimes.

Supporters believe that if the court clears the way for a jury trial, the gun companies’ internal communications — which the companies have fought fiercely to keep private — would surface in discovery, a potentially revealing and damaging glimpse into the industry and how it operates. It could also chart a legal road map for the survivors and relatives of victims in other mass shootings as they pursue accountability."

But, the gun companies' internal communications pertaining to the marketing of its firearms--however trivial, or insightful, or embarrassing, or damning--are altogether irrelevant to a claim of negligent entrustment under PLCAA. That is why the Superior Court dismissed the suit against the Defendant firearms manufacturers. Discovery is therefore unnecessary. To allow the case to proceed to trial would make a mockery of precedential authority, for there exists no basis under Connecticut or Federal Statute, nor under Connecticut case law, upon which Plaintiffs can ground a cogent legal argument to support a claim for damages or injunctive relief against Defendants. The novel strategy that the Times' reporters mention is simply code for an attempt to impose liability out of whole cloth--ad hoc application of law to fit Soto Plaintiffs desire to inflict punishment on Defendants.

The Times newspaper followed up the November 13, 2017  story with another, one day later, on November 14, 2017. The follow-up story is titled, “Connecticut Supreme Court Hears Newtown Families’ Appeal Against Gun Companies." NY Times reporters, Rick Rojas and Kristin Hussey report that:

"The Connecticut Supreme Court heard an appeal on Tuesday brought by relatives of victims in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School who argued that the companies that manufactured and sold the military-style assault rifle used by the gunman should be held responsible for the 2012 attack.

A lawsuit filed by the relatives said that the AR-15-style Bushmaster used to carry out the shooting in Newtown, Conn., that killed 26 people, including 20 first graders, was specifically marketed as a weapon of war, with slogans and product placement in video games invoking the violence of combat. The lawsuit claims that such promotions were a deliberate effort to make the weapon attractive to young men, like Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old gunman.

'Remington may never have known Adam Lanza, but they had been courting him for years,' Joshua D. Koskoff, one of the lawyers representing the families, told the panel of judges, referring to the gun maker that was named in the suit, along with a wholesaler and a local retailer. 'The courtship between Remington and Adam Lanza is at the heart of the case.'

The lawsuit, brought by family members of nine people who were killed and a teacher who was shot and survived, was elevated to the State Supreme Court after years of working its way through the court system. The case started in state court, where it was first filed in 2014, and then it moved to Federal District Court before returning to the state level, where a judge dismissed the suit last year. The families appealed to the Supreme Court to reverse the judge’s decision and allow a jury trial.

 The families “have infinite patience to see justice done and utmost faith in the legal system to serve the people it is meant to protect,” Ian Hockley, whose 6-year-old son, Dylan, was killed, said outside the Supreme Court on Tuesday. 'We have not lost one ounce of confidence.'"

Actually, firearms manufacturers have not and do not "court" lunatics and maniacs and criminals. This is merely a bizarre attempt to insinuate actual or constructive knowledge onto Defendant firearms manufacturers through naked allegations that Defendants, entrustors, directed marketing to the civilian population that, in Plaintiffs' mind, included marketing of the AR-15 to Adam Lanza, as a entrustee. But, the AR-15 was not marketed to Adam Lanza or to any other maniac. Moreover, Adam Lanza was not permitted to own or possess firearms under federal or State law, and Plaintiffs have not suggested that Defendants, in any manner, have sought to market firearms to individuals that are not permitted under State or federal law to own and possess them. To suggest that firearms manufacturers, such as Remington, court unstable individuals like Adam Lanza through the marketing of firearms and that such firearms manufacturers should be held liable for misuse of firearms by individuals who were never meant to have them, would be to rewrite both federal law and Connecticut law. In fact, such ad hoc application of law would open other entities to liability. Consider: Hollywood studios would find themselves vulnerable to lawsuits on the ground that they court maniacs to commit violence. It is hardly a secret that Hollywood studios make fortunes selling violence on film through their depiction of violent acts committed with guns, knives, bombs, and so forth. Video game manufacturers could, in the same vein, also be said to court mentally disturbed individuals to commit violence with guns or, for that matter, to commit violence with any other implement, such as with trucks, and bombs, and knives, simply for conveying such imagery to the American public through the marketing of their video games and through the imagery existent in those games. Furthermore, contrary to arguments or suggestions or hypotheses of gun proponents, gun manufacturers do not have absolute immunity from lawsuits. They have qualified immunity under federal law. But Plaintiffs in Soto would dare to make gun manufacturers absolutely liable for the misuse of their products by anyone who misuses their products. If they were to prevail, not only would federal law under PLCAA, and Connecticut law pertaining to negligent entrustment, be patently ignored or given odd and absurd ad hoc treatment, but the entire legal area of products liability would be turned on its head. Antigun proponents obviously don't care. Their interest in the law extends no further than obtaining the results they want even if the end result is a miscarriage of justice and the destruction of the principle of stare decisis--legal precedent in favor of ad hoc treatment, predicated on a plaintiffs' personal normative feelings about the way the law should be rather than the way the law is. If legal precedent goes out the door, then law would become truly chaotic. No one would be able to rely on the clear meaning of Statute or on the large body of case law. Law would be changed "on the fly," which would mean that law, upon which the public could rely, would cease to exist. Law would be reduced to ad hoc decisions predicated on the will of the decider of law and fact who happens to be personally sympathetic to the claims of one party over another and who would decide cases on personal whim and predilection rather than on the law as written. The legal and jurisprudential underpinnings of our system of laws would lose their grounding. Anarchy in law and in society would result.

ANTIGUN PROPONENTS WILL NEVER LET A VIOLENT GUN TRAGEDY GO TO WASTE

The New York Safe Act, signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo on January 15, 2013, coming on the heels of the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy, became the model for Senator Dianne Feinstein’s new federal assault weapons ban, which, had it been enacted, would have been yet a more ambitious replacement for the 1994 federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 and which was never reauthorized. Fortunately, Harry Reid, who, at the time, was the Senate Majority Leader, when Democrats controlled the Senate, did not permit Feinstein’s assault weapon ban provision to be included in the broader antigun bill. Feinstein was livid. Still, even without the assault weapons ban provision, the bill failed miserably. The LA Times reported, on April 17, 2013, in an article titled, "Senate votes down Feinstein's assault weapons ban":“In a final appeal to her colleagues to reinstate an assault weapons ban, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) displayed on the Senate floor Wednesday a New York Daily News front page from the day after her ban was pulled from a broader gun control bill: It shows the photos of the 20 first-graders shot to death at Sandy Hook Elementary School with the headline: “Shame on U.S.” And then, Feinstein told her colleagues, “Show some guts.” But her attempt to attach the ban to the gun bill failed, drawing just 40 votes, with 60 senators voting against it. That was fewer than the 52 votes she received in 2004 in her unsuccessful effort to renew the now-lapsed 1994 ban." Nonetheless, antigun proponents continue, inevitably and inexorably, to attack the Second Amendment, which they detest, with a vengeance. They reemploy the same strategies against the Second Amendment or concoct new ones through introduction of bills in Congress and in State Legislatures and through assaults on the Second Amendment through the Courts. As with the Hydra of Greek Mythology, lop off one head and another grows to replace the one lost. Antigun proponents never tire of unleashing vindictiveness against inanimate objects and against those law-abiding American citizens who seek to exercise their natural fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms.So it is that, with the latest effort, we see a lawsuit in Connecticut that, prior to the NY Times series of articles, saw little, if any Press coverage. This was probably by design.But, in its stories, the NY Times fails, as the mainstream media is wont to do, to name the Court cases it refers to and to provide citations for them. Nonetheless, the case is Soto vs. Bushmaster, filed in Superior Court of Connecticut, Fairfield County. It is an unreported case, meaning that you cannot obtain the case in a formal legal reporter, but an unreported version may be found, once again, as stated supra at: Donna L. Soto, Administratrix of the Estate of Victoria L. Soto, Conn. vs. Bushmaster Firearms International, Super Conn. 2016 Conn. Superior Court LEXIS 2626, which the Arbalest Quarrel obtained. In the Times' discussion of the case, we reiterate the point that reporters Rojas and Hussey say, namely, that plaintiffs “are deploying a novel strategy that the families and their lawyers say could pierce the sweeping shield created by federal law that protects gun companies from litigation and has thwarted countless lawsuits after their weapons were used to commit crimes. Supporters believe that if the court clears the way for a jury trial, the gun companies’ internal communications — which the companies have fought fiercely to keep private — would surface in discovery, a potentially revealing and damaging glimpse into the industry and how it operates. It could also chart a legal road map for the survivors and relatives of victims in other mass shootings as they pursue accountability.”What this “novel strategy” means is that plaintiffs cannot rely on precedential authority for their case--there is none--and, in fact, Plaintiffs' cause of action is contrary to law. Undeterred with weight of legal authority against them, Soto Plaintiffs are, nonetheless, asking the Connecticut Supreme Court to ignore federal statute that precludes actions against firearms manufacturers who are not in privity with those individuals who misuse their firearms; and Soto Plaintiffs are also asking the Court to ignore the weight of Connecticut case law and State Statute that clearly prohibits relief for the kinds of claims they are bringing, on the allegations that they made. One of the Plaintiffs, David Wheeler, Administrator for the estate of Benjamin Wheeler, stated to the NY Times: “'It doesn’t make any sense at all that these products [referring, apparently, to semiautomatic rifles modeled on the original AR-15 by Armalite, such as one that Adam Lanza brought with him to Sandy Hook Elementary School] are free of liability,' Mr. Wheeler said in a recent interview. 'It’s not a level playing field. It’s not American capitalistic business practice as we know it. It’s just not right.'" The statement, full of emotion, but devoid of legal substance, is, itself, the stuff of nonsense. The Times' reporters do accurately report that: The lawsuit, brought by the families of nine people who were killed and one teacher who was shot and survived, faces significant legal hurdles. The case was elevated to the Connecticut Supreme Court after a lower court judge dismissed the lawsuit last year after she found that the claims it raised fell “squarely within the broad immunity” provided by federal law.” The Times’ reporters refer to the earlier Times article, published on October 14, titled, “Judge Dismisses Suit Against Gun Maker by Newtown Victims’ Families,” supra

HOW DID THE SOTO CASE FIND ITS WAY TO THE CONNECTICUT SUPREME COURT?

One unanswered procedural question concerns the events that led up to the Connecticut Supreme Court hearing the case. Upon a final appealable order, the losing party does, of course, have an opportunity to appeal an adverse decision. Generally, an adverse decision would be appealed to the next higher Court. In Soto, that would mean an appeal to the Connecticut Appellate Court. For some unexplained, inscrutable reason that is difficult to decipher, the case skipped the intermediate Connecticut Appellate Court and wended its way directly to the State Supreme Court. The State Supreme Court granted the appeal, hearing oral argument on the Connecticut Superior Court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ suit, where the Superior Court granted, in its entirety, Defendants’ Motion to Strike the First Amended Complaint. Clearly, Plaintiffs, Soto, and others, want a trial. A trial means that each side may undertake discovery. A motion to strike, in Connecticut, challenges the sufficiency of the allegations of a complaint. In a defendants’ motion to strike, a court has an obligation to take as true the facts alleged in the challenged pleading and then to determine whether those facts, if proven, would support a cause of action. If the Court determines that the allegations do support a cause of action, then the motion to strike is denied. Otherwise, the motion is granted. See Johnson vs. Department of Public Health, 48 Conn. App. 102; 710 A.2d 176; 1998 Conn. App. LEXIS 110. The Soto Plaintiffs, miffed that their desire to undertake discovery was deflected through the dismissal of their suit, fail to appreciate that the Superior Court determined that discovery is irrelevant as there is nothing in the allegations of the First Amended Complaint, which the Superior Court had to take as true, that would support their claims. Thus, there is nothing concrete to support a trial.As was true in Soto, the Superior Court concluded that, even accepting the allegations of the First Amended Complaint as true, the allegations still fail to support a cause of action. The Superior Court therefore properly dismissed the Complaint. Inexplicably, the Connecticut Supreme Court, allowed the Plaintiffs to bypass the Connecticut Appellate Court and agreed to hear arguments on whether Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint did set forth allegations sufficient to support an action, contrary to lower Court's determination that the First Amended Complaint did not. Plaintiffs want to present at trial, through discovery, that Bushmaster and other Defendants marketed the AR-15, extolling its virtues as a military rifle to the civilian population. Plaintiffs then hope to buttress their prayer for damages for wrongful death and to enjoin Defendants from marketing the weapon the AR-15 in Connecticut. The problem with this avenue of attack--apart from the fatal flaw flowing from the fact that there exists no basis in law upon which to ground actual or constructive knowledge on Defendant firearms manufacturers --is that marketing claims are often little more than puffery, utilized to support sale, but are not to be taken seriously. The fact is that the semiautomatic AR-15 is not a military assault rifle and saying that it is a military weapon does not make it so. If Defendants made such claims in their marketing of the rifle, such claims do not thereby turn a non-military weapon into a military weapon. Otherwise, any firearm is deemed a military weapon, and, in fact, those who abhor firearms seek to disarm the American citizenry of all firearms. That is clear enough from a consideration of the actions of antigun proponents--as they attack one category of firearms and then another, until all firearms are banned from the hands of American civilians. But, even if the Plaintiffs are rigThe NY Times, in its stories on the Soto case, gives a superficial treatment of the history of Soto along with a perfunctory, cursory treatment of abstruse issues of law—omitting any discussion of the Superior Court Judge’s well-reasoned opinion in support of dismissal of the case on Defendant Bushmaster’s (et. al.) Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. Had the Plaintiffs not appealed the case—which, again, is a costly proposition—that would have been the end of the matter.The case has wended its way to the Connecticut Supreme Court, where, according to the NY Times, the two sides presented oral argument. If Defendants prevail, that will effectively end the matter. If Plaintiffs prevail, the case will be remanded to the trial court, with instructions on how the case is to proceed.

WHY THIS CASE IS IMPORTANT

Although the Plaintiffs in their prayer for relief for wrongful death have demanded monetary damages, punitive damages, Attorneys fees, and Court costs, from Defendant, what Plaintiffs are really after is a complete, total ban, in Connecticut, of all semiautomatic firearms—all semiautomatic rifles that might be subsumed under the fiction, “assault weapons.”  One cannot but wonder if this case is being funded by well-heeled billionaires, like George Soros and Michael Bloomberg, whose antipathy toward the Second Amendment is well known. If such people are funding this lawsuit, the NY Times isn’t saying. In fact, there is a noticeable silence as to the costs of the lawsuit, which must be massive and likely well beyond the ability of Plaintiffs to fund it. If counsel for Plaintiffs are taking the case on contingency, still there are court costs associated with the case as well as the day-to-day work of the counsel to prepare the case. And, as the case lacks precedential support, it is a long-shot at best. So, again, we ask: who is funding this case?Apart from wrongful death claims, seeking damages, Plaintiffs in the Soto case, are praying for injunctive relief. They seek to obtain an order from a Connecticut Court that enjoins Defendants from marketing AR-15 type rifles in Connecticut. If they are successful in that endeavor, antigun proponents will likely bring similar suits against firearms manufacturers in other jurisdictions, and a Democratic Party controlled Congress would then draft a bill and attempt to enact a bill on the federal level, in effect placing semiautomatic rifles in the same position as fully automatic firearms are now placed. This is heinous and particularly dangerous to Americans’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms because a ban on so-called assault weapons would be implemented at the source—the manufacturer—rather than, after the fact of manufacture, through dealers. If Soto and the other Plaintiffs are successful in their endeavor, the impact on the civilian market will be dire. Consider: New production of fully automatic weapons and selective fire weapons are unavailable to civilians, under the National Firearms Act of 1934.  If the Soto Plaintiffs are successful in convincing the State Supreme Court to remand the case to the Superior Court for trial, and if the Soto Plaintiffs prevail, then semiautomatic firearms, namely those semiautomatic rifles defined as ‘assault weapons’ that trace their lineage to the original Armalite AR-15 rifle, will be treated like machine guns are now treated under the National Firearms Act of 1934. This means that, in Connecticut, no citizen who is a civilian, will be able to obtain a pristine, brand new mint AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, newly manufactured, just as no civilian can now obtain a mint condition, newly manufactured machine gun, or selective fire assault rifle, or submachine gun.The tacit goal of the National Firearms Act of 1934 is to make all fully automatic firearms unavailable to the civilian population. Once the present supply of previously manufactured fully automatic firearms or selective fire weapons are depleted, no civilian will be able to obtain one even if that person wishes to obtain one and notwithstanding that a person can obtain one so long as one does not fall within a federal disability that otherwise precludes that person from obtaining a true military, fully automatic machine gun or submachine gun or selective fire assault rifle or any other firearm. Similarly, if manufacturers are precluded from lawfully selling any semiautomatic firearm in the civilian market, they will not manufacture new weapons, and previously manufactured weapons, grandfathered in, would no longer be available to civilians once the present supply is exhausted. And those semiautomatic firearms that are available would be extremely costly to obtain--the prices rising to the stratosphere, as the present supply becomes sparse and finally exhausted.

SHOULD SUPPORTERS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT BE UNDULY CONCERNED OVER THE SOTO CASE?

Even if the Soto Plaintiffs succeed in having their case remanded for trial to the Superior Court, that does not mean that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail in their case. The Connecticut Supreme Court has to provide the trial Court with guidance as to how the Soto case is to proceed to trial. While Plaintiffs seek a jury trial—a point emphasized by the NY Times--no supporter of the Second Amendment--that would also love to see a jury trial—it is more probable that the case will be decided on motions for summary judgment. Likely, once discovery has concluded, the Bushmaster Defendants will move for summary judgment and the Bushmaster Defendants should, then, prevail on the ground that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that Defendants are entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law.Likely, the Soto case will not even be remanded to the Superior Court for trial. We predict that the Connecticut Supreme Court will decide the case in favor of Defendants, affirming the Superior Court’s dismissal of the case. But, suppose the case proceeds to a jury trial and, suppose, further, that Plaintiffs prevail with a verdict in their favor, Defendants may still file a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, asking the Superior Court to set aside the verdict, on the ground that the evidence presented does not support judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. See, the Connecticut Supreme Court case, Labbe v. Hartford Pension Comm'n, 239 Conn. 168, 682 A.2d 490, 1996 LEXIS 340.But, if Plaintiffs ultimately do prevail—a longshot at best, as this would require ignoring Connecticut and federal Statutory law as well as ignoring a body of Connecticut common (case) law—the result only impacts Connecticut. Defendant firearms manufacturers, in Soto, are not precluded from manufacturing semiautomatic rifles of the type that Connecticut happens to ban. The downside is that an adverse decision against firearms manufacturers can have a ripple effect, emboldening similar actions in other States. Soto would be mark the first successful case against a firearms manufacturer, under PLCAA. If the Democratic Party takes over control of both Houses of Congress, it is possible, if highly unlikely, that Congress may enact, or at least propose, legislation similar to the National Firearms Act of 1934 as applied now to the manufacture of semiautomatic firearms. Firearms manufacturers would then be prevented from manufacturing new semiautomatic rifles for the civilian market. That is a worst case scenario but one that antigun groups and antigun legislators, and the mainstream media, are hoping for, if not betting on. If firearms manufacturers are prohibited, by federal Statute, from manufacturing new semiautomatic rifles, then what happens next? A ban on the manufacture of all semiautomatic firearms for the civilian market? A ban on the manufacture of all double action revolvers for the civilian market? A ban on the manufacture of all single action revolvers for the civilian market? A ban on the manufacture of muzzleloaders for the civilian market? Well, you get the picture!_________________________________________________*The Arbalest Quarrel, for its part, will provide a comprehensive discussion of the well written opinion of the Connecticut Superior Court judge, in a separate article, to be posted shortly on the Arbalest Quarrel website, to be followed with an analysis of selected briefs of Plaintiffs and Defendants in the case and a review of a few amicus briefs._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

A COMIC BOOK NEWSPAPER CREATES A COMIC BOOK WEAPON: USA TODAY'S "CHAINSAW" GUN

TO TRUST THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS TO DENY TRUTH AND, MORE, IT IS TO FORFEIT FAITH IN ONE’S OWN GOOD JUDGMENT

A RELOOK AT CHAINSAWS AND GUNS

“A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that's unlocked and opens inwards, as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push.” ~ in Culture and Value, by Ludwig Wittgenstein, Early to Mid-Twentieth Century British-Austrian Philosopher, translated from the German by Peter Winch“The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.” Ascribed to Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United StatesThree and one-half years ago, the Arbalest Quarrel published an article titled, “Of Chainsaws and Guns.” Ammoland Shooting Sports News posted the article under the title, “Time to Ban ‘Assault Saws’ – Commonsense Chainsaw Laws.” "Of Chainsaws and Guns" is satire, but the purpose in our drafting and posting it was and is deadly serious. We illustrated and demonstrated, through example, how perceptions form beliefs and how beliefs create reality—a reality that is amorphous, fluid, ever-changing, shifting with the currents of time and circumstance and the demands of those who dare control us, the American citizenry. Yet, contrary to this wisdom, the public is told that reality is based on truth, that truth is based on facts, and that facts, posited in reality, are concrete constants, readily ascertainable; never changing, never shifting, never subject to prevailing moods and circumstance of the populace.Guns—the public is told, and forever reminded, through the constant chime and cacophony of the mainstream media chorus that obviously abhors guns and that frowns upon, even detests those Americans who choose to exercise their fundamental, natural right to possess them—are the incarnation of evil; invidious; disgusting. The mainstream media perceives chainsaws, too, as ominous, demonic, inherently, intrinsically evil—dangerous, menacing, quick to bite the hand that would wield them and corrupting those that would possess them. Lo, what has come to pass is the dubious marriage of “gun and chainsaw”—bespeaking an unparalleled horror—a smirking grimace of evil.We should not be surprised, then, that those elements in society that loathe guns and gun ownership would take an unspeakable tragedy and use it to their advantage. The comic book that holds itself out as a legitimate newspaper, USA Today, took a semiautomatic rifle and added a “chainsaw bayonet” to it. USA Today was compelled to issue a "clarification." See, "USA Today issues a clarification after depicting a rifle with a 'chainsaw bayonet'", in Business Insider. If USA Today intended this to be amusing, it had the opposite effect. And, if USA Today did this in an unabashed attempt to create fear and horror in the mind of its target audience toward guns, USA  Today created indignation instead.Whatever the publishers and editors at USA Today intended, through the incongruous marriage of chainsaw and gun, USA Today was evidently alluding to the 1976 horror film, the “Texas Chainsaw Massacre,” as should be clear to devotees of horror movies. In this low budget silly, comic horror film, the antagonist, referred to as Leatherface--whose face is hidden behind a frightening "leather" mask to hide an equally horrifying visage--uses a chainsaw to wreak havoc on innocent young men and women. There is no humanity in Leatherface. The person wielding the chainsaw isn’t distinguished from the implement. Rather, Leatherface and chainsaw are one creature—a horrific amalgamation of flesh and machine, mindlessly, aimlessly, killing all those who happen, unfortunately, to cross his path.Coming on the heels of the deadly Texas Baptist Church shooting, in Sutherland Springs, Texas, the publisher and editors of the USA Today evidently thought and hoped and intended that creating a caricature of a semiautomatic rifle, through a ludicrous and hideous merger of firearm and chainsaw, carrying unmistakable hints to the man/creature “Leatherface,” would spark fear and abhorrence and loathing toward firearms in the public mind and that it would stoke public outrage and condemnation toward and over guns and toward those who desire to exercise their right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. For some Americans it might, indeed, have had the effect. If so, that was the point of creating the caricature of semiautomatic rifle married to a chainsaw. The unspoken words, created through the image, is of a fiendish figure, running amok, whose one purpose, whose only purpose in life is to commit murder and mayhem and to do so in a vividly graphic and gruesome manner. Killer and implement become one object, one thing--indistinguishable.But, for most Americans, as soon became clear to the publishers of USA Today, the caricature they created did not have the desired, intended effect; for, while the cartoon image of rifle and chainsaw sparked outrage, the outrage was directed, not to guns, but toward the newspaper itself--opening the paper up to public ridicule, a ridicule richly deserved. But, the USA Today doesn’t care. Not content to report the news, the writers and editors of the USA Today and writers and editors and commentators of similar mainstream media sources seek shamelessly to make news, peppering news accounts with salacious, unsubtle emotive spurts, aiming to persuade the public, rather than to inform the public. These mainstream media organizations disturbingly use their "news" vehicles to manipulate public thought, urging public action, with the goal of compelling policy makers to remove firearms from the hands of the citizenry, shamelessly baiting and attacking anyone who does not come on board with the game plan.

FAKE (PHONY) NEWS VERSUS TRUTH IN NEWS REPORTING

Pontius Pilate, we are told, posed to Jesus, this question: “Quid Est Veritas” ((“What is Truth” or “What is the Truth”) (John chapter 18, verse 38)). Did Pontius Pilate ask the question in jest? Did Pilate intend the question as nothing more than a rhetorical, perfunctory gibe? Most commentators believe this to be so; yet, perhaps, Pontius Pilate did not intend the question as an immodest quip at all. Perhaps he posed the question as a profound, serious inquiry into what is an abstruse, difficult, philosophical concept, surmising that, of all individuals on Earth, Jesus, alone, could enlighten him and that Pilate sought that enlightenment.As seekers of truth ourselves, we at the Arbalest Quarrel, believe that Pontius Pilate truly sought to understand this notion, this idea, this concept of ‘Truth.’The mainstream media, we are told, with an air of confident certitude shown by those who work for it and who operate in it—denigrating and disdaining those who operate in the alternative media sphere—claims to understand truth, and seeks to convey truth to the target audiences and that it is they, who work in the mainstream media, rather than those who work for alternative media sources, who see themselves as best equipped to perceive "the truth" and, so, claim sole right to convey the truth--but truth as they perceive truth, which they understands to be the truth--to the American public. So, it follows that those who work in the mainstream media feel they alone should be permitted to speak and write  on contemporary news subjects as they alone are guardians of and heralds of the truth. But such belief in their own certitude is the height of arrogance. Obviously, the mainstream media is loathe to compete with alternative media upstarts. But, for all their smug complacency, those who work in the mainstream media do not understand the concept of ‘truth’ at all, even as they surmise that they do.We begin with this presupposition: the concept truth, contrary to the glib certitude of the mainstream media toward the concept, is not a thing easy to grasp; nor, for that matter, is truth easy to come by. The mainstream media says that truth is a concept easily understood and that it is based on hard, cold, concrete fact. This suggests that truth exists when it coheres or corresponds to the facts. But, what is a ‘fact.’ A ‘fact’ is no less easy to comprehend, on analysis, than truth. Truth, and its obverse, falsity, are tied to propositions, not to facts, whatever a “fact” is. If there is a common thread running from a proposition—a declarative statement—to a fact, what is it but what common convention decrees. The mainstream media intends to have a lock on what that common convention is. Those that work for mainstream media organizations desire to tell a person, the American citizen, what that American citizen should believe, what it is that the American citizen is expected to believe and ought to believe—wherein and whereof, then, the truth consists, wherein and whereof the truth can be found; of what the truth, truly consists of; of what the truth, truly, is.Those individuals who work for mainstream media organizations delude themselves if they think they espouse truth. They delude themselves because they mistakenly think that what they assert happens to cohere with or correspond to concrete facts when their written or spoken expositions merely expose their own biases, their own attitudes, their own belief systems. But these belief systems have nothing to do with the world, nothing to do with reality, nothing to do with truth, nothing to do with “facts.” Still, they take their written and verbal assertions to be authoritative gospel about the world, about the way the world is, about the way the world works, about reality, about truth. They either pretend or delude themselves into believing that their belief system coheres or corresponds with reality. But, their belief system, which infuses their written or verbal expositions, is not equivalent to or equated with the world, with reality, with truth, with facts, with a state of affairs. It is really nothing more than their fanciful notion of the world, of reality, of truth; and that belief system simply coheres with or corresponds to their personal values, their normative belief system; nothing more. Thus, they confuse the idea of the way the world is with the idea of the way they think the world ought to be, taking the public along for the ride—insisting that the public come along for the ride. They seek to thrust their belief system about the world—which is nothing more than their perception of reality, their personal false conception of truth about the world—upon everyone else, namely, the American public. They seek to thrust a simulacrum of truth on the public, compelling the public to accept the simulacrum as reality. It isn’t, and never was, and never can be. Truth and falsity are, in the final analysis, tied to propositions, not to things. One never can remove the veneer of perception to reality. Only God can remove the veneer. Only the Creator can see World as the thing in and of itself.So, the mainstream media, for all its heralding of truth in the news is not a source of truth at all. The most perceptive agents working for the mainstream media may know this and, therefore, may not actually delude themselves into believing that they are reporting “truth.” The most perceptive are not interested in reporting truth anyway, if such were even possible.

THE GOAL OF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS TO CONVEY, TO INSERT, TO IMPRINT IN THE MIND OF ITS TARGET AUDIENCE, A WAY OF LOOKING AT THE WORLD—CREATING AN APPEARANCE OF THE WORLD THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAY THE WORLD IS. THE GOAL OF THOSE WHO WORK IN AND FOR THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS TO MISLEAD AND TO DECEIVE THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY AND TO DISGUISE THEIR INTENTIONS WHICH, UPON CLOSE EXAMINATION IS DELITERIOUS TO THE WELL-BEING OF OUR NATION, AS AN INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN NATION STATE AND IS HARMFUL TO THE WELL-BEING OF THE NATION'S CITIZENRY.

The goal of the mainstream media is to convey a way of looking about the world upon its target audience. Sometimes this is done consciously. Often, it is not. This has absolutely nothing to do about the way the world is. And this has nothing to do with a quest for truth. It has everything to do with urging the public to march willingly behind the policy makers in government who have, themselves, no idea of the way the world is either, and would not care to know the way the world is even if they could catch a glimpse of the way the world really is, beyond the veneer of perception. Policy makers simply desire to shape the world in a way consistent with their policy objectives. The public for its part has no say in the matter, but is led by the nose, through the machinations of the mainstream media to believe that it agrees with the policy objectives of government policy makers when, rather, the public is merely conditioned through propaganda to believe it is giving its unfettered consent.The mainstream media is a conglomerate of propagandists, not journalists. The job of the mainstream media, through its legion of reporters, editors, analysts, commentators, and “experts,” is in the business to impose a world view on the public. The job of the mainstream media is not to educate; nor is it to inform the public. Contrary to its declarations, the mainstream media is not in business to provide information to the American citizen in order that each American citizen can derive his or her own conclusion, from the information given. No! The job of the mainstream media is to misinform the public and to misdirect it, in the same vein as a stage magician or illusionist, tricking its audience into believing that what it sees is truth—predicated on reality—when in fact the public is only being exposed to a chimera, a charade—something taken to be reality that is really nothing more than a fiction—a misperception of reality, and one that, on balance, is altogether inconsistent with the American's citizen's own personal desires, hopes, security, and well-being.The reporters, editors, and commentators of the mainstream media seek to misdirect the target audience like the magician, like the illusionist. The mainstream media seeks to shape beliefs and, therein, to shape one’s perception of reality—a fabrication, a template that the mainstream media focuses on the fabric of a person’s mind. Through manipulation of perception, these propagandists, on behalf of government, seek to form and to transform attitudes and beliefs. They do this through misinformation, disinformation, and non-information. They do it through confabulation and by manipulation of data. They do it through psychological devices designed to stir emotion. They use rhetorical flourishes and deliberate fallacious reasoning. These propagandists mold and shape public attitudes like so much clay wielded by a sculptor.

GUNS ARE NOT EVIL BUT FOR SO SAYING MAKES IT SO.

The public is told that guns are evil. The public is told that guns make good people, bad, and that they make bad people, worse. These propagandists—pretending to be journalists—use tragedy to their advantage—immerse the public in the filth and muck of it, repeating, incessantly, hypnotically, the same mantra, the same “talking points,” the same images and messaging played on and on in the printed medium and over the airwaves, a vicious, endless loop—cementing a bizarre perception of the world, of “truth” about the world in the public’s mind. The “truth” about the world that the mainstream media conveys is that the root cause of violence in America is tied to guns. These mainstream media image makers thread normative concepts of right and wrong, good and bad, through their “news” accounts, transforming ostensible neutral news accounts into disingenuous opinion editorials. The mainstream media image makers do this for the specific purpose of  swaying public mood and temperament; for the purpose of persuading public sentiment toward their cause; for the purpose of disciplining the masses and controlling their actions; and for urging public conformity to policy objectives they, rather than the public, champion. These image makers decide when it is right and ripe to make the public weep; when it is proper to make the public angry; when it is appropriate to move the public toward action. These image makers are adept at moving the public to believe, albeit wrongly, that such negative beliefs the public holds, say, toward guns, emanate from within the public consciousness itself, rather than outwardly, as such beliefs really do, from the image makers themselves--as a projection emanating from the propagandists' own verbal and written subconscious commands, mapped and imprinted onto the mind of the subject—the target audience, the American citizenry. Negative attitudes toward guns have, then, as their genesis, external psychological conditioning. Such negative attitudes do not exist inherently in the individual but what is injected into the mind of the recipient audience.These propagandists of the mainstream media insert, like a hypodermic needle into the brain—ludicrous notions—memes—about and toward inanimate objects. The public is encouraged to believe, wrongly, that negative thoughts about guns are of the public’s own making. They are not. Still, the public is directed by the propagandists to seek revenge against the salient culprit—the gun. The public is told, as well, that any individual can go off the deep-end and that because no one can know for certain who that will be and when that might happen, therefore everyone is suspect. Everyone’s rights are suspended because everyone is guilty of “precrime.” The average American citizen is treated as a random bit of dangerous energy whose impulses must be checked. Thus, the Deep State Government bureaucrats and policy makers believe it necessary to curb, to curtail that person’s natural, fundamental rights; to curb freedom--to do this in order to better control the masses.It becomes necessary to watch a citizen’s every thought, the citizen’s every deed. People, thus, begin to doubt themselves. That is by design. People begin to doubt their own sense of self; their own sense of self-worth; their own sense of self-control. They look for something outside themselves to protect them from themselves. They look to government for the answers. This is what government wants. This is what mainstream media is designed to do. The public looks to government as a balm for their worries, for their concerns. Self-doubt is the new reality, the new truth.The Bill of Rights is denigrated, must be denigrated. For the Bill of Rights is grounded in the sanctity of the individual. It is grounded in self-reliance and personal responsibility; maximizing freedom of action and minimizing government control over one’s actions. The Bill of Rights is dangerous to Order in the World--dangerous to the New World Order. The Bill of Rights is deemed the antithesis of truth. It does not fit in with the new reality; it does not fit in with the way the World is supposed to be. It does not fit in with this New World Order—a phrase that the mainstream media, once avoided referring to, but is now beginning to insert in its news coverage, in its news analysis, in its news commentary. Why is that?Is the mainstream media, on behalf of its internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist benefactors setting the stage for the final act, the coup de grâce to the Nation, notwithstanding that its darling child, Hillary Clinton, failed—failed her handlers miserably—to assume the mantel of the U.S. Presidency? Is not the mainstream media doing what it must, what it has been told to do: set the stage for the removal of the American people’s choice for the U.S. Presidency, Donald Trump? Is this not deemed necessary by the internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist community so it can proceed with the final step in the creation of a new reality, a New World Order, demanding, then, the de facto dismantling of the United States as a sovereign entity, a sovereign Nation and, thence, accomplishing with that, the destruction of the very notion of the sanctity of and reality of the concept of the “Nation State” and of the sanctity and inviolability of the individual that resides in it?Public attitudes are synchronized with and to public policy. Remove guns from the citizenry! Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment is undercut. Control Speech! Thus, the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause is weakened. Collect and collate and analyze and synthesize all private information and communication! Thus, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures as codified in the Fourth Amendment is undermined. And the public comes to believe that this is all for the good, that this is what it seeks and what it really wants. The public fails to see that it has been played for a fool; that it has been hoodwinked all along.The American people fail to see that negative thoughts toward the Bill of Rights is not of their own making; and never was. They fail to see that they have been led like willing sheep, to accept policy that they have never had a hand in making. They willingly give up their birthright and walk willy-nilly into the sausage machine, to be ground up and spewed out and stuffed into casing for consumption by the internationalist trans-nationalist globalist “elites.”

IF WE LOSE OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND IF WE LOSE OUR PRIVACY, OUR NATION, OUR FREE REPUBLIC  WILL DIE A SLOW DEATH; BUT IF WE LOSE OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, OUR NATION, OUR FREE REPUBLIC DIES INSTANTLY, INSTANTANEOUSLY, IRREVOCABLY.

As much as the mainstream media would like Americans to see themselves as part of a larger international community that does not embrace gun ownership and possession, it must be understood that Americans are not like the populace of other Nations, and choose not to be. We are not Australians, nor Canadians, nor Brits, nor Mexicans. We are not Spaniards, nor Portuguese, nor French, nor Germans. Our firearms and our cherished Second Amendment are not to be swept aside and under, into the dustbin of history. And those Americans who own and possess firearms and who sanctify our right to keep and bear arms are not to be mocked. The ruthlessly powerful, obscenely wealthy, and inordinately secretive internationalists and trans-nationalist globalists who operate silently behind the scenes, through the Deep State and through the mainstream media, know that, so long as the Second Amendment remains intact, the sovereignty of our Nation and of our People, cannot falter; cannot fall. Thus, they work toward the eradication of the Second Amendment.To do this, the tactic of the internationalist, globalist “elite” is to manipulate public thought—to manipulate perception—to create a reality that the American public ought never to accept—namely, the destruction of the sovereignty and independence of our Nation State; the destruction of our fundamental, natural rights, codified in our Bill of Rights; the destruction of the glorification of the individual spirit, and of the sanctity and inviolability of the individual’s right to be and remain individual; lord over his or her own well-being and destiny. The right of the people to keep and bear arms keeps is not mere slogan. It is an assertion of the indomitability of American spirit and pride. It is a statement of the sovereignty of the American citizenry over government. It is a reminder to those who serve the American public that ultimate authority rests in and with the American citizenry. And it is a declaration of defiance directed to those secretive, powerful forces that seek to crush America and Americans into submission. The Second Amendment must ever remain omnipresent and omnipotent. It is the singular truth of what it means to be an American citizen. It underlies our core values, our history, our culture, our singular and unique identity. This is our reality and it is not to be tinkered with or tampered with.Those that mock us, and who mock our beliefs and who openly and shamelessly sneer at our President, and those who seek to thrust a new reality upon us, and who dare inject a new “truth” into our being, into our very soul, should keep well in mind that any attempt to undercut the authority of the American People and to undermine the supremacy of our Constitution, and to denigrate and warp our Bill of Rights and our Constitution, shall incite in the American people a fury that will not be, will never be constrained.The use of clever, adroit psychological programming and propaganda will not fool us. Gifts of money or sweetmeats will not tempt or sway or soften or corrupt us. Pabulum in the way of entertainment will not distract us. And if, ultimately, these internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist “elites” become frustrated with us and feel obliged to resort to force of arms to break us, we will meet such force with force of arms of our own. For we know full well the mechanism of force of arms, as did the founders of our free Republic, the framers of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights; and we will not shirk from using such force of arms as necessary to preserve the soul of our Nation and to preserve the sanctity of our own individual American soul and spirit._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

IS THE “MAXIM 50 SUPPRESSED MUZZLELOADER”, MANUFACTURED BY SILENCERCO, LEGAL IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY?

The Arbalest Quarrel has previously analyzed New York State gun laws to determine whether a New York resident, who wishes to own and possess the Maxim 50 “integrally suppressed muzzleloader,” manufactured by SilencerCo, can lawfully do so. SilencerCo says that civilians can do so in all 50 States, which, then, includes New York. SilencerCo says that, in most States, individuals can purchase the Maxim 50 directly through interstate commerce, direct from the manufacturer, SilencerCo, meaning that an individual need not purchase the Maxim 50 through an intermediary, meaning a licensed dealer in firearms. According to SilencerCo, a civilian, who desires to purchase the Maxim 50 in some jurisdictions—which includes New York—that civilian can still do so but must obtain the Maxim 50 through a licensed gun dealer. That means that a person who wishes to purchases the Maxim 50 in a jurisdiction, such as  New York, and certain other jurisdictions that SilencerCo mentions on its website, can do so but can only do so through a licensed gun dealer, operating and doing business in the State in which the individual resides. Specifically, SilencerCo says this:“For the first time since the National Firearms Act (NFA)* was created in 1934, civilians can enjoy suppressed shooting in all 50 states with SilencerCo’s latest innovation: the integrally suppressed Maxim 50 muzzleloader. In addition, this product can be purchased right now on the web with no regulation (no 4473, no $200 tax stamp, no photographs, and no fingerprints) and be shipped immediately to the customer with few exceptions.” New York is one of those few exceptions, according to the manufacturer. SilencerCo says a prospective purchaser, residing in New York may still obtain the weapon, but must do so, not directly, through interstate commerce, shipped directly to the purchaser’s home, but, indirectly, through a holder of an FFL. Is this statement true?Through our own detailed research of New York gun laws, the Arbalest Quarrel concluded that, contrary to SilenceCo's pronouncements, the Maxim 50 is illegal in New York. No reputable licensed gun dealer will, under New York law, accept delivery of a Maxim 50 for ultimate disposition to a civilian. Therefore, no law-abiding New York resident, who is a civilian, and who does not fall under an exemption, should attempt to obtain one.Since a New York resident, who does not fall within an exemption, cannot legally accept delivery of the Maxim 50, either directly from the manufacturer, SilenceCo, or indirectly, from the manufacturer, through a licensed gun dealer, no New York resident (a civilian), can legally possess the Maxim 50. You can read our highly detailed, comprehensive analysis of the impact of New York firearms laws on the issue of the legality/illegality of the Maxim 50 in New York, on the Arbalest Quarrel website, under the title, “Is the “Maxim 50 Suppressed Muzzleloader”, Manufactured by Silenceco, Legal in the State of New York?” Also, in that Arbalest Quarrel article on the Maxim 50 suppressed Muzzleloader, as part of our detailed, comprehensive analysis, we discuss, in depth and at length, the concept of a ‘firearm,’ under federal law as well as under New York law.The legality of civilian ownership and possession of the Maxim 50 must satisfy both federal law as well as the laws of the jurisdiction where the civilian, desiring to possess the Maxim 50 suppressed Muzzleloader, resides. Under federal law, the Maxim 50 does not satisfy the federal definition of ‘firearm,’ and, so, does not fall within the purview of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Since we have previously discussed application of federal law to the Maxim 50 suppressed Muzzleloader, at length, in our previous article on the Maxim 50, apropos of New York law, we won’t reiterate the points here, but invite interested readers, once again, to peruse our in depth analysis in our article--Is the “Maxim 50 Suppressed Muzzleloader”, Manufactured by Silenceco, Legal in the State of New York?”After posting our article, a second reader asked the Arbalest Quarrel whether the average law-abiding civilian, not under disability, may lawfully own and possess the “Maxim 50 Suppressed Muzzleloader” in New Jersey.Now we can cut to the chase here because, as of the date of the posting of this article, SilenceCo will not ship the Maxim 50 either directly to a resident of New Jersey or indirectly, to a resident of New Jersey, through a licensed dealer operating and doing business in New Jersey. This statement contradicts SilenceCo's claim “that civilians can enjoy suppressed shooting in all 50 states with SilencerCo’s latest innovation: the integrally suppressed Maxim 50 muzzleloader” since SilencerCo asserts, at another point on its website, that the Company will not ship the Maxim 50 in three States, even indirectly through a licensed firearms dealer—operating and doing business in New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts. SilencerCo says, of these three States, “Maxim 50 is currently restricted in these states pending legal determinations." So, because SilencerCo will not ship the Maxim 50 even to a licensed dealer operating and doing business in New Jersey, California or Massachusetts.” This means that a resident cannot lawfully obtain the weapon even indirectly through a licensed gun dealer, because it would be illegal to do so, as the Maxim 50 is banned in those States.But, is that, in fact, true, and, if so, why?One website “Range365,” had this to say about the problem SilencerCo is having with New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts: “As soon as the company announced the gun and its legal status, it was challenged by lawyers and authorities in three states with some of the toughest gun laws in the country and where suppressors are banned at a state level: New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts. Here’s an official statement from SilencerCo regarding the legal status of the Maxim 50: ‘Upon launching the Maxim 50, SilencerCo received several immediate legal challenges from authorities and lawyers in the states of New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts. Since we have no desire to place any consumer in a situation where they may get arrested and charged with a felony because their state defines a firearm differently than the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), we have placed orders from those states on hold and are refunding customers pending conversations amongst lawyers. These three states have rules that are not entirely clear with respect to firearms and silencers and antique firearms, and it is relevant to point out that no states contemplated a product of this sort in their laws. Muzzleloaders are considered “‘antique firearms’” by the ATF, and therefore, the Maxim 50's integral suppressor isn't considered a suppressor.SilencerCo asked for and received a determination from the BATFE on behalf of the federal government prior to launch but could not do so officially from each state government or risk specific state-level legislation being passed prohibiting the product before it was even launched. We will refund orders to customers from these states and update consumers as soon as feasible as to the ultimate determination in California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. “We believe that law­ abiding citizens should have the ability to purchase and own silencers, regardless of what state they live in. We will continue our efforts in advocacy and encourage all who share our desire to take action and contact their elected representatives by visiting www.fightthenoise.org.’Federally, the Maxim 50 is considered legal because, as a muzzleloader, it is defined as an “antique firearm” and not a “firearm” by the ATF, which exempts them from many gun laws. Muzzleloaders are not required to go through an FFL (they are in NJ) and can be shipped right to your door, in most states. Likewise, because the integral suppressor can’t be removed or attached to a “firearm,” it is not considered a suppressor and is not subject to National Firearms Act regulations.”The Maxim 50 is currently restricted in these states pending legal determinations. So, SilenceCo will not ship the Maxim 50 even to a licensed dealer operating and doing business in New Jersey, California or Massachusetts." The Arbalest Quarrel, for its part, doesn’t assume any  assertion, involving legal issues, is true until we analyze the applicable laws impacting firearms in the respective jurisdictions ourselves, and, having done so, then explain our findings to interested readers. So, let us begin, forthwith.

DOES THE MAXIM 50 COME UNDER THE PURVIEW OF NEW JERSEY GUN CONTROL LAWS?

New Jersey law utilizes some of the language of federal firearms law, but, as with New York firearms law, New Jersey firearms law has its own unique twists and wrinkles.

IS THE MAXIM 50 DEFINED AS A FIREARM UNDER NEW JERSEY GUN CONTROL LAWS?

We go to the New Jersey Annotated Statutes for the answer.Let’s look at some definitions. We turn to N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-1 of Title 2C, The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice  >  Subtitle 2. Specific Offenses  >  Part 5. Offenses Against the Public; Public Order, Health and Decency  >  Chapter 39. Weapons. First, we look at the definition of ‘firearm.’ N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-1 of Title 2C says, “the following definitions apply to this chapter [Chapter 39 (Weapons)] and to Chapter 58 [Possession of Firearms].”

DEFINITION OF 'FIREARM' IN NEW JERSEY LAW:

N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-1(f) says this: “‘Firearm’ means any handgun, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, automatic or semi-automatic rifle, or any gun, device or instrument in the nature of a weapon from which may be fired or ejected any solid projectable ball, slug, pellet, missile or bullet, or any gas, vapor or other noxious thing, by means of a cartridge or shell or by the action of an explosive or the igniting of flammable or explosive substances. It shall also include, without limitation, any firearm which is in the nature of an air gun, spring gun or pistol or other weapon of a similar nature in which the propelling force is a spring, elastic band, carbon dioxide, compressed or other gas or vapor, air or compressed air, or is ignited by compressed air, and ejecting a bullet or missile smaller than three-eighths of an inch in diameter, with sufficient force to injure a person.”The Maxim 50 fits the New Jersey definition of 'firearm.' So, the Maxim 50 is a firearm under New Jersey firearms laws.

DEFINITION OF 'ANTIQUE FIREARM' IN NEW JERSEY LAW:

N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-1(a) says this: “‘Antique firearm’ means any rifle or shotgun and “antique cannon” means a destructive device defined in paragraph (3) of subsection c. of this section, if the rifle, shotgun or destructive device, as the case may be, is incapable of being fired or discharged, or which does not fire fixed ammunition, regardless of date of manufacture, or was manufactured before 1898 for which cartridge ammunition is not commercially available, and is possessed as a curiosity or ornament or for its historical significance or value.”The manufacturer says, in its product manual, to “USE ONLY BLACK POWDER OR APPROVED BLACK POWDER SUBSTITUTE IN YOUR MUZZLELOADER.” So, then, the Maxim 50 suppressed Muzzleloader, is also an "antique firearm."

WHY, SPECIFICALLY, THE MAXIM 50 IS BOTH A FIREARM UNDER NEW JERSEY LAW AND AN ANTIQUE FIREARM UNDER NEW JERSEY LAW

Clearly, under New Jersey law, the Maxim 50 suppressed Muzzleloader is a firearm under New Jersey law precisely because the weapon does fire a "solid projectable ball, slug, missile or bullet. . . by means of a cartridge or shell or by the action of an explosive or the igniting of flammable or explosive substances."  But, the weapon is also an "antique firearm" under New Jersey law precisely because the weapon "does not fire fixed ammunition." * The conclusion we are forced to draw is singularly bizarre, to be sure, but true, nonetheless, given the definitions provided to us in the New Jersey Annotated Statutes: A weapon, any muzzleloader that is either a shotgun or rifle satisfies the definitions of both a 'firearm' and an 'antique firearm' under New Jersey firearms laws. So, some weapons. including, then, the Maxim 50, can be both a firearm and an antique firearm. This makes the concept of 'antique firearm', then, essentially redundant.Thus, under New Jersey law, unlike the situation in federal law, a muzzleloader, that does not fire fixed ammunition, is both a firearm and an antique firearm. This fact is important as it leads directly to the question whether a person, namely a civilian, not under disability, who seeks to purchase a muzzleloader rifle or shotgun--any muzzleloader rifle or shotgun--must obtain a valid New Jersey firearms identification card to do so, lawfully. To explain this, we turn, once again, to New Jersey Statute.

DOES PURCHASE OF A MUZZLELOADER IN NEW JERSEY REALLY REQUIRE A FIREARMS IDENTIFICATION CARD?

N.J. Stat. § 2C:58-3(b) Purchase of Firearms, of the New Jersey Annotated Statutes  >  Title 2C. The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice  >  Subtitle 3. Sentencing  >  Chapter 58. Possession of Firearms; Licensing Firearms purchaser identification card says: "No person shall sell, give, transfer, assign or otherwise dispose of nor receive, purchase or otherwise acquire an antique cannon or a rifle or shotgun, other than an antique rifle or shotgun, unless the purchaser, assignee, donee, receiver or holder is licensed as a dealer under this chapter or possesses a valid firearms purchaser identification card, and first exhibits the card to the seller, donor, transferor or assignor, and unless the purchaser, assignee, donee, receiver or holder signs a written certification, on a form prescribed by the superintendent, which shall indicate that he presently complies with the requirements of subsection c. of this section and shall contain his name, address and firearms purchaser identification card number or dealer’s registration number. The certification shall be retained by the seller, as provided in paragraph (4) of subsection a. of N.J.S.2C:58-2, or, in the case of a person who is not a dealer, it may be filed with the chief of police of the municipality in which he resides or with the superintendent."Pay particular attention to the first conjunct of the sentence: “No person shall sell, give, transfer, assign or otherwise dispose of nor receive, purchase or otherwise acquire an antique cannon or a rifle or shotgun, other than an antique rifle or shotgun, unless the purchaser, assignee, donee, receiver or holder is licensed as a dealer under this chapter or possesses a valid firearms purchaser identification card.” Under a reasonable construction of N.J. Stat. § 2C:58-3(b), this would suggest that a person (civilian), not under disability, who resides in New Jersey, does not require a valid firearms purchaser identification card to possess an antique rifle or shotgun. But, if an antique rifle and an antique shotgun are also defined as 'firearms'--and they are defined as 'firearms' under N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-1(f)--then a valid firearms purchaser identification card is required. Clearly the two Statutes, N.J. Stat. § 2C:58-3(b) and N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-1(f), are inconsistent. The two Statutes are in conflict as to the issue whether a resident of New Jersey is required to hold a valid firearms purchaser identification card to possess an antique rifle or antique shotgun. The problem arises because, under the definition of 'firearm,' as set forth in N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-1(f), there is no distinction made between weapons that fire "fixed ammunition," namely and essentially, those weapons that utilize cartridges, and those that do not, namely, those that utilize black powder as a propellant, along with a separate ball or pellet, as is the case with muzzleloaders, such as the Maxim 50. Is this conflict due to devious design in the drafting or due to inadvertent ignorance or negligence? Who can say?Okay, then. So, the Maxim 50 suppressed Muzzleloader, is both a "firearm" and an “antique firearm” under New Jersey law. In either event, a person, who is a civilian residing in New Jersey, and who is not under disability, can lawfully possess a rifle that is muzzleloader and a shotgun that is a muzzleloader. But, in either case, that person must first obtain a valid New Jersey firearms identification card to do so, lawfully. These weapons are not banned in New Jersey. Is that all we should be concerned about, when dealing with the Maxim 50? That, indeed, would be the only thing that we would have to worry about, if the Maxim 50 were an ordinary muzzleloader. But, wait a second! The Maxim 50 is not an ordinary muzzleloader. Yes, the Maxim 50 is a firearm under New Jersey law and it is also an "antique firearm," under New Jersey law, but, specifically, it is both a firearm and an antique firearm that, under either or both definitions, utilizes a suppressor, integrated into the weapon, according to the manufacturer. In fact, that is the significant and defining feature of the Maxim 50 and a significant selling point. The weapon comes equipped with an integrated firearms suppressor (essentially, an (integrated) “firearms silencer,” under New Jersey law (and we understand that the word ‘firearms silencer’ is inaccurate and essentially a misnomer, as the component "silences" nothing and that the expression 'firearms suppressor' is the preferred expression as it this expression that is used in the firearms industry)).  We must now ask a salient and penultimate question: Does New Jersey discuss silencers in its annotated Statutes? Yes, it does.  Yet, this fact is of no substantive legal or logical consequence if “silencers” are legal in New Jersey. But are they? Let's see.

DEFINITION OF 'FIREARM SILENCER' IN NEW JERSEY LAW

N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-1(g) says this: “‘Firearm silencer’ means any instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance for causing the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm to be silent, or intended to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm.Important Note: under this definition, the fact that the Maxim 50 weapon makes use of an integrated silencer or suppressor, doesn’t obviate or change  the basic nature of the weapon as a ‘firearm silencer' under New Jersey law, whether the silencer is integrated into the weapon or not.Once again, this fact would be of no substantive consequence if “silencers” were legal in New Jersey. But are they? This takes us to the next critical question:

ARE SILENCERS LEGAL IN NEW JERSEY?

No they are not! Why is that? Let’s see. N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-3(c), “silencers” of N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-3, titled, “Prohibited weapons and devices,” of the New Jersey Annotated Statutes  >  Title 2C. The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice  >  Subtitle 2. Specific Offenses  >  Part 5. Offenses Against the Public; Public Order, Health and Decency  >  Chapter 39. Weapons, categorically bans the possession of silencers. N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-3(c), “silencers” says this: “Any person who knowingly has in his possession any firearm silencer is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.”Now we must consider whether the fact that the Maxim 50 is manufactured with a suppressor that is integrated into the weapon serves to override the problem commonly associated with “silencers” as separate components of weapons. This requires us to ask and answer the salient, critical, and ultimate question:

DOES A WEAPON--IN THIS CASE, THE MAXIM 50--THAT UTILIZES A SILENCER (SUPPRESSOR) THAT IS INTEGRATED WITH THE WEAPON, RATHER THAN CONSTRUED AS A SEPARATE COMPONENT OF A WEAPON THAT NEED NOT, THEN, BE UTILIZED WITH THE WEAPON--SATISFACTORILY AVOID THE PROBLEM ASSOCIATED WITH SILENCERS AS ILLEGAL COMPONENTS OF WEAPONS, UNDER NEW JERSEY LAW?

Once again, pay attention to the language of Statute. Under New Jersey law, specifically, N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-1(g), “‘Firearm silencer’ means any instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance for causing the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm to be silent, or intended to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm.” Under a reasonable interpretation of New Jersey law, a firearm silencer (firearm suppressor) is broadly defined to include many things: instruments, attachments, weapons or appliances. The manner in which the device is employed by or utilized in a weapon--whether separate and apart from a weapon or incorporated in a weapon is, then, irrelevant to it's nature and to the question of its lawfulness in New Jersey. The fact, then, that the firearm silencer (firearm suppressor) is integrated into the Maxim 50 is of no moment. Under the definition provided in N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-1(g), the fact that the Maxim 50 weapon makes use of an integrated silencer or suppressor, doesn’t obviate or change the basic nature of the weapon as a ‘firearm silencer' under New Jersey law, whether the silencer is integrated into the weapon or not. To the extent that a "silencer" is per se a "weapon" is sufficient to render it illegal under N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-3(c). Again--N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-3(c) “silencers” of N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-3, titled, “Prohibited weapons and devices,” of the New Jersey Annotated Statutes  >  Title 2C. The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice  >  Subtitle 2. Specific Offenses  >  Part 5. Offenses Against the Public; Public Order, Health and Decency  >  Chapter 39. Weapons, categorically bans the possession of silencers. N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-3(c): “Any person who knowingly has in his possession any firearm silencer is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree”--presents an insurmountable problem for SilencerCo and for those individuals, namely residents of New Jersey, civilians, not under disability, who would like to purchase and possess the Maxim 50.So, the fact that the Maxim 50 is a firearm under New Jersey law and the fact that the Maxim 50 is also an antique firearm under New Jersey law do not, of themselves, create insurmountable legal hurdles for those individuals--residents of New Jersey, civilians, not under disability--who might wish to own and possess a Maxim 50. But, the fact that the Maxim 50 is also a 'silencer' does create an insurmountable hurdle for those individuals who seek to own and possess a Maxim 50, in New Jersey. And, this is the problem presently plaguing SilencerCo that would like to be able to market the weapon to civilians in New Jersey. 

BOTTOM LINE:

The Arbalest Quarrel concludes that the Maxim 50 suppressed Muzzleloader, whether construed as a “firearm” or as an “antique firearm” is, in either case, a silencer, under the laws of New Jersey and, therefore, patently illegal for a person to own or possess in New Jersey unless a person falls within the purview of N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-6, titled, Exemptions, which include, inter alia, federal law enforcement officers, Members of the State Police, Members of the Armed Forces of the United States or of the National Guard if on actual duty, and licensed dealers in firearms, during the course of their normal business. Therefore, the average, law-abiding New Jersey resident, who does not fall within an exemption, and who is not under disability, should not attempt to obtain the Maxim 50. To do so is to invite decidedly unpleasant legal repercussions.As we said in our previous article, determining the legality of the Maxim 50 in New York, whether the Maxim 50 is "legal" in other States requires a separate analysis of each State's own peculiar firearms' laws. The Arbalest Quarrel will analyze other State laws to ascertain whether the Maxim 50 is legal in those States, upon specific request of readers._________________________________________________*Note: There is another perplexing wrinkle in New Jersey. New Jersey firearms Statutes make no mention of a handgun in the definition of 'antique firearm.' So, do not assume that, because it might appear that a handgun is an "antique," that the handgun can be treated like an "antique rifle" or "antique shotgun". It cannot. A handgun that is a muzzleloader is not an "antique firearm" at all under New Jersey law.  Under N.J. Stat. § 2C:58-3(a) Purchase of Firearms, of the New Jersey Annotated Statutes  >  Title 2C. The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice  >  Subtitle 3. Sentencing  >  Chapter 58. Possession of Firearms; Licensing Firearms purchaser identification card, a person requires a handgun identification card to purchase and to possess a handgun, regardless of the kind of handgun. N.J. Stat. § 2C:58-3(a) says: “Permit to purchase a handgun. No person shall sell, give, transfer, assign or otherwise dispose of, nor receive, purchase, or otherwise acquire a handgun unless the purchaser, assignee, donee, receiver or holder is licensed as a dealer under this chapter or has first secured a permit to purchase a handgun as provided by this section.”_________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

H.R. 38: CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY ACT OF 2017: A REAL POSSIBILITY OR A WILL-O'-THE-WISP?

BUT WHO WOULD PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM THE TYRANNY OF GOVERNMENT IF NOT THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES?

{Antifederalist, founder of our free Republic, Patrick Henry’s prescient argument, given before the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788, recognizing the need for an armed citizenry as the great bulwark against a tyrannical government. Note: the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified a few short years later, in December 1791}.“But, Sir, I have strong cause of apprehension: In some parts of the plan before you, the great rights of freemen are endangered, in other parts absolutely taken away. How does your trial by jury stand? In civil cases gone-not sufficiently secured in criminal-this best privilege is gone: But we are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our Representatives, will not abuse the power we put in their hands: I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers? I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny: Happy will you be if you miss the fate of those nations, who, omitting to resist their oppressors, or negligently suffering their liberty to be wrested from them, have groaned under intolerable despotism. Most of the human race are now in this deplorable condition: And those nations who have gone in search of grandeur, power, and splendor, have also fallen a sacrifice, and been the victims of their own folly: While they acquired those visionary blessings, they lost their freedom. My great objection to this Government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants: It is urged by some gentlemen, that this new plan will bring us an acquisition of strength, an army, and the militia of the States: This is an idea extremely ridiculous: Gentlemen cannot be earnest. This acquisition will trample on our fallen liberty: Let my beloved Americans guard against that fatal lethargy that has pervaded the universe: Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the militia, is put into the hands of Congress? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England-a compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a Confederacy, like Holland-an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a Confederacy to a consolidated Government. We have no detail of these great consideration, which, in my opinion, ought to have abounded before we should recur to a government of this kind. Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: And cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Oh, Sir, we should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people. Your arms wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical; no longer democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America. A standing army we shall have also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny: And how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your Mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? In what situation are we to be? . . . . The clause before you gives a power of direct taxation, unbounded and unlimited: Exclusive power of Legislation in all cases whatsoever, for ten miles square; and over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, etc. What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness. You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies: Those garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress also in another part of this plan: They will therefore act as they think proper: All power will be in their own possession: You cannot force them to receive their punishment: Of what service would militia be to you, when most probably you will not have a single musket in the State; for as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them. Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power, ‘To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.’ By this, Sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the States can do neither, this power being exclusively given to Congress: The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous: So that this pretended little remains of power left to the States may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory. Our situation will be deplorable indeed: Nor can we ever expect to get this government amended, since I have already shewn, that a very small minority may prevent it; and that small minority interested in the continuance of the oppression: Will the oppressor let go the oppressed? Was there even an instance? Can the annals of mankind exhibit one single example, where rulers overcharged with power willingly let go the oppressed, though solicited and requested most earnestly? Was there even an instance?” Speech of Patrick Henry (quoted at length, passim); Virginia Constitutional Ratifying Convention, 5 June 1788  in The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Jonathon Elliot ed., 1907).

IMAGINE PATRICK HENRY GIVING THE ABOVE SPEECH TO THE 115TH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES. DO YOU NOT THINK THAT PATRICK HENRY WOULD SUPPORT NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY LEGISLATION? WHAT, DO YOU SUPPOSE, WOULD BE DEMOCRATIC PARTY REACTION TO PATRICK HENRY'S SPEECH? IMAGINE DEMOCRATS AND CENTRIST REPUBLICANS TELLING PATRICK HENRY THAT HIS WORDS, HIS PERCEPTIONS, HIS LOVE FOR THE SACRED RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF AMERICANS ARE NO LONGER RELEVANT! ALL THE WORSE, THEN, FOR WE, AMERICANS, OF THIS "BRAVE" NEW WORLD ORDER.

National Concealed Handgun Carry Reciprocity, also referred to as "Constitutional Carry," is an issue of great importance to Americans who hold dear the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Unfortunately, many members of Congress—and need we daresay, most members of Congress—do not share the same sensibility and enthusiasm toward this sacred, sacrosanct, and inviolate right that the founders of our free Republic, not least of all Patrick Henry, felt important enough to enshrine in the most critical component of our Constitution: Our Bill of Rights. In fact, it is apparent that many members of Congress—virtually all Democrats, along with a good many centrist Republicans—feel that the fundamental right embodied in the Second Amendment should be whittled away to nothingness; and, by their way of thinking, good riddance, grounded on the reason, often given, and fervently believed, that the Second Amendment has long outlived its usefulness, its purpose, its very significance. They have, accordingly, passed legislation to accomplish that very goal, enacting numerous laws to destroy the free exercise of our most sacred right: the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

FIVE CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS THAT HAVE HARMED THE AMERICAN CITIZEN’S EXERCISE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

The comprehensive National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) did significant, substantial, perhaps even irreparable damage to the right codified in the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. But, lest one be under the illusion that anti-Second Amendment Congressional legislators were confident that the NFA and GCA amount to the veritable endgame in weakening the Second Amendment, Congress was far from done. Congress has since amended the GCA, further beleaguering the right of the people to keep and bear arms. We witness the Firearms Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA)*; the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act of 1993; and the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (AWB) (now, fortunately, expired).

NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY LEGISLATION

Congressional Republicans attempted to push back against the NFA, GCA and against an onslaught of further anti-Second Amendment bills, presented by Congressional Democrats, by drafting bills of their own that, if enacted, would strengthen the Second Amendment in accordance with the intent of the framers of it. From 2011 to date Republicans in the House and Senate introduced thirteen bills, any one of which, if enacted, would allow individuals, not under disability, who have a valid license to carry a handgun concealed in one State to lawfully carry a concealed handgun in every other State. Where are they now? Four of the bills failed in Committee. The other nine are stalled in Committee. The Arbalest Quarrel has written on this dismal state of affairs in the article, titled, “Second Amendment Handgun Carry Reciprocity Among the Several States—A Right Denied!”, posted on September 29, 2017.  None appear to be going anywhere soon.Although the basic mechanics of how a bill becomes law is no secret, and readily discernible, still, nonetheless, the inner workings of the U.S. Congress is inscrutable. One thing, though, is clear. No bill comes to the Floor of the House or Senate, for open hearing, debate and vote, without the backing of House and Senate leadership. So, if the Senate Majority Leader, at the moment, Senator Mitch McConnell, and if the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, at the moment, Representative Paul Ryan, do not wish to give a bill so much as an even chance of passage, then the bill will die in committee or, otherwise, the bill will be cast into a committee limbo. Such is the fate of most bills. Such is the fate of all national concealed handgun carry bills, to date.

H.R. 38: CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY ACT OF 2017

H.R. 38 is merely the latest of the national concealed handgun carry reciprocity bills to be introduced in Congress. The purpose of the bill is set forth thus: “A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State.”In full, H.R. 38 sets forth:SECTION 1.  SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017".SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS. (a)  IN GENERAL. – Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:  "§ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms "(a)  Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that- "(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or "(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes. "(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that- "(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or "(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park. "(c) (1)  A person who carries or possesses a concealed handgun in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) may not be arrested or otherwise detained for violation of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof related to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms unless there is probable cause to believe that the person is doing so in a manner not provided for by this section. Presentation of facially valid documents as specified in subsection (a) is prima facie evidence that the individual has a license or permit as required by this section. "(2) When a person asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the prosecution shall bear the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the person did not satisfy the conditions set forth in subsections (a) and (b). "(3) When a person successfully asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the court shall award the prevailing defendant a reasonable attorney's fee. "(d) (1)  A person who is deprived of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by this section, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or any political subdivision thereof, may bring an action in any appropriate court against any other person, including a State or political subdivision thereof, who causes the person to be subject to the deprivation, for damages or other appropriate relief. "(2) The court shall award a plaintiff prevailing in an action brought under paragraph (1) damages and such other relief as the court deems appropriate, including a reasonable attorney's fee. "(e)  In subsection (a): "(1) The term 'identification document' means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals. "(2) The term 'handgun' includes any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into the handgun or its magazine. "(f) (1)  A person who possesses or carries a concealed handgun under subsection (a) shall not be subject to the prohibitions of section 922(q) with respect to that handgun. "(2) A person possessing or carrying a concealed handgun in a State under subsection (a) may do so in any of the following areas in the State that are open to the public: "(A) A unit of the National Park System. "(B) A unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System. "(C) Public land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. "(D) Land administered and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. "(E) Land administered and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation.". (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. – The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following: "926D.  Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms."(c)  SEVERABILITY. – Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. (d)  EFFECTIVE DATE. – The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Representative Richard Hudson, R-NC, introduced the bill in the House of Representatives on January 3, 2017. There were 84 Cosponsors: 83 Republicans and, curiously, one Democrat. The lone democrat who cosponsored the bill is Henry Cuellar, D-TX.

WHO SIGNED ON AS COSPONSORS OF THE H.R. 38? **

Sponsor and original Cosponsors of H.R. 38  as of the date of the bill's introduction in the U.S. House of Representatives, on 01/03/2017:Hudson, Richard (R-NC) - Sponsor; Lamborn, Doug (R-CO) - Cosponsor; Chabot, Steve (R-OH) - Cosponsor; Smith, Lamar S. (R-TX) -Cosponsor; LaMalfa, Doug (R-CA) - Cosponsor; Graves, Tom (R-GA) - Cosponsor; Yoder, Kevin W. (R-KS) - Cosponsor; Huizenga, Bill (R-MI) - Cosponsor; Cole, Tom (R-OK) - Cosponsor; Duncan, Jeff D. (R-SC) - Cosponsor; Hensarling, Jeb (R-TX) - Cosponsor; Diaz-Balart, Mario (R-FL) - Cosponsor; King, Steve (R-IA) - Cosponsor; Franks, Trent (R-AZ) - Cosponsor; Emmer, Tom (R-MN) -Cosponsor; Cuellar, Henry (D-TX) - Cosponsor; Walorski, Jackie (R-IN) - Cosponsor; Smith, Jason (R-MO) - Cosponsor; Cook, Paul (R-CA) -Cosponsor; Buchanan, Vern (R-FL) - Cosponsor; Olson, Peter Graham (R-TX) - Cosponsor; Harper, Gregg (R-MS) - Cosponsor; Gaetz, Matt (R-FL) - Cosponsor; Hartzler, Vicky (R-MO) - Cosponsor; Johnson, Bill (R-OH) - Cosponsor; Farenthold, R. Blake (R-TX) -Cosponsor; Brooks, Mo (R-AL) - Cosponsor; Kinzinger, Adam (R-IL) - Cosponsor; DesJarlais, Scott Eugene (R-TN) - Cosponsor; Cramer, Kevin (R-ND) - Cosponsor; Holding, George B. (R-NC) - Cosponsor; Meadows, Mark (R-NC) - Cosponsor; Mullin, Markwayne (R-OK) - Cosponsor; Pittenger, Robert (R-NC) - Cosponsor; Wagner, Ann (R-MO) - Cosponsor; Williams, Roger (R-TX) - Cosponsor; Sanford, Marshall C. (R-SC) - Cosponsor; Brat, Dave (R-VA) - Cosponsor; Buck, Ken (R-CO) -Cosponsor; Katko, John M. (R-NY) - Cosponsor; Newhouse, Dan (R-WA) - Cosponsor; Ratcliffe, John Lee (R-TX) - Cosponsor; Walker, Mark (R-NC) - Cosponsor; Westerman, Bruce (R-AR) – Cosponsor

Added Cosponsors, on January 4, 2017:
Bishop (R)-UT	Rouzer (R)-NC	Barr (R)-KY
Added Cosponsors on January 5, 2017:
Bost (R)-IL	Harris (R)-MD	Grothman (R)-WI
Shimkus (R)-IL	Gibbs (R)-OH	Perry (R)-PA
Knight (R)-CA	Comstock (R)-VA	Kelly (R)-PA
Bucshon (R)-IN	Cheney (R)-WY	Taylor (R)-VA
Added Cosponsors, on January 6, 2017:
Sessions (R)-TX	Posey (R)-FL	Gohmert (R)-TX
Comer (R)-KY
Added Cosponsors, on January 9, 2017:
Black (R)-TN	Pearce (R)-NM	Gowdy (R)-SC
Davis (R)-IL	Kelly (R)-MS
Added Cosponsors, on January 10, 2017:
Wilson (R)-SC	Young (R)-IA	Budd (R)-NC
Rooney (R)-FL
Added Cosponsors, on January 11, 2017:
Hultgren (R)-IL	Rokita (R)-IN	Banks (R)-IN
Added Cosponsors, on January 12, 2017:
Young (R)-AK	Thompson (R)-PA	Johnson (R)-LA
Mitchell (R)-MI
Added Cosponsors, on January 13, 2017:
Bishop (R)-MI	Denham (R)-CA	Byrne (R)-AL
Walberg (R)-MI	Barletta (R)-PA	Collins (R)-NY

{Congress has lost its way. Congress does not serve the interests of the American people. But, if it is not the American people whom Congress serves, then whom is it that Congress does serve? Congress must be reminded that its duty is to serve the American people. Those Legislators who fail in their duty to the American people must be voted out of Office.Let your U.S. Senator and U.S. Representative know how you feel about your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Phone (202) 225-3121. It is a fast and easy process; and a critical one. Only through your active participation, can we help secure our Second Amendment.} ________________________________________*Supporters of FOPA might argue that it operates as a positive step forward, toward strengthening the Second Amendment and they might point to support garnered from NRA that supported various aspects of FOPA. But, “Despite its magnanimous sounding title, and notwithstanding some of its more generous provisions, the Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) also contained a Trojan Horse. While the NFA severely restricted possession of fully automatic weapons, the 1986 FOPA, signed into law by President Reagan, made possession of any fully automatic firearm which was manufactured before 1986 a felony, with certain narrow exceptions. Given that possession of fully automatic firearms was already heavily regulated by the NFA, the immediate impact of the FOPA was minimal. However, as 1986 fades into the past, the law has begun to manifest its twofold effect. First, it insures that even fully registered fully automatic firearms in private possession gradually become more and more obsolete. They are now twenty years old. Eventually, they will appear as quaint as the flintlocks that some faux-originalists claim are the only weapons protected under the Framers' intent. Second, as older weapons are gradually decommissioned, fewer of these weapons are available for civilian ownership, reducing the collective firepower of the militia and increasing the price of those full automatics still on the market. The eventual effect of the statute will be a de facto ban on civilian possession of all full automatics, except for a few museum pieces.” And, fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986 are banned from the civilian market altogether. “Do Federal Firearms Laws Violate the Second Amendment by Disarming the Militia?”, 10 Tex. Rev. Law & Pol. 469, 484 (Spring 2006), by John-Peter Lund, A.B. 1997, M.A. 1999, University of California at Berkeley; J.D. 2006, University of Texas. See also, “Symposium: Gun Control and the Second Amendment: Developments and Controversies in the Wake of District of Columbia v. Heller And McDonald v. Chicago: Article: The Great Gun Control War of the Twentieth Century—And Its Lessons For Gun Laws Today, 39 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1527, 1574 (October 2012), by David B. Kopel, Adjunct Professor of Advanced Constitutional Law, Denver University, Sturm College of Law. Research Director, Independence Institute, Denver, Colorado. Associate Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C. Kopel is the author of fourteen books and over eighty scholarly journal articles, including the first law school textbook on the Second Amendment: Nicholas J. Johnson, David B. Kopel, George A. Mocsary & Michael P. O'Shea, Firearms Law and the Second Amendment: Regulation, Rights, and Policy (Aspen Publishers, 2012). This article is a revised and extended version of a portion of the textbook written by Kopel. See David Kopel's website. “Because of an amendment added on the floor of the House, FOPA also banned the sale of new machine guns (manufactured after the date that FOPA became law, May 19, 1986) to the public. The NRA successfully challenged the ban in district court, but lost in the Eleventh Circuit, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. (The challenge had asked that language allowing the sale of new machine guns ‘under the authority of the United States’ be construed to allow sales that complied with the Federal National Firearms Act of 1934).”** Roger Katz and Stephen D’Andrilli, Co-creators of the Arbalest Quarrel weblog, are regular guests on Lock and Load Radio with Bill Frady. Toward the end of the 6:00 show, that took place this past Thursday evening, October 18, 2017, Bill informed Roger Katz that a listener to the show had contacted Bill through the show’s “Chat Room.” The listener requested a list of all Republican House Members who did not support H.R. 38. Roger explained that he would post an article, responsive to the listener’s request. Stephen and Roger are, accordingly, doing so through this article.Responsive to the listener’s request, be advised that the 115^th Congress has 435 House Members, broken down as follows: 239 Republican House members, 194 Democrats, and two vacancies. Concerning the vacancies, the Honorable Tim Murphy resigned on October 21, 2017, and the Honorable Jason Chaffetz resigned on June 30, 2017.  For a list of the names of House and Senate Members, the following websites provide a wealth of information: http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/cong.aspx; https://www.house.gov/; and https://contactsenators.com/party.php?party=republican. Rather than listing the names of those Republican House Members who did not add their names to the list of cosponsors of H.R. 38, Stephen and Roger have listed the names of those who did add their names as cosponsors since the list of cosponsors of the bill was readily ascertainable.It would be unnecessarily labor intensive to list the names of over 150 Republican House Members who did not sign on as cosponsors of the bill, but those individuals who would like to ascertain the names of the Republican House Members who did not add their names as cosponsors to H.R. 38 can readily ascertain who those House Members are by comparing the names of the sponsor and cosponsors of the bill which Roger and Stephen have provided in this article, with those who did not. The web links provided in this article, supra, set forth the names of each House Member. But, keep in mind that, notwithstanding that a House Member adds his or her name as a cosponsor to this bill, or, for that matter, to any other bill, this does not mean the House Member would vote for enactment. A Member of Congress is not required to do so. Similarly, the fact that a House Member did not sign on as a cosponsor of H.R. 38, this does not mean that the House Member would not vote for enactment of H.R. 38 were it to move forward to a full House Floor vote. In fact, many House Members might have cosponsored H.R. 38, knowing full well that its chance of passage, based on what they, and we, have seen of previous similar bills, is slim to nonexistent. Cosponsors of H.R. 38 might, then, wish to create the impression they are fervent supporters of the Second Amendment generally and of national concealed handgun carry legislation particularly, when in fact they are not, knowing that it is highly unlikely that they will ever have to place their honor and integrity on the line as it is highly unlikely—at least at the present time—that H.R. 38 will ever make its way out of Committee, let alone find its way to the House Floor for a full public hearing and debate and, then, on to a full House Floor vote. That is not to say that many--and, probably, or, at least, hopefully all or most--of the cosponsors of H.R. 38 do not in fact strongly support the bill that they have lent their name in support to and that they would not decidedly and definitely like to see passage of the bill in the event, however unlikely it might be, that Representative Paul Ryan, will relent and allow H.R. 38—or any of the other similar national concealed handgun carry reciprocity bills, presently stuck in Committee—to wend its way through Committee and on to the House Floor for full public hearing, debate, and vote. Quite simply, we don't know._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

CONFISCATING FIREARMS FROM GOOD PEOPLE WON’T EVER STOP GUN VIOLENCE PERPETRATED BY BAD PEOPLE

STEPHEN PADDOCK, MASS MURDERER

PART ONE

UNDERSTANDING, TRULY UNDERSTANDING THE MOTIVATIONS OF MASS MURDERERS IS ULTIMATELY IMPOSSIBLE AND PROBABLY A WASTE OF TIME.

“Then the Hatter opened his eyes very wide . . . but all he said was, ‘Why is a raven like a writing-desk?’ ‘Come, we shall have some fun now!’ Thought Alice. ‘I’m glad they’ve begun asking riddles. — ‘I believe I can guess that,’ she added aloud. ‘Do you mean that you think you can find out the answer to it?’ said the March Hare. ‘Have you guessed the riddle yet?’ the Hatter said, turning to Alice again. ‘No, I give it up,’ Alice replied: ‘that’s the answer?’ ‘I haven’t the slightest idea,’ said the Hatter. ‘Nor I,’ said the March Hare. Alice sighed wearily. ‘I think you might do something better with the time,’ she said, ‘than wasting it in asking riddles that have no answers.’” From the fantasy novel, "Alice in Wonderland," by Lewis Carroll“All men are uncreated equal.” From the notebook of the psychotic mass killer,  James Holmes, sentenced by the Court to life + 3,318 years for the murder of 70 individuals and the attempted murder of dozens of others, in a movie theater, in Aurora, Colorado, on July 20, 2012. After sentencing, the Judge, who heard the case, and, having had enough of Holmes, angrily said, “Get the defendant out of my courtroom.”What motivates a person to commit murder and mayhem, to commit acts of unimaginable savagery and on a vast scale? News commentators, police investigators, and FBI agents speculate and ponder Stephen Paddock’s motivation, his rationale, his raison d’etre for committing a horrific, heinous act that defies belief, and they are left dumbfounded, even as they ponder the unthinkable, the unimaginable. Ultimately, though, for the rest of us, does the question of Paddock’s motivation really matter? Had Paddock survived, would his statements to interrogators provide the clues, the missing pieces to the puzzle? In other words, do rational, logical explanations even exist for inherently irrational acts? At the moment, investigators dismiss a political, social, or financial motive, which might otherwise provide a seeming basis or quasi-rational explanation for Paddock’s actions. But, the answer may simply boil down to this: If Paddock enjoyed shooting at metal ducks with an air gun at a penny arcade or when standing at a booth at a traveling carnival in his youth, perhaps, he thought, how much more fun it would be to shoot at thousands of “little ducks” way down below, as he stood at his perch at an expensive “carny” stand—a luxury suite (booth)—at the Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas. Vegas, after all, is the largest, and arguably, most obscene carnival in the Nation. And, Paddock’s prize for “winning” by shooting the most “ducks?” Notoriety on a national and even international scale! Does that answer help? And, if true, can a sane, rational American wrap his or her head around that? Would one desire to do so? Would one wish even to try? Not likely.To understand Paddock’s mental processes—to truly understand the inner workings of the mind of a madman—it is necessary for a rational sane person to be able and willing to share, intimately, Paddock’s perceptions, his experiences. But, would one wish to take that leap, were it possible? In that regard, consider a scene in the 1983 Sci Fi film, “Brainstorm.” In the movie, scientists, working for a high-end technology company, create a device that allows a person to tap, literally and directly into the thoughts and feelings and experiences of another person. Nefarious individuals see military applications for the device: brainwashing and torture; and they dictate the future of the company, moving it in that direction. They hook the device up to the mind of a psychotic and record the psychotic’s brain activity on tape. A scientist absent-mindedly leaves the device at his home where his child gets a hold of it. Out of innocent curiosity, the child places the device on his head. Once he does so, the child immediately links his mind to that of the psychotic, through the tape inadvertently running at the time, on the device. The child, transfixed in horror at the bizarre, discordant images coursing through his brain as linked to the brain of a psychotic--as the child's mind “takes in” the full weight and gravity of psychosis--doesn’t have the wherewithal to remove the device. The result is not pleasant. The child suffers an immediate, catastrophic, and possibly irreversible psychotic break.Now, back to Paddock. Apart from a possible motive, more troubling to criminologists is the conclusion that they seem to be required to draw. Stephen Paddock does not, according to investigators, as relayed to the public through news accounts, fit the conventional profile for a mass killer. That is perplexing, bothersome, troublesome to investigators.Today, computer programs and algorithms exist for explaining and predicting human conduct and behavior—explaining and predicting the hopes, wishes, desires, fears, and urges of each of us and to do so with amazing, frightening accuracy, and the creators of these programs and algorithms are getting better at it all the time, but, for all their successes, they may never be able to obtain a complete picture of what makes a person "tick." But, that doesn't stop them from trying. Stephen Paddock, a psychopath and psychotic, is a conundrum. And, those who seek to control all of us, don’t like that. They don’t like the conclusion they seem they must draw here: that their predictive programs, for assessing character flaws and predicting violent behavior in those individuals among us, who may present a danger to others, don’t always work. Clearly, those programs didn’t work in predicting Stephen Paddock’s descent to savagery. Perhaps it is enough to say that Stephen Paddock inherited his psychopathological makeup from his father, Benjamin Paddock. Perhaps it was just a matter of time before Paddock would explode—a matter of time before his super-consciousness (if he had any conscience at all), would be unable to contain his venomous ego personality, and that ego would fracture, allowing his lizard urges to emerge and predominate and control his actions. Ultimately, though, who can say?The point of this narrative is twofold: one, that, at some level, with some people who exhibit abnormal, aberrant behavior—fortunately very few—any mechanism or tool for explaining and predicting dangerous, abnormal, aberrant behavior is difficult and most likely impossible. Breakthroughs in medical science, psychological modeling, and criminal profiling is, at best, still, obviously rudimentary.News accounts report that Stephen Paddock’s father, Benjamin Paddock, was a bank robber, con man, and psychopath, who, for several years, appeared on the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted” list. Benjamin Paddock died in 1998. Did his son, Stephen, inherit his father’s psychopathological makeup. Perhaps. According to the old saw, “the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.” News accounts report that Stephen Paddock has three brothers, according to the NY Times, in an article, published on October 13, 2017, titled, “Father’s History Could Offer Insight Into Mind of Las Vegas Gunman,” about Stephen Paddock’s father, Benjamin Paddock. One brother, Eric, we hear about quite frequently. Another brother, Bruce, we don’t hear much about. What we do hear about Bruce is not pleasant. He appears to be a “bad apple” like Stephen. News accounts of two other brothers is virtually or altogether nonexistent. As for Eric Paddock, Eric claims he is as mystified as everyone else is of his older brother's, Stephen Paddock’s, atrocities. But, would the other brother, Bruce, one day contemplate and carry out a mass shooting like Stephen Paddock? Would Eric? And, what of the two remaining brothers that we do not hear about at all--the two remaining brothers for which there remains a palpable silence?Writing an opinion piece for The New York Times, on October 11, 2017, titled, “Psychiatrists Can’t Stop Mass Killers,” Richard A. Friedman, a professor of clinical psychiatry, says, “it’s true that many mass murderers do have a mental disorder, typically a severe personality disorder or a psychotic illness. But, this fact has almost no implication for how to stop them.” Still, Richard Friedman admits that, “even if you were to eliminate all psychiatric illness from the population, the rate of violence would drop by only about 4 percent.” In a parenthetical, Friedman says, “The contribution from mass killers is far smaller: In 2015, mass killings accounted for only 0.35 percent of gun-related homicides.” The tacit question posed in the article is this: How are American citizens to protect themselves from others who would harm them? That tacit question spawns another: Do we proscribe gun possession of those individuals, alone, who exhibit psychopathic or psychotic tendencies but who have not been adjudged mentally incompetent or who have not been committed to a mental asylum? Or, if we cannot know with any degree of certainty those individuals who exhibit a danger to others, which, according to Friedman’s “disturbing reality,” includes “healthy people in the grip of everyday emotion using guns,” do we proscribe gun ownership of everyone? Friedman answers these two questions in the concluding paragraph of his article.In keeping with the Times’ abhorrence toward guns and gun ownership by the average American citizen, Richard Friedman concludes his article with this advice, that may be interpreted as an admonishment: “so let’s stop pretending we can detect mass killers in advance. But we can deprive them—and everyone else—of the deadly weapons they require to turn their impulses into carnage.” It is the phrase, “everyone else” that ought to give those Americans who hold dear the right of the people to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, pause.There are, then, two roads, two paths we might follow to constrain those who commit violent crimes with firearms since it is virtually impossible to decipher what motivates such individuals. Although these roads or paths start off at the same juncture, they eventually diverge, and diverge sharply. Where the paths begin, there is general agreement. Maniacs and criminals should not be permitted to own and possess or have access to firearms. That is a given. In fact, federal law already precludes convicted felons and those persons adjudicated mentally incompetent or who have been committed to a mental asylum from possessing firearms—any firearm. Under 18 USCS § 922 (d)(1), "It shall be unlawful for any person who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign  commerce." And, 18 USCS § 922 (g)(4) sets forth that, "It shall be unlawful for any person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign  commerce."But, then, do we deny every American citizen his or her constitutional right to keep and bear arms because, possibly, theoretically, at some indefinite time in the future, a person may commit a horrific act with a firearm? That is the conundrum facing those politicians who consider highly unlikely but theoretically possible contingencies to dictate what would inevitably amount to the evisceration of fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution. That doesn't bother Richard Friedman. He ascribes to one path: a kind of Minority Report scenario. Since, as he says, no one can know for certain who, among the citizenry, will one day go off the deep end, everyone should be deprived of firearms ownership and possession, under the cold calculated and bizarre assumption that anyone may, probabilistically, devolve into a mass murderer, even if probabilistically, the odds of any rational person devolving into a psychotic mass murderer are virtually zero. Keep in mind, though a singularly important fact that any clinical psychologist or psychiatrist should know and it is one that Richard Friedman alludes to in his article, through the statistics he cites. It is that the vast majority of individuals, including even those who suffer from severe, acute psychoses, very few are likely to transform into mass murderers. But, then, while logic dictates restraint, hysterical overreaction is all too often the norm when it comes to gun laws. See, exempli gratia, Symptom-Based Gun Control, 46 Conn. L. Rev. 1633 (May 2014) by Frederick E. Vars, Professor of Law at the University of Alabama School of Law, citing, Jeffrey Swanson & Marvin Swartz, The Navy Yard Shooting and Mental Illness, CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY NEWS (Sept. 20, 2013) ‘(explaining that post-Heller, the United States faces the difficult task of trying to keep guns out of the hands of certain ‘dangerous people’; that ‘we often don't know who the dangerous people are (until it's too late), and the people that we might assume to be dangerous (say because they have a mental illness) mostly are not’; and that psychiatrists' predictions of gun violence ‘aren't much better than a coin toss’ so ‘reducing gun violence in the tiny proportion of mentally ill individuals at risk is a vexing challenge’).”  See also, Balancing Public Safety with the Rights of the Mentally Ill: The Benefit of a Behavioral Approach in Reducing Gun Violence in Tennessee, 45 U. Mem. L. Rev. 671 (Spring 2015), by M. Roxana Nahhas Rudolph, J.D. Candidate, citing, generally, Jeffrey W. Swanson et al., Preventing Gun Violence Involving People with Serious Mental Illness, in Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis 33, 35 (Daniel W. Webster & Jon S. Vernick eds., 2013) [hereinafter Swanson et al., Preventing Gun Violence] ('But it is also true that crisis-driven law is not always carefully deliberated and that the results can make things worse and be difficult to undo.'); and Andrew J. McClurg, The Rhetoric of Gun Control, 42 Am. U. L. Rev. 53, 66 (1992) ("Emotions may move us to act, but reason should control the course of that action." (citing Madsen Pirie, The book of the Fallacy 58 (1985)). Roxana Nahhas Rudolph writes: “Mental illness has become a current focal point of gun control legislation. The recent tragedies involving gun violence and mass shootings across the country have left many Americans demanding stricter and better enforced methods of denying firearm access to mentally ill individuals. Unfortunately, the demand for increased gun control legislation has resulted in misguided and discriminatory legal remedies that are grounded in emotion rather than statistic. Due to highly publicized mass shootings like those in Newtown and Aurora, the public perception is skewed toward assuming that mentally ill persons are inclined toward violent behavior. Although some degree of public safety concern is warranted, the fear associated with mental illness is generally disproportionate to the actual risk of harm posed to society. Recent empirical data indicates that Americans with mental illness commit less than 5% of societal violence. Therefore, reactionary gun laws that focus exclusively on mental health are unlikely to result in any significant nationwide reduction in gun violence.”  This being the case, we are, nonetheless faced with hysterical overreaction that seems, unfortunately, to be perfectly reasonable to antigun proponents: namely those antigun groups, and antigun legislators, and antigun mainstream media organizations and commentators, and other liberal, smug complacent voices. Their antipathy toward guns is visceral. They adamantly oppose civilian gun ownership and possession. And they hold those who seek to own and possess firearms in utter contempt, surmising, absurdly and viciously that anyone, among the civilian population, who desires to own a firearm must, ipso facto, have something wrong with him (or her).Dare it also be said that the kind of action called for, stemming from Friedman’s conclusion, is altogether inconsistent with the right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment. Since the chances that a rational person may become a psychotic killer is so infinitely small as to be ludicrous in the extreme, it follows, logically, that an appeal to statistics is hardly a reasonable basis upon which to enact draconian laws, inhibiting rights and liberties under the Bill of Rights of our free Republic. When faced with the fact that statistics do not support the imposition of draconian gun laws on the American public, Richard Friedman and those sympathetic to his reasoning proceed from the standpoint that gun ownership and possession must be curtailed for the sake of “public safety,” however remote the danger of gun violence, either by normal, rational individuals or by those suffering from serious mental psychoses. We see, then, that the expression, “public safety,” operates as little more than a makeweight, little more than an excuse by federal and State legislatures and federal and State bureaucrats who seek to obliterate legitimate exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.What this means is that State and federal legislatures and State and federal government bureaucrats would allow lunatics and maniacs—the lowest common denominator in society and however few in number who do represent a danger to others—to dictate the extent to which the rest of us—millions of sane, rational, honest, law-abiding, but otherwise ordinary American citizens. The lowest common denominator in society serves, then, as the excuse, the impetus to denigrate and restrain and constrain the right of tens of millions of the rest of us: the sane, rational, honest, law-abiding but ordinary Americans who simply wish to exercise their fundamental, natural right of the people to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Restrictive firearms laws that oppress the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms do not, of course, make legal or logical sense. Such laws cannot, then, be justified either in law or in logic, but they are enacted anyway: ever more of them, and all of them sold to the public as a panacea, as a seemingly common-sense but clearly "over-the-top response to a limited threat that is deliberately and shamelessly blown out of all sensible proportion by the mainstream media in order to further an unlawful agenda--de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. Let us also be ever mindful of one indelible hard fact, lest we, in an inattentive moment, forget, as encouraged to do so, when inundated with waves of emotional rhetoric. It is that these restrictive gun laws that ostensibly serve the interest of public safety subvert, at once, the right of millions of ordinary, law-abiding freedom-loving, rational American citizens to protect themselves and their loved ones with a firearm. Legislators who enact draconian gun laws do so, either oblivious to or, more likely, keenly aware of, but irreverently dismissive of the fact that sane, rational, honest, law-abiding, but average, ordinary American citizens do defend themselves with firearms, and do so tens of thousands of times per year, according to even the most conservative estimates, and, by other, likely more accurate estimates, well over one million times per year. *What is beneficial to the individual—armed self-defense—is considered disadvantageous to society; so sayeth those who claim to seek to maximize public safety and who believe that public safety and armed self-defense are incompatible. If one must go, it is, then, "armed self-defense. That is what the antigun proponents and what their highly secretive, inordinately powerful, and exorbitantly wealthy benefactors   want. That is what they  all work tirelessly toward. That is what the antigun proponents and their benefactors intend to achieve through lies, evasions, and "half-truths;" through manipulation of statistics; through audacious use of tragic events; through media propaganda; through all manner of devices, orchestrations, contrivances, and dissimulations--all designed to induce fear, confusion and volatility in the masses--all to further their anti-Second Amendment aims, their anti-Bill of Rights agenda, their internationalist goal for a one-world government. Prior to the seminal Second Amendment Heller case (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)), the notion that the individual’s right of self-defense must take a back seat to public safety—the well-being of the collective, "the hive” over the needs of the individual—flourished, was, indeed, taken as axiomatic; but this is no longer true. But that doesn’t stop the antigun crowd from continuing to make its case in the political arena, thereby patently ignoring the weight of U.S. Supreme Court law, and of logic, and of ethics as understood by the founders of our free Republic, the framers of our Constitution.In truth, if armed self-defense is incompatible with anything, it is incompatible with foreign law that fails to recognize the right of American citizens to utilize firearms for self-defense. An individual residing in Australia--namely, a subject of the Queen of England--says this:“ ‘[It is] actually not that hard to own a gun. But, you do have to have a genuine reason. You have to be a member of a target shooting club, or a hunter, and you have to prove it. For hunting, you can get written permission from a landowner who says you are hunting on his land. Or, you can join a hunting club. Pistols [handguns], on the other hand, are heavily restricted. All applicants undergo a background check by the police and there is a mandatory [thirty] day cooling off period for all license applications, both long arms and pistols. Firearms safety training courses are mandatory as well.’” As cited in the law review article, “Check ‘Mate’: Australia's Gun Law Reform Presents The United States With The Challenge To Safeguard Their Citizens From Mass Shootings, by Denise Cartolano, 41 Nova L. Rev. 139 (Winter 2017).** You will note that the individual, who made the statement and who lives in Australia, made no reference to “armed self-defense.” Obviously, armed self-defense isn’t considered a genuine reason for owning and possessing a firearm in Australia. And, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the past U.S. President, Barack Obama, and the woman who had claimed the "throne" of the U.S. Presidency and who had her ambitions and hopes dashed, a second time, Hillary Clinton, would--both of them--emulate the Australian example, seeking to thrust it on the American people.Isn't armed self-defense, though, a legitimate basis for owning and possessing firearms? You would think that no one in Australia would need a firearm for self-defense. If that assertion is false, we don’t hear of such reports; nor do we hear of instances where Americans have utilized a firearm for self-defense. We never see DGU (Defensive Gun Use) statistics reported or even alluded to in the mainstream media. We don’t encounter DGU statistics in mainstream news accounts because those who seek to demolish Americans’ sacred right of armed self-defense would undermine their own argument in favor of dismantling the Second Amendment. Antigun proponents and the secretive benefactors who bankroll their efforts relish the latest national gun tragedy because that serves to promote their agenda—an agenda that is antithetical to the preservation of the core of our Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms—one salient fundamental right that defines us as Americans and distinguishes us, in a positive vein, from all other populations on this planet.If we attempt a one-to-one match of each instance where an innocent American lost his or her life to an armed gunman to an instance where an innocent American preserved his or her life by wielding a firearm, the difference between loss of life to an armed assailant to preservation of life by an armed law-abiding American would be on the order of one life lost to hundreds of thousands saved. Of course, every innocent life is precious. But, to deny the right of any one innocent American to possess a firearm on the ground that more guns in the hands of sane, rational, law-abiding but “ordinary” Americans equates with more gun violence is a proposition at once not only false, but hypocritical. It cannot be the value of human life then that the antigun crowd is most concerned about, their assertions to the contrary. It is the desire to destroy the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, partly for its own sake, and partly predicated on odd aesthetic grounds and obtuse ethical ones, and on the desire to make ready the wrapping of this Nation into a new world globalist order--one necessitating a new constitution; one conformable to the political, social, legal, and financial structure of the European Union.The saner approach and one consistent with the fundamental, natural right of the people to keep and bear arms is to expand, not restrict, the fundamental, natural right of the people to keep and bear arms, so that individuals are best able to defend themselves from those who seek to harm them. But that idea is anathema to those who seek de facto repeal of the Second Amendment, even, though, an armed citizenry would likely significantly reduce the number of innocent individuals injured or killed in a mass shooting incident. Consider: “American massacres, in which dozens of unarmed victims are mowed down before police can arrive, astound Israelis, who note what occurred at a Jerusalem [crowd spot] . . . : three terrorists who attempted to machinegun the throng managed to kill only one victim before being shot down by handgun-carrying Israelis. Presented to the press the next day, the surviving terrorist complained that his group had not realized that Israeli civilians were armed. The terrorists had planned to machinegun a succession of crowd spots, thinking that they would be able to escape before the police or army could arrive to deal with them.” “Under Fire: The New Consensus on The Second Amendment," by 86 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 150, by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz.The New York Times, the bastion of hate toward exercise of the natural, fundamental right codified in the Second Amendment has, in the last several days, published a plethora of Op Ed articles, damning not Paddock, the maniac responsible for horrific gun violence, but “the gun” itself. This is nothing new for the Times newspaper. The curious thing is that most of the writers for the Times use the tragedy to promote an agenda, essentially calling for the dismantling of the Second Amendment, even though no present gun law or contemplated gun law would have prevented the horror that transpired in Las Vegas.Nicholas Kristoff, in his editorial, appearing in the Op Ed section of The New York Times, on October 5, 2017, titled, “We Can Act Before the Next Mass Shooting,” (titled, "Preventing Mass Shootings Like the Vegas Strip Attack" (in the digital version, posted on October 2, 2017)) calls for, what he refers to, as “modest steps we could take that would, collectively, make a difference.” What are those modest steps? We have seen them before. In fact, we have seen them many times. Apart from one of them that Kristoff mentions, they are nothing new.In Part Two of this Article, we look at Kristoff’s “modest steps” that he argues “would, collectively, make a difference,” and we explain why these “modest steps” would not make a difference.__________________________________________________________________*We rarely, if ever, see mentioned in the mainstream news statistics and articles involving defensive use of firearms. We do not see statistics and articles involving defensive use of firearms because those who seek to demolish Americans’ sacred rights and liberties—those who control the mainstream media—will never acknowledge that defensive use of firearms exists. They will jump on the latest national tragedy to promote an agenda antithetical to the preservation of the core of our Bill of Rights—the one document that best defines us as Americans—but fail to acknowledge successful use of firearms in one's self-defense.But, legitimate evidence exists that average law-abiding Americans use firearms defensively hundreds of thousands, even millions of times a year and, given that fact, even a mass shooting incident pales in comparison and significance to the many, many lives that are saved every year due to the fact that such Americans choose to exercise their fundamental, natural right to keep and bear arms. Consider: “For almost a decade scholars have been debating about how many defensive gun uses (DGUs) occur annually. Gary Kleck and colleagues, citing a series of polls culminating in the 1993 Kleck-Gertz survey, argue that at least 2.55 million people use a firearm for protection against criminals each year. Hemenway and others, relying on the National Crime Victimization Surveys (NCVSs), contend that only about 55,000 to 80,000 victims use guns against offenders in a given year. The estimates are wide apart and their academic champions staunchly defend their respective figures as correct and accurate, while dismissing the opposing figures as invalid and implausible.Neither side seems to be willing to give ground or see their opponents' point of view. This is unfortunate since there is good reason to believe that both sides are off-the-mark. Below the main shortcomings of the two approaches and some of the keys issues of contention are discussed.First, it appears that the estimates of the NCVSs are too low. There are two chief reasons for this. First, only DGUs that are reported as part of a victim's response to a specified crime are potentially covered. While most major felonies are covered by the NCVSs, a number of crimes such as trespassing, vandalism, and malicious mischief are not. DGUs in response to these and other events beyond the scope of the NCVSs are missed. Second, the NCVSs do not directly inquire about DGUs. After a covered crime has been reported, the victim is asked if he or she ‘did or tried to do [anything] about the incident while it was going on.’ Indirect questions that rely on a respondent volunteering a specific element as part of a broad and unfocused inquiry uniformly lead to undercounts of the particular of interest.  The only known significant source of overestimation of DGUs in this survey is ‘telescoping,’ the tendency of Rs to report incidents which actually happened earlier than the recall period, such as reporting a six year old incident as having happened in the past five years. It is likely that telescoping effects are more than counterbalanced by Rs who actually experienced DGUs failing to report them. Nevertheless, it is worth discussing how much effect telescoping could have on these estimates. In evaluating the ability of crime victims to recall crime events in victim surveys, the U.S. Census Bureau selected a sample of crimes that were reported to the police, and then interviewed the victims of these known crime events. Using a twelve month recall period (the same as we used in the present survey), they surveyed victims who had been involved in crimes which had actually occurred thirteen to fourteen months before the interview, i.e., one or two months before the recall period. Of these ineligible crimes, 21% were telescoped forward - wrongly reported as having occurred in the twelve month recall period. Since the months just before the start of the recall period will show the highest rates of telescoping, the rate should be even smaller for crimes which occurred earlier. Nevertheless, even if it is assumed that the 21% rate applied to events that occurred as much as one year earlier, thirteen to twenty-four months before the interview, telescoping could inflate the DGU estimates for a one year recall period by only 21%. Adjusting the 2.5 million DGU estimate downward for telescoping effects of this magnitude would reduce it to about 2.1 million (2.5 million/1.21=2.1 million), an adjustment which would have no effect on any of our conclusions. Telescoping would inflate estimates based on the five year recall period even less, since the ratio of memory loss errors over telescoping errors increases as the recall period lengthens.  Nevertheless, it should be stressed that this is just a numerical demonstration. There is no reason to believe that these modest telescoping effects outweigh the effects of Rs failing to report DGUs, and therefore, no reason to believe that these estimates are even slightly too high.” “Policy and Perspective: A Call for a Truce in the DGU War”, 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1462 (Summer 1997), by Tom W. Smith, National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago.____________________________________________________**The author of the article, Denise Cartolano, Attorney Advisor for the Executive office for Immigration Review as part of the Department of Justice's Attorney General's Honors Program, is obviously well-credentialed, but, she presumes, in our estimate wrongly, that Australia's draconian gun laws are, for the most part, consistent with American law and that they can and should be implemented here in the United States. She clearly does not support the notion of armed self-defense in this Country, tacitly emulating Australia's highly restrictive gun laws. She points out, as alluded to by the Australian subject, whom the author quotes in her law review article, that, while "Australia's gun laws include a provision to show a genuine use for owning, possessing, or using a firearm [p]ersonal protection, or self-defense, does not qualify as a genuine reason to own a firearm in Australia.  Only 'reasons relating to sport shooting, recreational shooting, [or] hunting, collecting, and occupational requirements' are valid reasons for gun ownership or use in Australia.As discussed, the Supreme Court of the United States' cases Heller I and McDonald held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms in the home for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense, and that the Second Amendment applies against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.   Therefore, in light of the Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment, it follows that the United States cannot implement a law that excludes self-defense as a genuine reason for owning, possessing, or using a firearm." Is this to suggest that the author of the article, Denise Cartolano, is supportive of the Heller decision and of the Second Amendment? No! The author concludes her article, asserting, "What is clear from the glaring statistics and media coverage of multiple mass shootings occurring at elevating rates in the United States is that the gun control issue needs to be tackled and new legislation implemented. Members of federal and state legislators need to start a conversation on gun control and work collaboratively to establish policies that effectuate change. The murder of innocent American citizens at the hands of those with firearms is an issue of national importance and should be a bipartisan one. America's culture and climate of gun ownership needs to be analyzed and reevaluated in order to spare the United States from another mass shooting tragedy. Australia was able to implement sweeping legislative reform regarding gun control only twelve days after one mass shooting event.  As discussed in this Article, the United States can effectively implement most of the Australian gun control legislation and should work towards making that a priority."  While the author, writes a compelling account of mass shootings in this Country and adequately dissects Australia's draconian National Firearms Agreement, her failure to take into account, or, for that matter, even to mention the fact that the American public utilizes firearms defensively hundreds of thousands or, conceivably, millions of times in any given year, and her failure to  take into account the import of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, even as she acknowledges the import and purport of the Heller and McDonald cases, weakens, considerably, and, in our estimate, fatally, the force of her message, although, certainly, antigun groups would find her argument compelling.But, for those wondering what Australia's National Firearms Agreement mandates, Denise Cartolano provides this succinct statement, citing, Kelly Buchanan, Australia, in FIREARMS-CONTROL LEGISLATION AND POLICY 16, 17 (2013).  "The National Firearms Agreement: (1) prohibits automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles; (2) stiffened licensing and ownership rules--for example, the private sale and transfer of firearms is prohibited unless conducted and registered by a licensed firearms dealer; (3) instituted a temporary gun buyback program that took approximately 700,000 assault weapons out of public circulation; (4) requires licensees to demonstrate a genuine need for a particular type of gun--self-defense does not qualify; (5) requires a firearm safety course; (6) determined that licenses cannot be issued until after a waiting period of not less than twenty-eight days and for a period of no more than five years; (7) mandates that licensees need to comply with storage requirements and submit to inspection by licensing authorities, subject to immediate withdrawal of license and confiscation of firearms in certain circumstances; and (8) requires separate permits for the acquisition of every firearm."The author, Denise Catalano believes that "most" of the Australian Firearms Agreement can be implemented, which is to say, she believes that most of the Agreement is compatible with the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Heller and McDonald. We, however, believe that Catalano's assertion is a stretch, at best, even if some members of the American public would like to see an Australian style firearms law enacted. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton certainly would. U.S. Senators Schumer and Feinstein would, as well. We, though, definitely would not. Enactment of any of these measures is inconsistent with our Bill of Rights. Keep in mind that Australia doesn't have a Bill of Rights. Whatever rights and liberties Australians enjoy only exist, if at all, by grace of the Queen of England and, so, can just as easily be revoked as granted to the Australian subject by the Queen, through the Governor-General, the Queen's Representative._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

SECOND AMENDMENT HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES—A RIGHT DENIED!

PLACE BLAME WHERE BLAME IS DUE—ON THE REPUBLICAN PARTY LEADERSHIP!

"A right delayed is a right denied." ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.Consider the following: Every qualified individual in the United States who passes a background check and handgun safety test shall obtain a permit to carry a handgun for self-protection in every State of the Union and in all United States territories.Is this an empirically impossible situation? Of course not. The United State Supreme Court, held, in the seminal Second Amendment Heller case (District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008)) that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected to service in a militia and that the right to keep and bear arms entails the right to use firearms for self-defense. The U.S. Supreme Court held, two years later, in the seminal Second Amendment McDonald case (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010)) that the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller apply, as well, to the States.A reasonable person would rightly conclude from these U.S. Supreme Court rulings that the States and the federal Government should now acknowledge the inherent right of qualified American citizens to have access to handguns for self-defense and should recognize, too, that this right does not stop at the doorway of one’s residence. Enactment of national handgun carry legislation would operate as a testament to the import and purport of the Second Amendment as the framers of our Constitution understood and intended it. Such though is not the case.There are forces in this Country and outside it—highly secretive, extraordinarily powerful, exorbitantly wealthy, and extremely ruthless forces—that control the Congressional leadership. These noxious elements operate in the shadows, pulling the strings of those they control in Congress. These secretive, powerful, ruthless forces, lurking in the shadows, uniformly detest the very notion of natural, fundamental rights and liberties that exist beyond their control--rights and liberties that exist inherently in the people. They particularly detest the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Through their puppets in Congress, the forces that seek to crush the American people into submission have placed a multitude of stumbling blocks, obstacles, and snares in the path of those American citizens who would dare exercise their fundamental, natural right to keep and bear arms.Thus, Representative, Paul Ryan (R-W), current Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, and Senator Mitch McConnel (R-K), U.S. Senate Majority Leader, demonstrate disdain for the Second Amendment and perfunctorily disregard those who desire to exercise their fundamental, natural right of self-defense through access to the best means to do so—a firearm. These two individuals wield incredible power as they, alone, ultimately determine whether or not action shall proceed on a legislative bill. Representative Ryan has the audacity and perversity to assert that “the timing isn’t right” to proceed on national handgun carry reciprocity and, through that blunt assertion, dismisses out-of-hand the singular importance of one's natural right to use firearms in one's own defense--a right codified in the Second Amendment, a right preexistent in the people, as the U.S. Supreme Court majority, in Heller, has made abundantly and categorically clear, especially to those who may have harbored any doubt.What, then, does Representative Ryan's assertion,"the timing isn't right" to proceed on national handgun carry reciprocity, even mean? If the timing isn’t right now, then when? Indeed, is there ever a time that would be right for Representative Ryan to accept the imperative of the Second Amendment? Was there ever a time that the right embodied in and codified in the Second Amendment was not meant to have effect?There exists a war on the Second Amendment. The war is grounded on a difference in philosophy between those who support the strengthening of the Second Amendment and those who seek de facto repeal of it. Those who seek to strengthen the Second Amendment--to place it on the footing of a sacred, inviolable right as the framers intended--believe in the sanctity and inviolability of the individual. On the other hand, those who seek to defeat the Second Amendment, to defile it, believe not in the sanctity and inviolability of the individual, but, rather in the importance of the collective, of  "the hive." These spoilers of the Second Amendment hold to a utilitarian ethical system that subordinates the individual to the purported needs of an amorphous group. As long as the hive remains intact, the harm caused to the individual is deemed acceptable. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership, the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, and the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, march in lockstep to the same drumbeat as do the majority of House and Senate Democrats. Neither the Democratic Party nor the leadership of the Republican Party can abide by and countenance a strong Second Amendment. For these particular members of Congress an armed citizenry is an anathema for the right exercised is considered inconsistent with and a threat to the national order. For those who happen to doubt the truth of this assertion, they ought to take a close look at what Congress has wrought: decades of restrictive firearms legislation.Since Republicans control both Houses of Congress, it ultimately devolves to Representative Paul Ryan and Senator Mitch McConnell to loosen the stranglehold that existing restrictive federal legislation has on the free exercise of our citizenry’s natural, fundamental right of self-defense that only a firearm can truly provide. But they will have nothing of it.Thus, it is that the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate Majority Leader, alone, determine what bills proceed to a full public hearing, Congressional debate, and Floor vote, and what bills do not. Obviously, Representative Ryan and Senator McConnell do not wish for open and definitive Congressional consideration of bills that serve to strengthen the Second Amendment.But, what possible rational basis would the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader have for refusing to allow open and fervent and critical debate on a matter that overrides every other concern: preserving and strengthening the basic, fundamental rights and liberties of the American people. Clearly, they have none, and in their inaction do the American people bear witness to the Republican Party leadership's rancor and disdain toward those citizens who seek to exercise their sacred right under the Second Amendment. This, we know. The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) stand, together, in the forefront, as the two pieces of federal legislation that have done more to diminish the right embodied in and codified in the Second Amendment than any other State or Federal legislation to date. Federal antigun legislation proceeds as amendments to and refinements to these two major antigun Acts; and those amendments do nothing but further restrict the citizen’s exercise of his or her unalienable right of self-defense. Enactment of national handgun carry reciprocity would be the first major piece of firearms legislation since the NFA and GCA, to restore balance. Instead of chipping away at the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms, national handgun carry reciprocity legislation would operate to repair the damage caused by the NFA and GCA.From 2011 to date, we have counted 13 bills on national handgun carry reciprocity.Senator John Cornyn has been the most persistent, but none of the bills that he sponsored or bills that other Republicans have sponsored has gained traction. Of note, one Senate Democrat, Senator Mark Begich (D-AK), sponsored a bill on national handgun carry reciprocity and several other Democrats have added their names as cosponsors on a few of the bills sponsored by Republican Senators and Representatives. But, it is really Republicans who have the most interest in this and the most ability to accomplish this. As the Republicans control both Houses of Congress, it is now that action should be taken—must be taken—to strengthen the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.The Arbalest Quarrel has provided, below, in tabular format, details on national handgun carry bills introduced in the House and the Senate, in recent years.What the table at once illustrates—through repeated efforts to get a bill passed—is frustration borne by those Congressmen who obviously do wish to strengthen the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But insurmountable obstacles, created by Republican Party leadership, and, perhaps, through a failure of spirit of rank and file Congressmen to stand up to the Party leadership, prevents effective follow-through. Here, then, are the dismal results of failed attempts, to date, to strengthen the Second Amendment:

TABLE OF NATIONAL HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY BILLS OFFERED BY BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE

Short Title	Bill Number And Date Introduced	Name of Sponsor AndNumber of Cosponsors and Party Affiliation	Present Status
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011	H.R. 82202/18/2011	SPONSOR: Clifford B. Stearns (R-FL) COSPONSORS: 35 Democrats 211 Republicans246 Total	Amendments Offered and Rejected in November 2011;NO FURTHER ACTION as of November 29, 2011
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011	H.R. 354312/01/2011	SPONSOR: Tim Johnson (R-IL)COSPONSORS: None	Referred to Committee; NO ACTION
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012	S. 218803/13/2012	SPONSOR: Senator Mark Begich (D-AK) COSPONSORS: 3 Democrats 0 Republicans 3 Total	Referred to Committee; NO ACTION
Respecting States' Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012	S. 221303/20/2012	SPONSOR Senator John Thune (R-SD) COSPONSORS: 35 Republicans 0 Democrats 35 Total	Referred to Committee; NO ACTION
Respecting States' Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013	H.R. 57802/06/2013	SPONSOR: Representative Marlin A. Stutzman (R-IN) COSPONSORS: 11 Democrats 173 Republicans 184 Total	REFERRED TO COMMITTEE; NO ACTION
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013	H.R. 295908/01/2013	SPONSOR: Representative Rich Nugent (R-FL) COSPONSORS: 1 Democrat 5 Republicans 6 Total	Referred to CommitteeNO ACTION
Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2014	S. 190801/09/2014	SPONSOR: Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) COSPONSORS: 1 Democrat 24 Republicans 25 Total	Read Twice and Referred to CommitteeNO ACTION
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015	H.R. 40201/16/2015	SPONSOR: Representative Rich Nugent (R-FL) COSPONSORS: 3 Democrats 100 Republicans 103 Total	Submitted to Two Committees;FAILED
Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015	H.R. 92302/12/2015	SPONSOR: Representative Marlin A. Stutzman (R-IN) COSPONSORS: 0 Democrats 119 Republicans 119 Total	Referred to Committee;FAILED
Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015	S. 49802/12/2015	SPONSOR: Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) COSPONSORS: 1 Democrat 34 Republicans 35 Total	Read Twice and Referred to Committee;FAILED
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015	H.R. 98602/13/2017	SPONSOR: Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC) COSPONSORS: 4 Democrats 212 Republicans 216 Total	Referred to Two Committees;FAILED
Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017	S. 44602/27/2017	SPONSOR: Senator John Cornyn (R-TX)COSPONSORS: 0 Democrats 29 Republicans 29 Total	Read Twice and Referred to Committee; NO ACTION
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017	H.R. 3801/03/2017	SPONSOR: Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC) COSPONSORS: 1 Democrats / 83 Republicans 84 Total	Referred to Two Committees; NO ACTION

Apart from numerous national handgun carry reciprocity bills introduced since 2011, Representative Chris Collins (R-NY) has introduced a bill, titled the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA) (115 H.R. 3576), introduced on July 28, 2017. The bill, if enacted into law, would operate in tandem with national handgun carry reciprocity legislation, to strengthen the Second Amendment.WHAT IS "SAGA"?SAGA is a bill that, according to its sponsor, Representative Collins, as set forth on his website: "Protects Second Amendment rights; limits state authority to regulate rifles and shotguns; voids much of SAFE Act." And, according to the Press Release: “Congressman Chris Collins (NY-27) has proposed new measures for protecting Second Amendment rights by introducing legislation to limit states authority when it comes to regulating rifles and shotguns, commonly used by sportsmen and sportswomen. The Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA) would prevent states from implementing any regulations on these weapons that are more restrictive than what is required by federal law. Upon passage of this bill, most of the language included in New York State’s Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act of 2013 signed into law by Governor Cuomo would be void."  Would Representative Collins' bill fare any better than any one of the numerous national handgun carry reciprocity bills? Well, given Representative Paul Ryan's reluctance to allow a public hearing, debate, and floor vote on previous pro-Second Amendment bills, we expect that Representative Collins' bill would suffer the same fate.Representative Collins' bill could be better drafted and the Arbalest Quarrel is in the process of doing just that. When completed, the Arbalest Quarrel will submit our proposed amendments to Representative Collins. But, given the present negative climate in Washington, D.C., such effort expended on our part, as with effort expended by Representative Collins and other Legislators, to date, may well be futile. Still, it is necessary to persevere. Given this sad state of affairs, it is, as is usually the case, up to the American people to set things right, and compel Congress to act.Congress has lost its way. Congress does not serve the interests of the American people. But, if it is not the American people whom Congress serves, then whom is it that Congress does serve? Congress must be reminded that its duty is to serve the American people. Those Legislators who fail in their duty to the American people must be voted out of Office.Let your U.S. Senator and U.S. Representative know how you feel about your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Phone (202) 225-3121. It is a fast and easy process; and a critical one. Only through your active participation, can we help secure our Second Amendment. _________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

IS THE “MAXIM 50 SUPPRESSED MUZZLELOADER”, MANUFACTURED BY SILENCERCO, LEGAL IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK?

A reader of the Arbalest Quarrel asked us whether New York bans the Maxim 50, manufactured by SilencerCo. To answer this question, we first went to the manufacturer’s website to get a handle on what the Maxim 50 is since the manufacturer’s description of it serves as the basis for legal analysis. The central issue is whether the Maxim 50 is a firearm under Federal and New York law. If the Maxim 50 is construed as a firearm under Federal law, it comes under the purview of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and under the purview of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and, as applicable, under the purview of those Acts as subsequently amended.The manufacturer, SilencerCo, describes the Maxim 50 as an “integrally suppressed muzzleloader.” The manufacturer says:“For the first time since the National Firearms Act (NFA) was created in 1934, civilians can enjoy suppressed shooting in all 50 states with SilencerCo’s latest innovation: the integrally suppressed Maxim 50 muzzleloader. In addition, this product can be purchased right now on the web with no regulation (no 4473, no $200 tax stamp, no photographs, and no fingerprints) and be shipped immediately to the customer with few exceptions.” New York is one of those few exceptions, according to the manufacturer. SilenceCo says a prospective purchaser, residing in New York may still obtain the weapon, but must do so, not directly, through interstate commerce, shipped directly to the purchaser’s home, but, indirectly, through a holder of an FFL.

BUT, IS THE MANUFACTURER’S STATEMENT ACCURATE? CAN A NEW YORK RESIDENT, NOT UNDER DISABILITY, PURCHASE THE MAXIM 50, LAWFULLY, THROUGH A LICENSED NEW YORK GUN DEALER EVEN IF THAT NEW YORK RESIDENT CANNOT TAKE POSSESSION OF THE MAXIM 50 THROUGH THE MANUFACTURER, DIRECTLY?

Can a resident of New York, who wishes to purchase the Maxim 50 obtain it, lawfully, then, through an FFL?To begin to answer this question intelligently, we must first ask what sort of thing the Maxim 50 integrally suppressed muzzleloader is, when viewed under federal law and under New York law.Let us look at the Maxim 50 from the standpoint of Federal law, first. Two federal code sections are critical to our investigation: 26 USCS § 5845 (Definitions) of the United States Code of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle E; Alcohol, Tobacco, And Certain Other Excise Taxes; Chapter 53 Machine Guns, Destructive Devices, And Certain Other Firearms; Subchapter B. General Provisions and Exemptions, Part I. General Provisions; and we look to 18 USCS § 921 (Definitions); Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure; Part I. Crimes; Chapter 44. Firearms. We know that the Maxim 50 is a muzzle loader, since the manufacturer of the product describes it as such, and as the manufacturer further explains its nature, in detail, in the product manual, we can rest assured that the Maxim 50 is, in fact, a muzzle loader. The question for us is whether a muzzle loader is a firearm, under federal law. For, if federal law defines the Maxim 50 as a muzzle loader, then that fact is determinative of whether the device--which, as the manufacturer says comes equipped with an integrally suppressed muzzleloader--falls under federal firearms restrictions. We begin with the assumption that the expressions ‘firearm suppressor’  and ‘firearm silencer’ refer, from a legal standpoint, essentially to the same sort of thing. The term ‘silencer’ may be a misnomer to firearms experts, but, as it is that expression, 'silencer,' that is used in federal law and in New York law, rather than the more appropriate expression, 'firearm suppressor,' we need not quibble about the relative inaccuracy of the expression, 'firearm silencer,' when considering the legality of possession of the device by the average law-abiding American citizen. The firearms expert will understand that, to the legislator and to the police, and to the lawyer, the expressions, ‘firearm silencer,’ and ‘firearm suppressor,’ and ‘integrally suppressed firearm,’ or, as in the instant case, ‘integrally suppressed muzzleloader,’ mean pretty much the same thing in respect to what it is that the component is designed to do.

IS THE MAXIM 50 A FIREARM UNDER FEDERAL LAW?

26 USCS § 5845(a) says that, “The term 'firearm' means (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e); (6) a machinegun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive device. The term 'firearm' shall not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machinegun or destructive device) which, although designed as a weapon, the Secretary finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector's item and is not likely to be used as a weapon.” 26 USCS § 5845(a). AND,26 USCS § 921(a)(3) says, “The term ‘firearm’ means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.Through 26 USCS § 5845(a) and 26 USCS § 921(a)(3), it doesn’t appear the Maxim 50 is a “firearm.” But further clarification is necessary. We obtain that clarification in another U.S. Federal Code Section. We ask,

IS THE MAXIM 50 AN ‘ANTIQUE FIREARM’ UNDER FEDERAL LAW?

If the Maxim 50 is an ‘Antique Firearm,” then, under 26 USCS § 5845(a), it is not a ‘Firearm.’ How does federal law define an ‘Antique Firearm?’ The expression ‘Antique Firearm,’ has two definitions. If the Maxim 50 falls under either one of those two definitions, then, the Maxim 50 is an ‘Antique Firearm’ under Federal law.18 USCS § 921(a)(16) says:“The term ‘antique firearm’ means—(A)  any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or(B)  any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such replica—(i)  is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or(ii)  uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; or(C)  any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term ‘antique firearm’ shall not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof.”AND,26 USCS § 5845(g) says, “The term 'antique firearm' means any firearm not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898 (including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system or replica thereof, whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1898) and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.”The Maxim 50 is, of course, a weapon manufactured after 1898, so it doesn’t qualify as an ‘antique firearm’ under 26 USCS § 5845(g), but, it is a muzzle loader that does in fact use black powder, according to the manufacturer’s instruction manual. And, if we can infer that the Maxim 50 does not incorporate a “firearm frame or receiver” and that it cannot “be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock or any combination thereof,” then it is not a ‘firearm,’ under 18 USCS § 921(a)(16), and that is sufficient to remove the Maxim 50 from the category of ‘firearm’ under federal law.But, wait a second. Even if the Maxim 50 is an ‘antique firearm’ and, hence, not a ‘firearm’ under federal law, isn’t the Maxim 50 a “silencer?” Yes. BUT, the Maxim 50 isn’t a “firearm silencer.” That fact is crucial. But, how do we know this? We know this because federal law makes clear that, since the Maxim 50 isn't a firearm, under federal law, the Maxim 50 isn’t a “silencer” either, under federal law. Once again,18 USCS § 921(a)(3) says, “The term ‘firearm’ means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm. Since The Maxim 50, as a black powder muzzle loader  with integrally suppressed muzzleloader (silencer), isn't a firearm under federal law, then, by legal implication, the Maxim 50's silencer--more to the point, integrally suppressed muzzleloader--isn't a “firearm silencer,” under federal law, either.But, we still aren’t quite finished with our analysis. We must ask,

IS THE MAXIM 50 DEFINED AS “ANY OTHER WEAPON” UNDER FEDERAL LAW?

But, once again, the answer is, "No." The expression 'Any Other Weapon'--a generic description of 'weapon'--also finds its way in federal law. 26 USCS § 5845(g) says, “The term 'any other weapon' means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.”The Maxim 50 cannot be readily concealed “on the person,” and, indeed, it isn’t designed to be the sort of implement to be capable of being concealed on the person. So, the Maxim 50 is not defined, in federal law as, ‘any other weapon.’So, under federal law, we conclude that the Maxim 50 isn't a firearm and it doesn't fall under restrictions of the National Firearms Act of 1934, or under restrictions of the Gun Control Act of 1968.So, under federal law, the Maxim 50 doesn’t appear to run into problems under federal law.BUT,What about New York law, specifically. Is the Maxim 50, with integrated suppressor, considered a firearm within the jurisdiction of New York?

DOES THE MAXIM 50 COME UNDER THE PURVIEW OF NEW YORK GUN CONTROL LAWS?

To some extent New York law follows the dictates of federal law, but New York law has its own twists.

IS THE MAXIM 50 DEFINED AS A FIREARM UNDER NEW YORK LAW?

We look to the Consolidated laws of New York for the answer.Let’s look at some definitions under Article 265 (Firearms and Dangerous Weapons) of the Consolidated Laws of New York. NY CLS Penal § 265.00(2) and (3) of Article 265 provide us with two definitions of importance to us here.“2. ‘Firearm silencer’ means any instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance for causing the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearms to be silent, or intended to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearms.”“3. ‘Firearm’ means (a) any pistol or revolver; or (b) a shotgun having one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length; or (c) a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length; or (d) any weapon made from a shotgun or rifle whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise if such weapon as altered, modified, or otherwise has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches; or (e) an assault weapon. For the purpose of this subdivision the length of the barrel on a shotgun or rifle shall be determined by measuring the distance between the muzzle and the face of the bolt, breech, or breechlock when closed and when the shotgun or rifle is cocked; the overall length of a weapon made from a shotgun or rifle is the distance between the extreme ends of the weapon measured along a line parallel to the center line of the bore. Firearm does not include an antique firearm.”The Consolidated laws of New York do not, to the best of our information and belief, define an implement that has the characteristics of the Maxim 50. New York law does define the expression, ‘antique firearm,’ but that definition does not track the federal law definitions.NY CLS Penal § 265.00(16) says, “‘Antique firearm’ means: Any unloaded muzzle loading pistol or revolver with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system, or a pistol or revolver which uses fixed cartridges which are no longer available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.” Under New York law the Maxim 50 is a muzzle loading device but it isn’t a pistol or revolver.It would appear, at first glance, that the Maxim 50 doesn’t come under the purview of Article 265 (Firearms and Dangerous Weapons) of the Consolidated Laws of New York. But, on closer inspection, it’s clear that the Maxim 50 does come under the purview of Article 265. Let’s look once again at NY CLS Penal § 265.00(2).“2. ‘Firearm silencer’ means any instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance for causing the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearms to be silent, or intended to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearms.” The expression, ‘firearm silencer’ refers to “any instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance . . . to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun. . . .” Pay close attention to the word, ‘gun.’The term, ‘gun,’ is an amorphous concept that can reasonably apply to the Maxim 50. New York law doesn't define the word, 'gun.' It is simply mentioned in New York law. And, we don't see a definition for the word, 'gun,' as such, defined in federal law either. So, we have to go to a common dictionary source to get a handle on the plain meaning of the word. The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines the term, ‘gun,’ as ‘a piece of ordnance usually with high muzzle velocity and comparatively flat trajectory.’ The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, defines, the term, ‘gun,’ as ‘A weapon consisting of a metal tube from which a projectile is fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory.’  Clearly enough, the Maxim 50 is a gun under New York law. Since the Maxim 50 is manufactured with an integrated silencer component--as the manufacturer refers to the Maxim 50 as an integrally suppressed muzzleloader--the Maxim 50 does fall under NY CLS Penal § 265.00(2).The drafters of ‘firearm silencer’ clearly and poignantly intended to make firearm silencers unlawful in New York. Case law makes this point clearer still. The Opinion of the Appellate Court of Albany is insightful and is quoted at length in the 1984 New York case, Oefinger vs. New York State Police, 146 A.D.2d 186, 540 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4881.In Oefinger vs. New York State Police, 146 A.D.2d 186, 540 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4881, “The Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms denied the gunsmith's request for permission to transfer two machine guns and a firearm silencer to persons who could lawfully possess them in New York. The gunsmith, who was also a dealer, filed an action for a declaratory judgment. The trial court granted the state police's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. The court modified the trial court's judgment so as to allow a declaratory judgment because such was designed to allow the adjudication of rights before a wrong took place. Thus, the gunsmith did not need to be in danger of prosecution before a declaratory judgment as to his rights could be entered. The court then declared that the gunsmith could not lawfully possess or dispose of firearm silencers and machine guns.  N.Y. Penal Law § 265.00(8), (9) defined a ‘gunsmith’ and a ‘dealer in firearms’ and prescribed the activities in which persons who were duly licensed for those businesses could lawfully engage. Because possession and disposition of a silencer or machine gun were not mentioned in N.Y. Penal Law §§ 265.00(8), (9), 265.02(2), 265.10(3), they were not permissible.”The Appellate Court of Albany said this about the possession of silencers by either a New York licensed dealer or gunsmith: "Penal Law § 265.00 (8) defines a ‘gunsmith’ and Penal Law § 265.00 (9) defines a ‘dealer in firearms.’ “These definitions specifically prescribe the activities in which those persons or entities who are duly licensed for those businesses under Penal Law § 265.20 (a) (10) can lawfully engage.  Applying the rule of statutory construction that states expressio unius est exclusio alterius, 'an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or not included was intended to be omitted or excluded' (Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. v City of New York, 41 NY2d 205, 208-209, quoting McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 240).  It follows that inasmuch as subdivisions (8) and (9) of Penal Law § 265.00 contain no reference to firearm silencer possession and disposition by a ‘gunsmith’ or a ‘dealer in firearms,’ such possession and disposition are not permissible (Penal Law § 265.02 [2]; § 265.10 [3]).  We find no merit in plaintiff's contention that Penal Law § 265.20 (a) (10) provides an exemption for gunsmiths and dealers in firearms from all of the penalties provided by Penal Law article 265. The exemption provided by Penal Law § 265.20 (a) (10) permits gunsmiths and dealers in firearms to engage only in the activities prescribed in the definitions of those terms in Penal Law § 265.00 (8) and (9), for without such exemption the prescribed activities would be  unlawful. Contrary to plaintiff's claim, however, the exemption cannot be construed to broaden and expand the statutory activities in which a gunsmith or dealer in firearms can lawfully engage.”“By similar reasoning and applying the same statutory rule of construction, a ‘dealer in firearms’ is not authorized to possess or in any other way deal in ‘machine guns’ (Penal Law § 265.02 [2]; § 265.10 [3]).  The definition of ‘firearm’ contained in Penal Law § 265.00 (3) does not include ‘machine guns,’ which are separately defined in Penal Law § 265.00 (1).  Again, contrary to plaintiff's contention, no exemption is provided in Penal Law § 265.20 (a) (10) for a licensed dealer in firearms to possess or dispose of machine guns to any individual who may lawfully possess them.  The activities of licensed dealers in firearms are limited to pistols or revolvers (Penal Law § 265.00 [9]).  As to licensed gunsmiths, the activities permitted by Penal Law § 265.20 (a) (8) in respect to machine guns applies only if they are the [manufacturers]’ of machine guns. Since plaintiff is not such a ‘manufacturer’ of machine guns, the statute has no application to him. Pursuant to Penal Law § 265.00 (8), a licensed gunsmith may engage in certain activities with respect to machine guns, but disposition is not one of those activities.  Plaintiff's other contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.”Under New York law, as interpreted by the Appellate Court of Albany, licensed dealers and gunsmiths are not permitted to transfer machine guns or silencers. Whether the integrally suppressed muzzleloader (silencer) of the Maxim 50 is integrated into a device that is not construed as a firearm under federal law or New York law is, then, decidedly and decisively legally irrelevant.The Maxim 50 is a “gun” under New York law, and since the suppressor (silencer) is integrated into that gun, it is the Arbalest Quarrel’s educated opinion (albeit, not a formal legal opinion), that the Maxim 50 is illegal in New York.FURTHER NOTE:The Arbalest Quarrel has spoken with one licensed gun dealer in New York, and holder of an FFL, who told us that, under no circumstances, would he accept delivery of the Maxim 50 for anyone. And, it is doubtful that a New York resident, not under disability, would be able to locate any conscientious licensed New York gun dealer or gunsmith who would be willing to accept delivery of the Maxim 50 on behalf of a customer, for transfer to that customer. It should go without saying, then, that, under no circumstance should a resident of New York attempt to obtain delivery of the Maxim 50 directly from the manufacturer; for, to do so would be to invite serious criminal repercussions under New York State law. Such attempt to obtain possession of the Maxim 50 in New York would invite unwelcome attention from the BATF as well. Interested parties should peruse the National Firearms Handbook which can be found on the BATF website. Other web pages on the BATF website contain a wealth of information on firearms rules and regulations.To its credit SilenceCo does make clear that “customers from any state should verify they are abiding by all state, local, and federal laws before purchasing.”  Individuals interested in obtaining the Maxim 50 should takes those words to heart.BOTTOM LINE: The Arbalest Quarrel concludes that the Maxim 50, as with “Assault Weapons,” as the expression ‘Assault Weapon’ is defined in the Consolidated Laws of New York, is illegal in New York. Therefore, no New York resident should attempt to obtain one.Whether the Maxim 50 is "legal" in other States requires a separate analysis of each State's own peculiar firearms' laws. The Arbalest Quarrel will analyze other State laws to ascertain whether the Maxim 50 is legal in those States, upon specific request of readers._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WE MUST ACT NOW TO PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS*

ARTICLE SUBMITTED BY: Roman Buhler, Director of the Madison Coalition: http://www.madisoncoalition.org/.The individual rights guaranteed by the 1st and 2nd Amendments of our Constitution are under attack.  A dangerous new movement has emerged in American politics, one that seeks to upend the 225-year tradition that in America laws are made only with the consent of the governed. Many so-called progressives believe that when, sooner or later, they regain control of the White House they can erode and weaken the 1st Amendment rights like free speech and religious feedom as well as the 2nd Amendment's guarantee of the right to bear arms, not by passing legislation, but, through regulations dictated by the President's un-elected bureaucrats in Washington.In short these so-called progressives want a system where regulatory edicts issued by a President’s appointees can fundamentally change the meaning of a law in ways that were never intended by the Congress that passed that law. As each controversy over legislation or a political leader's tweet in Washington distracts the media, legislators, and the public, one fundamental question stands out. What will be the PERMANENT legacy of this era of a Republican President and Republican majorities in Congress, and in 33 states' legislatures? Will it be executive orders and laws that last only until the voters elect a liberal President and Congress as voters have done at least once a generation or so for the last 100 years.1912, 1934, 1964 and 2008 all saw the election of Democratic super majorities that dramatically expanded the size and power of government. There is no reason to believe that this will not happen again, continuing the trend towards bigger and bigger government.To reverse this trend, the legacy of our majorities and our control of the White House today must be something more permanent than executive orders and laws. To rein in the abuse of federal power, we need constitutional reform that will last for generations, not just for the term of one administration or of one Congressional majority.Our challenge is to persuade the majorities we now have in Congress and the states right to permanently and constitutionally strengthen checks and balances on the abuse of federal power.Perhaps the most important lasting pro-limited government reform of the last 75 years was the 22nd Amendment for Presidential term limits, ratified in 1951. That Amendment was proposed by Congress in part because of pressure from the states who favored it. Now, just as pressure from the states helped force Congress to propose the Bill of Rights and presidential term limits, pressure from 2/3 of the states could force Congress to propose a popular Amendment as soon as 2019, without Convention. In fact three times in American history, pressure from the states has forced Congress to propose an Amendment states wanted. 12 of the 27 Amendments to our Constitution were proposed in this way. The 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 17th Amendment for direct election of Senators, and the 22nd Amendment limiting Presidents to two terms were all proposed by Congress because Congress realized that 2/3 of the states favored them, and Congress did not want the states even thinking about proposing the Amendment through a Convention.  If states, working with allies in Congress could help force Congress to propose an Amendment, what kind of Amendment could it be?Constitutional curbing the administrative state so future Presidents and their regulators could no longer dictate the rules that govern us would be a powerful permanent legacy. The good news is that than 1000 state legislators, 7 governors and former governors, including Mike Pence, a unanimous vote of the RNC, language in the 2016 Republican Platform, and Resolutions passed by 25 state legislative chambers have already urged Congress to propose the "Regulation Freedom Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution. The Regulation Freedom Amendment  would require that major new federal regulations be approved by Congress before they can take effect. And Congress, not bureaucrats would decide what is a "major" regulation.Conservatives in Congress including Sen. Ted Cruz, House Rules Chair Pete Sessions, House Natural Resources Chair Rob Bishop, and past Constitution Subcommittee Chair Trent Franks have endorsed the Regulation Freedom Amendment. Polls show 2-1 support for the Amendment from voters. Curbing the administrative state is an issue that could unite Conservatives and libertarians of all kinds while appealing to swing voters in 2018.Most so-called progressives do not want to answer a simple question: Should the rules that govern us be dictated by un-elected Washington bureaucrats or should they be approved by elected representatives of  the people? But we can make progressives answer that question and reveal them for the "Undemocrats" they really are. In fact we could even call pro-Washington Democrats who prefer bureaucracy to democracy the "UNDEMOCRATIC WING OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY."The Madison Coalition, is helping to build a national network of grassroots, political and business leaders to urge state legislators and Members of Congress to support the Regulation Freedom Amendment. Big change happens from the bottom up, not just the top down. Just one phone call or personal email to a legislator from each of hundreds and eventually thousands of people like those of you who are reading this article can make "ending regulation without representation" an issue that cannot be ignored.Every voting U.S. House Republican along with some courageous Democrats voted for and many Republican U.S. Senators support a bill called the REINS Act which would require that major new federal regulations that impose costs of more than 100 million dollars must be approved by Congress. But the REINS Act does not protect 2nd Amendment rights, free speech or religious freedom from regulations with a cost of less than $100 million. Creative regulators could also evade it by proposing multiple "mini" or "micro" regulations, each with a small cost. And the REINS Act could be repealed by a future more liberal Congress or overturned by a liberal U.S. Supreme Court.The Regulation Freedom Amendment, on the other hand, allows one quarter of the U.S. House or Senate to designate any regulation as a "major” regulation which would then require a majority vote of both the House and Senate to take effect. First and Second Amendment rights would be fully protected, and a Constitutional Amendment could not be repealed by a future Congress or overturned by the supreme Court. Most elected officials, and especially most Republicans do not know of this Constitutional alternative to the REINS act that has been endorsed by the RNC, the GOP Platform, and 25 state legislative chambers. When they hear about it from the grassroots, they certainly become interested. But we need the help of people like those of you who are reading this article to spread the word about this unique opportunity to permanently curb the bureaucracy and preserve the regulatory reforms we are now seeing.Our historic majorities are not permanent. If we don't act soon we will miss our chance. But if we do, we can change the course of American history. If you would like to learn more, visit the Regulation Freedom Amendment website at www.regulationfreedom.org. Or you can email us at Leaders@RegulationFreedom.org. Or call us at 202-255-5000.We hope to hear from you!________________________________________________*Roman Buhler is the Director of the Madison Coalition. He served for 14 years as a lawyer for the U.S. House of Representatives. He was Newt Gingrich's first House Committee Counsel. The present article was submitted for consideration for publication in the Arbalest Quarrel by its author, Roman Buhler, on July 8, 2017. The editors of the Arbalest Quarrel approved the article for publication shortly after presentation of the article for publication. Due to exigencies, unrelated to the submission, there has been an unfortunate delay in posting the article to this website. The editors of the Arbalest Quarrel apologize to the author for the delay in posting.As a further note, the editors of the Arbalest Quarrel have made minor, minimal grammatical and syntactic changes to the article where deemed appropriate, and have formatted the article, consistent with the font and style utilized in the website. The editors have, however, made no semantic changes to actual content, and the article appears here essentially as submitted by its author, complete and unabridged. As a final note, the ideas expressed in the article, reflect those of the author. The Arbalest Quarrel respects the ideas expressed, as consistent with the aims and purport of the Arbalest Quarrel website.The Arbalest Quarrel supports all efforts that serve to strengthen our Bill of Rights and supports, especially, all efforts to strengthen the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This article is copyright protected by its author, Roman Buhler, and is published by the Arbalest Quarrel with express permission of the author.  

THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT: GUARANTEEING THE SUPREMACY OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

NOW IS THE TIME TO GET MEANINGFUL FEDERAL SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS PASSED INTO LAW: LET'S GET THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT ("SAGA") UP TO SPEED.

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson, Resolutions Relative to the Alien and Sedition Acts, in 1 The Founders' Constitution 292 (Philip Kurland & Ralph Lerner eds., 1987).Our fundamental rights, as codified in our Nation’s Bill of Rights, are under constant assault. Nowhere is this more in evidence than in the continuous, contentious, cavalcade of laws emanating on the State and federal and local governmental levels—laws that slowly but inexorably chip and whittle away at the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms, codified in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But why is that? One reason for this aggressive assault on the right codified in the Second Amendment is that those supporting restrictive gun legislation view the right as an anathema, a thing of no positive value today. Those who support ever more arcane, restrictive, ponderous laws—a veritable cascade of them with no end in sight—may acknowledge that the right set forth in the Second Amendment had some import and merit, perhaps, at one time, early in our Nation’s history, but no longer. They see the right, today, as something archaic, anachronistic and, therefore, not a thing to be legitimately considered a right at all but, at most, a privilege, something that may be bestowed by government on a select few, whom Government trusts as worthy “caretakers” of society. What then becomes of the right as exercised by the common man? It is a thing lost, never to be recovered.Commoners—average Americans—are conditioned through propaganda to view firearms as an evil, as things to be reviled, and to view those who desire to own and possess them as individuals who are out of touch with reality, out of touch with the way the world works today, out of touch with the way things are or, as projected in the mind through incessant propaganda, out of touch with the ways things ought to be. The mainstream media pompously, piously, at the behest of its internationalist, globalist benefactors, proselytizes, telling us that firearms are responsible for the ills in society and that individuals who seek to own and possess them are rightfully to be shunned and viewed as slightly unhinged. The mainstream media, with the assistance of teachers and advocacy groups, condition children to fear firearms. Woe to the child caught bringing a toy gun to school or even pointing a finger at another child, simulating or suggesting a firearm. The school board ejects that child from the school, with great fanfare, as an object lesson for others. Thus, at an early age a child learns that “incorrect thinking” will turn that child into a pariah.Mainstream news sources at the behest of their benefactors—the secretive overlords of western civilization—seek, through constant, tedious, repetitive opinionating, to repress the desire in man to own and possess firearms. The argument made—specious though it is—is that firearms have no place in a “civilized” society. This modern-day excuse for a “Press” contends that Americans who desire to own and possess firearms are throwbacks to an earlier day and age and, so, need to be reeducated to forsake firearms. At times mainstream news sources—at the behest of their wealthy, powerful benefactors, the secretive, powerful, overlords of society—make these points overtly. At other times, the points are tacit, hidden in news accounts of criminals and lunatics who prey on us all. Yet, the American public is endlessly and noxiously bombarded with specious arguments remonstrating against firearms, arguing for destruction of firearm caches and castigating those who would deign to keep them. The ill-informed public thus perceives, in the constant barrage and fusillade of slogans and chastisements spat out by the propaganda machine of the mainstream media, that the loss of the right to keep and bear arms is nothing to be concerned about. The truth is ever lost on the public, as the very linchpin of the Bill of Rights falls to hundreds of unconstitutional restrictive State and federal statutes and dozens more of governmental edicts, and to tens of thousands of deliberately vague and ambiguous sentences and clauses and paragraphs tucked away in numerous local governmental rules, regulations, codes, and ordinances, designed to confound and mislead those among us who would dare to exercise the right believed important enough by the framers to carve in stone, but now to be dumped, unceremoniously, in a warehouse—like the statues and memorabilia of our Nation’s Confederacy—out of sight and, so, out of mind—lest raging anarchists and pseudo-moralists be offended.To convert the average American to its cause celebre—and to its way of thinking—to encourage the average American to accept the need for more and more firearms restrictions the mainstream media denigrates and trivializes the right embodied in the Second Amendment and, at once, castigates and ostracizes those who would dare support it.Clearly, it isn’t the career criminal, the psychopathic gang and drug cartel members, and the occasional lunatic, that gun restrictions are meant to target. No! It is, rather, the average, rational, law-abiding, American. It is that person who is the real target of ponderous gun restrictions. But, why is that? Why is it this individual that the mainstream media, and various like-minded politicians, and their benefactors—the inordinately secretive, extraordinarily powerful, insatiably and exorbitantly wealthy, and coldly ruthless internationalists, the destroyers of the Nation State and of a Nation’s laws—truly detest and truly fear? The answer is clear on reflection, and we see the answer in the mask shrouding the overt reasons the mainstream media blares out to the American public when extolling the virtue of ever more restrictive gun measures.The overt, pervasive reasons given for destroying the right of the people to keep and bear arms masks a more insidious reason the Second Amendment is under constant and vicious assault and it is the salient, true reason. It is one never given, nor dared to be given, nor is it even hinted at. Yet, it lurks ominously, in the shadows, ever present—and evident to those who pause to consider the constant, dogged, unwavering, and rapacious efforts to destroy the Second Amendment. It is clear enough to those who reflect carefully on the wording of the Second Amendment.The reason the gun grabbers truly seek to undercut the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is hidden in plain sight. It is found in the prefatory clause: “a well regulated militia being necessary to a free state.”  The framers of the Constitution, the founders of our free Republic, expressed concern over two primal threats to the young Nation. One threat emanates from outside. It is the threat posed by foreign aggressors. The other threat—by far the more serious and insidious one—operates from the inside. It goes by the name, “tyranny.”The dependent “militia” clause has no purpose other than to make clear why the right of the people to keep and bear arms is necessary. The operative clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” is clear, categorical, unequivocal, and absolute. The operative clause is not conditioned by the prefatory, dependent “militia” clause. It is not conditioned by anything. The prefatory clause simply sets forth the salient reason for the codification of the right, as set forth in the operative, independent clause—the supreme importance of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as the mechanism by which and through which the Nation guarantees that it remain a free Republic and, in that, therefor, the need for the right.Consider: there is no prefatory clause in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, justifying the right of Free Speech and Free Press. There is no prefatory clause in the First Amendment because the framers of the Constitution knew that freedom of expression and freedom of the Press—although powerful and critical rights—are not, in themselves, a check against armed invasion from the outside, nor do they constitute infallible checks against tyranny arising from within the Nation. Indeed, we see that the Press has been coopted by those who seek to destroy our Republic, thereby inviting tyranny—in fact, working indefatigably to see that tyranny comes to fruition even as the Press poses, deceptively, as a force poised against it—hence, the inherent, insidious, destructive nature of it--born from a poisonous seed within the Nation and nourished along by a chained Press. And, we see, in recent months attempts to constrain freedom of expression—deviously—through claims that it is improper for one to voice opinion that others might find objectionable. But, there is no equivocation in the Second Amendment. An armed citizenry either exists or it does not. If it exists, there is, in that armed citizenry, a perfect check against tyranny. If an armed citizenry does not exist, there is nothing to constrain tyranny.That is the salient reason for including a prefatory clause, a preamble to the Second Amendment. The prefatory clause serves no other purpose and it has no other purpose. But, those who seek to install autocracy in this Country see, in the inclusion of a prefatory, dependent clause, not the impetus the framers had for including it at all, but, a sly, devious way to suggest that the absolute right of the people to keep and bear arms—a right that, in its clear wording, is not and cannot be infringed—is not absolute, but structurally conditioned through the prefatory clause: namely, that one’s right to keep and bear arms is limited by and through and to one’s connection to a militia. That notion is false to be sure. In fact, the notion is ludicrous; and that notion has, fortunately, thankfully, finally, been laid to rest by the U.S. Supreme Court in the seminal Heller case.The intent of the framers in codifying the right of the people to keep and bear arms is abundantly clear. For, if the right could be infringed, namely, in the event one sought to keep and bear arms but had no connection to a militia, then the prefatory, dependent clause would contradict the import of the independent clause, namely, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As a matter of formal logic, either the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed or it cannot.Under the law of non-contradiction, it must be one or the other. It cannot be both. The independent clause makes clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed. If the prefatory clause were truly to suggest that the right of the people to keep and bear arms could be infringed, as the gun grabbers insist, then the Second Amendment would make no logical sense. Its legal import would be totally lost; and the right expressed in the independent clause would be reduced to a nullity—which is how the liberal-wing of the U.S. Supreme Court sees it, anyway.Thus, the import of the Second Amendment is determinative here by the absolute principle of sound logic, quite apart from its import in law. To suggest that the framers would deliberately draft a self-contradiction would be to presume them insane. On the other hand, to suggest the framers drafted a self-contradiction, negligently, would be to presume they were dunces. Neither, of course, is the case. The framers of the Second Amendment were extremely intelligent, extremely capable, competent, and rational men and, as well, they were extremely wary of the nature of the existence of some ambitious but ruthless men—men, not at all like them--who would be capable of transforming and predisposed to transforming a free Republic into an autocracy if given half a chance, to serve their own private purposes and desires.The Second Amendment, as with every other component of the Constitution, was crafted with great care. The Second Amendment is a hedge—the one best hedge against the introduction of tyranny into a free State. Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed makes clear that, in the event Government sought to impose tyranny upon the American people--and intrusion upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms would be clear evidence of such design to introduce tyranny--such illegitimate encroachment upon a sacred right shall be met with lawful force exerted by the American people, to preclude any Government attempt and effort to insinuate unlawful power against the true Sovereign of this Nation: the American people themselves. The prefatory clause must, then, have no use and serve no use other than to make clear to those servants of Government, the reason why the right cannot be infringed: namely, to remind those servants of Government that the People are Supreme; that Government was designed to serve the people, and not the other way around; and that, if the servants of Government should forget their role and should forget Government's place in the grand Constitutional scheme, the American people will remind them of their role and will remind them of Government's place in that scheme, and the American people will do so harshly, exacting a heavy price upon those who have thoughts of grandeur—those who have thoughts that it is the People who serve them--the Government Heads--and not the other way around. And, Government Heads will roll for the audacity to attempt to exert control over the American people.Thus, it is that the framers of the Constitution intended for the Second Amendment to be the one, true, and absolute check on tyranny. The late Justice Scalia knew that to be so, but was reluctant to make that point manifest in the seminal Heller case—instead discussing the tacit reason for the presence of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights—that of self-defense. Justice Scalia had to get Justices Roberts and Kennedy on board, and they, likely, would not have done so, had Justice Scalia asserted that the primary import of the militia clause was to make clear that an armed citizenry was necessary as the best check against tyranny. To mention the salient import  and purport of the Second Amendment is, apparently, today, to make too emphatic a statement; but, then, that tells us just how far we have fallen as a Nation and how expansive and powerful and treacherous the federal Government has become and as it continues to devolve, unless our present U.S. President, steps on the brake and reverses the trend toward dissolution of our Bill of Rights and our free Republic. Passing effective federal legislation that serves to strengthen our Second Amendment, as the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended, would be a good start toward reversing the deadly trend and tendency of an increasingly powerful federal Government to thwart the Bill of Rights, thereby instituting tyranny. Justice Scalia must have been aware of this horrible trend and, given the opportunity, in Heller, to set things right, he made clear the import of the Second Amendment as the drafters of the Second Amendment made intended: that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected to one's service in a militia. In that regard, Justice Scalia, writing for the Majority, pointed to the natural right of self-defense as implicit in the individual's exercise of that sacred right.Still, Justice Scalia’s discussion of one's right self-defense through firearms means--as I am sure he was aware--not only defense of one’s physical self but also defense against oppression, whether that oppression manifests outside this Country or, more frighteningly, within it. And, we have seen, in the regime of Barack Obama and as we would have seen in the regime of Hillary Clinton tyranny raising its ugly head, manifesting obliquely, tangentially, but most assuredly. We see in the Presidency of Donald Trump, a circumambulation around our Bill of Rights—an attempt to set things right, as Chief Executive of our Nation. But, he has his job cut out for him for the Deep State does not wish to cede the stranglehold of tyranny it has been weaving around this Nation for many years and which it shad ought to complete through the coronation of Hillary Clinton. Fortunately, that "coronation" never took place. Americans weren't hoodwinked.But, the failure of the secretive internationalist forces to elect their puppet, Hillary Clinton, hardly means we are out of the woods.We see the insinuation of tyranny through the instigation of international pacts and treaties, that operate to circumvent the sovereignty of our laws. We see it in the use of our military for purposes altogether unrelated to our national defense. We see it in attempts to draw this Country—an independent sovereign Nation—into the throes of the EU; we see it in the opinions of the liberal wing Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who argue that international law and jurisprudence should govern the decisions of cases impacting our fundamental rights, effectively subordinating, then, our Constitution and our written law to that of foreign bodies. We see it in the subordination of our laws and our sacred rights and liberties to that of international courts and tribunals. We are slowly, inexorably being sucked into a whirlpool that reshapes our laws, and our rights—to be twisted and molded and reformed into a thing that effectively loosens the underpinnings of our core values, traditions, and history. Our Bill of Rights, and, particularly, our Second Amendment, has no place in this new world order and must therefore be consigned--so the architects of our Nation’s destruction have ordered--to the dustbin of history.To that end, State and federal statutes and local governmental rules, regulations, and ordinances are enacted, to attack the free exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms to excoriate it; to exorcise it from conscious thought and memory—ostensibly to benefit society in its entirety, to benefit the collective, to benefit the “beehive,” never the individual, and, thus, to see our once independent sovereign Nation incorporated, as but one cog, into a larger “grand” design that embraces many other Nations in one seemingly seamless, cohesive whole. We see governmental regulations enacted in a scarcely disguised attempt to destroy the sacred right the framers of our Constitution knew to be necessary to restrict the power of Government and they saw the necessity of etching those rights and liberties in stone. But, attempts are made to undercut the Bill of Rights, and, particularly, to undercut the Second Amendment. Ominously, State and federal statutes are enacted to attack the right of the people to keep and bear arms at the root level. Statutes are enacted to attack the right codified in the Second Amendment in the hope that, at some point in the future, the Second Amendment will wither and die of its own accord, since de jure repeal of it outright is virtually impossible.Indeed, the framers intended that de jure repeal of the Bill of Rights would be, ought to be, must be, extremely difficult to accomplish. Repeal of fundamental rights should be difficult to accomplish, lest an uneducated or ill-informed public, hoodwinked by, and easily manipulated by  propaganda, spouted by a compliant Press, controlled by those who place no stock in the Bill of Rights, be led by the nose to believe that Americans really, truly, don’t need this or that right, codified in the Bill of Rights, and that we would all be better off to do away with the right altogether.Since actual de jure repeal of the Second Amendment outright won’t happen, cannot happen, even as those who detest the continued existence of the Second Amendment would love to see that happen—would fervently love to see formal repeal of the Second Amendment—it behooves those who seek to destroy it to find some other way or means to do so. And, they have done so, through a process that takes longer, but, through the inexorable tide of time, money, and effort expended in enacting ever more exacting, restrictive, convoluted, and redundant firearms legislation and through an easily malleable, complacent, compliant ill-informed public, they have exacted their toll on the Second Amendment, and have successfully eroded Americans’ exercise of the sacred right. Thus, the net result, if not reversed, would reduce the Second Amendment to a virtual nullity, even as it continues, formally, to exist.Thus, where we see the creation of ever more State and federal laws, and federal governmental rules and edicts, and local governmental codes, rules, regulations, and ordinances—enacted in defiance of the clear meaning of the Second Amendment and in clear defiance to U.S. Supreme Court rulings, we become aware that the destruction of the Second Amendment is no less certain than had the Second Amendment been repealed outright. This is what is meant by de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment continues to exist “on paper” but it has no efficacy. It means nothing. It means that no right exists that can be exercised through it.De facto repeal, then, has the same effect as outright de jure repeal. It just takes a little longer. Of course, the liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court seeks to destroy the Second Amendment in its own way, through its misinterpretation of law, rather than through misuse of legislation. We see this in the dissenting opinions of liberal wing Justices. By corralling the operative clause of the Second Amendment—“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”—in the dependent clause, “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” and as the concept of a State militia, as understood by the framers of the U.S. Constitution is essentially non-existent today, the Second Amendment would be nugatory, as it would be impossible for an American ever to exercise the right under it.” Thus, if those Justices who dissented in the Heller and McDonald cases, had been writing for the Majority, the Second Amendment would effectively be reduced to a nullity. Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms would be transformed into a mere privilege, something Government could grant to a person or deny a person, at whim.Occasionally, as in Congressman Chris Collins’ Second Amendment Guarantee Act, we do see some relief—a welcome pushback against offensive restrictive firearms’ legislation. Yet, as we also see, that pushback is often gratuitous, designed merely to award a Congressman political points for taking a stand that, although unpopular to some, is welcomed by many, and should, even if it never were enacted into law, be heralded by all.But, Chris Collins’ bill, will wither and die, like the Second Amendment could, itself, unless the public spurs Congress to action. *Proponents of strong pro-Second Amendment bills must have the fortitude to see their bills through to fruition to the same extent, if not more so, than do opponents of the Second Amendment when introducing their own anti-Second Amendment bills. For we have seen, on several occasions, how opponents of our sacred right push their bills through to upend our most sacred right. It is unfortunate that those Legislators who ostensibly espouse their support of the right of the people to keep and bear arms demonstrate, at the end of the day, a lack of fortitude to see their work through to completion. They certainly do not exhibit the same exuberance as those who seek to undermine the Second Amendment exhibit, for, when introducing anti-Second Amendment legislation, such legislators generally work toward moving their bills along. They are serious about getting their anti-Second Amendment bills enacted into law. Such anti-Second Amendment bills don't simply die in Committee, much as we would like to see them do, unlike pro-Second Amendment bills, which we would like very much to see passage of.Thus, the best crafted bill in the Nation doesn’t get us anywhere unless serious effort is made to push it forward. We can get started on the first part—assisting Legislators—to craft effective legislation, and we are doing so. Yet, without a strong nudge from the public we see Congressional legislators unwilling to do their part, proceeding half-heartedly, at best, and then stopping short of their goal. That is hardly encouraging and we find it wholly unacceptable.The Republicans, for the moment, at least, control both Houses of Congress; and we have a U.S. President who has not been bought and paid for by internationalists—unlike Obama and the Clintons who have taken their marching orders from these internationalists—these ruthless and cunning individuals who owe their allegiance to no Nation—who seek to undermine all Nations, to bring them under the sway of their corporate control, operating through private charters that would undercut the constitutions of Nations. This we see as the fate befalling the Nations of the European Union. Lest we fall under the sway of the EU directly or otherwise fall prey to an EU styled dictatorship, it is necessary for Americans to take a stand and do our best to strengthen our Constitution and our Bill of Rights--those sacrosanct and inviolate documents that the founders bequeathed to us through their tremendous courage and through their great sacrifice.______________________________________*Let your U.S. Senator and U.S. Representative know how you feel about your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Phone (202) 225-3121. It is a fast and easy process; and a critical one. Only through your active participation, can we help secure our Second Amendment right. _________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.         

THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT: A REAFFIRMATION OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT SHOULD, AS THE TITLE OF THE ACT ASSERTS AND AS PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD, DO NOTHING MORE NOR LESS THAN RETURN, TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL RIGHT SLIPPING FROM THEM: THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

WHAT MISBEGOTTEN CONGRESS AND MANY OVERZEALOUS STATE LEGISLATURES HAVE WROUGHT MUST BE CORRECTED

THREE SCENARIOS THAT REQUIRE CONSTANT VIGILANCE ON THE PART OF AMERICANS:

ONE: SOMETIMES LEGISLATIVE ACTS HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, RESULTING IN THE LOSS OF ONE'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OR RESULTING IN AN ABRIDGMENT OF OR AN ATTENUATION OF THOSE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES, IF NOT IN AN OUTRIGHT LOSS OF ONE'S RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES.

TWO: AT OTHER TIMES LEGISLATORS ENACT LAWS THAT, ALTHOUGH DIRECTED TO ACCOMPLISHING ONE GOAL, NOT DESIGNED TO IMPACT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES, NONETHELESS, WHEN IMPLEMENTED, HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE EXERCISE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES.

AND, THREE: AT TIMES--AS IS MOST OFTEN THE CASE--LEGISLATORS OPERATE WITH ABANDON, DRAFTING AND ENACTING LAWS THAT ARE DIRECTED SPECIFICALLY TO CURTAILING AMERICANS' FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES.

When State Legislatures and Congress propose legislation—legislation that may touch upon fundamental, natural rights codified in the Bill of Rights—there exists a possibility that the proposed legislation will negatively impact the citizen's exercise of a fundamental right, protected by the Bill of Rights. The danger of an abridgment of or attenuation of a citizen’s rights and liberties may occur through accident or through invidious design. Either way, a danger to the rights and liberties of American citizens is ever present in any legislative action. Americans must, therefore, be ever vigilant of that possibility to preclude elected officials and bureaucrats from undermining Americans' rights and liberties.If an abridgement of a citizen’s rights and liberties occurs through accident, as a result of careless drafting of legislation, this tells us that State legislators and U.S. Congressmen must be conscientious in drafting legislation to avoid unintended negative consequences and must be mindful of bureaucratic overreach that operates to curtail a citizen’s rights and liberties—bureaucratic overreach that operates beyond the extreme of legislation--beyond the parameters of seeming enabling legislation that, on the surface, may suggest, in the rules bureaucrats promulgate to effectuate Legislative intent, that bureaucrats have carte blanche to promulgate rules abridging constitutionally protected rights and liberties, when, in fact, they do not have such authorization and when, in fact, it was never Congressional intention or a State Legislature's intention to cede to federal and State bureaucrats such authority to override Constitutionally protected rights and liberties.If, however, State legislation or Congressional legislation directed to accomplishing one objective, has anticipated indirect and negative impact on a fundamental right, what does that tell us? It tells us that legislators are operating deviously—clearly out of normative bounds of duty and decency, machinating behind the back of voters, and in clear violation of their oath of Office. In that event, those legislators who manipulate legislative powers to destroy the Bill of Rights must be called out for their actions and that means impeachment.Most often, though, those individuals drafting federal or State laws do so with clear cold, calculated deliberation, with a categorical objective in mind, one that cannot be mistaken for something else or for something less, namely, the goal of creating law that has, at its salient purpose, impinging fundamental rights and liberties and, in fact, infringing fundamental rights, specifically. Legislation is expressly drafted with that goal in mind. In these circumstances, legislators do not attempt to hide their intentions. In such circumstances, legislators act with cheerful abandon and with a very heavy hand, demonstrating little concern over whether they have overstepped acceptable legal and moral bounds when impinging on or infringing, altogether, a fundamental right—if we presume, from the get-go, that there are such things as acceptable legal and moral boundaries in the matter of curtailing an American’s exercise of his or her fundamental rights and liberties But, to be sure, there exist none! Still a rationale—really an excuse—for such legislation is provided, trumpeted by legislators' willing accomplices in the mainstream media. The American public must not allow such legislators to remain in Office.In the last case presented here, the excuse, posing as a legitimate rationale, that is invariably given, is that federal or State legislation restricting the American citizen's exercise of this or that fundamental right and liberty serves or promotes a compelling State interest. That is the test the United States Supreme Court has devised to ascertain the constitutionality of a State or federal statute when the very core of a natural, fundamental right is impinged on or infringed outright.In practice, courts of competent jurisdiction that share the sentiments of government, as expressed in a State or federal regulation, will often, although, fortunately, not invariably, find the offending regulation constitutionally permissible even if, on logical and legal grounds, it isn’t.Government, whether State or federal, must, nonetheless, articulate its compelling interest to restrict the people’s exercise of a fundamental right when a plaintiff, that has standing to sue, directly challenges the constitutionality of a State or federal statute or local governmental regulation or ordinance.Rarely do we see Congress or State Legislatures enacting legislation impacting natural, fundamental rights that serve to strengthen the right as codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights. Congressman Chris Collins; bill, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act, is one example of legislation the intent of which is to strengthen rather than to weaken a fundamental right: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But, when all is said and done, such legislation should be unnecessary anyway; for, a fundamental right—namely any right codified in the Bill of Rights—has no parameters and legislation should never be enacted to create parameters unless, if done so very, very circumspectly. For, example, illegal aliens do not have the right to keep and bear arms, for they are not understood to be "the people" to whom the right of the people to keep and bear arms attaches. So, a law that precludes illegal aliens from possessing firearms is not really establishing a parameter around the Second Amendment anyway, as the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment by the framers of our Constitution, did not have illegal aliens in mind. As Congress, has authority, under Article I, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution to enact laws governing naturalization. An illegal alien--for which the term, 'undocumented,' is nothing more than an euphemism and a poor and inexact term to be applied to such a person--is by definition an individual who is not of this Country as he or she is merely in this Country, and should not have been in this Country at all.Parameters are set by legislators in statute or by Courts, when interpreting statute. But, as is clear from the language of the Amendments of the Bill of Rights, there are no true parameters. The rights expressed therein are absolute--as applied to citizens of the United States. It is a legal shibboleth, nothing more than a platitude, really, running as a constant thread through all State and federal legislation and through local rules, regulations, codes and ordinances. It is a platitude asserted by jurists and politicians alike—repeated with regularity, wearily and eerily, and as no more than an afterthought—as no more than cliché—a thing that has become a strange jurisprudential adage. It is that State and federal governmental regulations and local governmental rules and regulations, and codes and ordinances, that routinely and negatively impact basic rights might pass constitutional muster anyway since no right is absolute—including, and especially, those rights and liberties, clearly articulated and codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, as handed down to us by the framers of our Constitution—the founders of our free Republic. Hence, the rationale, we see, is really nothing more than a paltry excuse, a mirage, a meager attempt to legitimize the undermining of fundamental rights of the People. This has led to a monstrous curtailing of the rights of the people of this Country. It has occurred incrementally, quietly, insidiously, seductively. And, many Americans have, unfortunately, grown accustomed to accepting out of whole cloth the illusion that they really don’t need to exercise the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, and that they don’t really need to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, as that right is codified in the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the  U.S. Constitution, notwithstanding that these two rights were deemed sufficiently important to the founders of our Nation that they set them down, expressly, in our Constitution. And now we are beginning to see that the freedom of speech and the right of the people peaceably to assemble, as guaranteed under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, too, are under assault. And we, Americans, are led to believe that this is, somehow, in some undefined way, in the natural order of things to see our fundamental rights and liberties curtailed and that we should no longer have any real expectation that we have any fundamental rights or liberties except to the extent that Government deigns to grant such rights and liberties to us, explaining, thereby, the extent to which such rights and liberties are granted, for a time, to this one or that one among us. This is to suggest that fundamental rights and liberties are to be perceived as fads, trivialities, things easily and infinitely malleable, to be kneaded like clay, or sloughed off like old clothes--things to be transformed or deleted, according to the norms of the time—as “new norms” are thrust on us by those who arrogantly, yet erroneously, claim the moral high ground and who claim a tacit right to decide what is best for the rest of us.Another platitude we constantly hear is that we are a Nation that is ruled by laws and not by men. We live under the profound illusion that there exists a natural order existent in this platitude, forgetting or failing even to consider that it is men, after all, that make the laws that govern our actions and that govern our very lives, and that it is men that make the laws that denigrate our Constitutional rights and liberties, claiming, all the while, as they do so, as they forever inform us--artfully, deceitfully--that destruction of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, under the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, and that destruction of the freedom of speech and destruction of the right of the people peaceably to assemble under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, and that destruction of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, are necessary--that destruction of these rights and liberties are, indeed, for the common good and that they are for the good of society, for the good of the collective, for the good of the hive. We are seduced into believing or otherwise cajoled into accepting that destructions of our fundamental rights and liberties, destructions set down in federal or State statute, and destructions set down in local rules, and codes, and regulations, and ordinances are yet, somehow, all created and implemented for our own good, for the good of the Nation or for the good of the community, or for the good of the people. We are told that these laws and codes and rules and regulations and ordinances that undercut our sacred rights and liberties are, nonetheless, to be taken as just and moral things. We are to accept these changes, and we are told that we should applaud these changes, as things consistent with the norms and standards of the time and of a "civilized society." We are told to accept the notion that our Bill of Rights is, no more than any man-made law, something mutable, and like all things mutable, contingent, not meant to last. But, that is the myth thrust on us, to make us pliant little lambs.

OUR BILL OF RIGHTS CAN NEVER BE DESTROYED, NOT REALLY, NOT EVER--TRY AS SOME MAY TO DO SO.

What these scoundrels—these makers of “laws” that rule us, suffocate us—don’t tell us is that the laws they create are designed to supersede the Constitution, thereby denigrating the most important Truth of all—the singular, quintessential Truth which tells us that the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Yet, the fact of the matter is that no Statute, Rule, Regulation, Code, or Ordinance stands superior to the U.S. Constitution. No man-made law carries sway over our natural rights and liberties as set forth in the U.S. Constitution. To say that we are a Nation ruled by laws and not by men is, thus, a horrible lie—a monstrous lie because it carries--as many effective lies do--a kernel of truth—namely that we are ruled by laws, but they are all arbitrary laws--laws that come and go, like the light of a firefly at night. But it is the light of the Ten Amendments that comprise our sacred Bill of Rights that shines forever and can never be dimmed or snuffed out. Those Laws--the Ten Amendments that comprise our Bill of Rights--are Sacred Principles, Sacred , Sacrosanct, and Inviolate Truths. These Truths embodied in our Bill of Rights cannot be muted, or undercut, or diluted, or deleted, or destroyed. To attempt to destroy our sacred Ten Amendments is to destroy this Nation and, yet, these Ten Amendments cannot ever truly be destroyed. They can never be destroyed because they live in us. They are intrinsic to our very being as Americans.We are a Nation that, ultimately, is ruled not by men, not by contingent, transient laws of men, and not by the edicts of men, but solely by the American People, as the Nation is in us as we are the embodiment of the Nation. The Nation is: We the People; and the sword and shield of the American People resides not in our laws--those contingent, transient things that come and go with the flow and ebb of time--but solely in the primordial, immutable, natural rights codified in the first Ten Amendments of the Nation’s Bill of Rights, a document seamlessly sewn into the fabric of the United States Constitution.

WHAT, THEN, SHOULD WE, AMERICANS, UNDERSTAND, FROM PRO-SECOND AMENDMENT BILLS, SUCH AS CONGRESSMAN COLLINS' SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT?

Congressman Chris Collins’ Second Amendment Guarantee Act must be viewed not as extending the right of the People to keep and bear arms—as those who oppose it would undoubtedly assert and thereupon argue that the bill should not be enacted into law--but should simply be understood as a reaffirmation of that fundamental, natural, primordial, preexistent, immutable Right as it exists, unconstrained: Pure, Infinite, all-Powerful, Supreme. As such, the Second Amendment remains, second to none, as the best guarantor of our freedom and our best hedge against tyranny.As a reaffirmation of the import of our sacred Second Amendment, Chris Collins' Second Amendment Guarantee Act can be improved. We explain how to do so, commencing with our next post._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.