DEMOCRATS TRY AN ELEVENTH HOUR ATTACK ON JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH’S CONFIRMATION TO THE HIGH COURT.

“Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,Is the immediate jewel of their souls:Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;’twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;But he that filches from me my good nameRobs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed.” ~ William Shakespeare, Othello, Act 3, Scene 3_____________________________“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”  ~ Margaret Thatcher Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,” May 4, 1979 through November 28, 1990_____________________________

CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA MAKE A MOCKERY OF A SOLEMN PROCESS FOR CONFIRMING A PERSON TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND, WORST OF ALL, DARE ATTEMPT DESTRUCTION OF A MAN'S GOOD NAME--FOR NO PURPOSE BUT THEIR OWN MISBEGOTTEN AND SELFISH POLITICAL END.

The American public’s patience with the Democratic Party and with the Democratic Party’s echo chamber, the mainstream news media, must be wearing thin, and rightly so. In a disgraceful, 11^th Hour attempt to derail the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democratic Party member of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, brought to the attention of Chairman Grassley and to other Republicans sitting on the Committee, uncorroborated accusations impugning the Judge’s character.The accusations against Judge Kavanaugh came to Senator Feinstein, last July. No explanation has been, to date, forthcoming from the Senator, as to her reason or reasons for holding onto the contents of the letter for over two months, but we can reasonably surmise that one major reason Senator Feinstein held onto the contents of the letter has to do with the political usefulness of it in attempting to derail or, at least, holding up a Senate vote on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court until after the 2018 Midterm elections, when the Democrats hope to gain control of the House and even the Senate. Senator Feinstein, and other Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee knew, full well, of the difficulty, if not the empirical impossibility, of holding up the confirmation of a person admirably qualified to sit on the high Court Justice unless she had a card, an “Ace,” up her sleeve that would rally Leftists in this Country. And, apparently, she did have an “Ace” up her sleeve. In a last minute attempt to throw a wrench into the entire Confirmation process, Senator Feinstein dropped a bomb shell on Chairman Grassley and on other Senate Republicans, sitting on the Judiciary Committee. The bomb shell took the form of an allegation against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, ostensibly referring to an event that, if it occurred at all and if it involved Judge Kavanaugh, happened literally decades ago, when both the Brett Kavanaugh and the accuser were teenagers, in high school.The accusation came to the Senator in a letter she received from a person who, apparently, and not surprisingly, made clear to the Senator, at the time she contacted the Senator, last July, that the accuser wished to remain anonymous. From details of the letter that Senator Feinstein only made known to Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee just days before a Roll-Call vote of the Senate was planned, Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser cast a pernicious and potentially libelous accusation on Judge Kavanaugh. One can surmise the accuser’s motives and she should explain them to the American public. But, assuredly, the accuser, and Senate Democrats, sought to create doubt upon and to impugn the Judge’s good name, character, and reputation, and that is certainly the impact Democrats, through their echo chamber, the mainstream media, are attempting to invoke in the psyche of the American public. If their campaign of deception to cast doubt on the character of Judge Kavanaugh is successful, Senate Democrats will prevent confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh as the new Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. That is what they want and that is the reason Senate Democrats have implemented an last minute smear campaign. They have nothing else. Thus, they engage in the most despicable act of all: an attempt at character assassination. It is for this reason that Senate Republicans must remain firm in their own commitment to confirm Judge Kavanaugh as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice and without delay, and not allow a false flag smear campaign against Judge Kavanaugh to gain traction. Now, it isn't clear whether Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and other Congressional Democrats really aware of the content of the letter in Senator Feinstein's possession before releasing it to Chairman Grassley and to other Senate Republicans. Were other Senate Democrats aware of the contents of the damning letter? And, if so, who, and when did they learn about the contents of the letter? Did they know of the contents before the Confirmation Hearing even took place. After all, Senator Feinstein had the letter in her possession for several weeks, prior to the Hearing. Senator Feinstein could certainly have questioned Judge Kavanaugh about the letter's contents, discretely, when she met with him privately; or she could have brought the matter up at the Hearing, albeit, an attack on a person's character is hardly a matter that should be the subject of a Senate Hearing on the Confirmation of a Judge to the U.S. Supreme Court, as the subject of one's character and integrity and reputation should not even be in question. Judge Kavanaugh has served admirably as a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for several years. Impugning a Judge's character serves only to degrade the entire Confirmation process and denigrates, too, the dignity of everyone present, Senators as well as the nominee himself.But, we have to ask: Were other Congressional Democrats—especially Democratic Party members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including Senators Patrick Leahy, Sheldon Whitehouse, Dick Durbin, Richard Blumenthal, Amy Klobuchar, Christopher Coons, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Mazie Hirono—also aware, last July, of the contents of the letter that had landed on Senator Feinstein’s desk? If so, they aren’t saying, and no one in the mainstream media seems to be interested in asking. But, they have lent their voices to impugning the character and good name of Judge Kavanaugh merely on the basis of an uncorroborated, unsupported damning barefaced, written accusation.*As Senator Feinstein certainly intended, Congressional Democrats, along with the assistance of the  mainstream media, launched an immediate, vigorous, aggressive attack against Judge Kavanaugh, shamelessly smearing and besmirching his name and character across the National landscape.Obviously, Democrats intend to squash the confirmation of the President’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court by whatever means available, however dubious and shameful those means may be.

THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO HAS ATTACKED JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S CHARACTER, COMES TO LIGHT.

Eventually the identity of the accuser came to light—by whom it is not clear.  Conceivably, Democrats, themselves, leaked the name of the accuser. Democrats had certainly become aware that a damning, barefaced anonymous accusation would not delay a Senate Confirmation vote; nor should it. They had to attach a name and face to the accuser, and that would have been their motive, then, for releasing the identity of Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser to the public.The letter to Senator Feinstein, the Nation has learned, came from a middle-aged lady by the name of Christine Blasey Ford, a resident of California, and a Psychology Professor at Palo Alta University. Of note: Fox News reports that, “Ford is a registered Democrat who has given small monetary donations to political causes, according to The Washington Post.” As a registered Democrat, that fact would certainly supply a motive for the Professor having contacted Senator Feinstein.Christine Blasey Ford alleges, in her letter, as relayed to the mass media by Senator Feinstein, that the U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, assaulted—or attempted to assault the woman (it isn’t clear which, nor is it even clear if the assault or attempted assault was in fact of a sexual nature)—when the two were in high school, an event that would have occurred, if it occurred at all, well over thirty ago. Notably, the accuser is short on critical details, such as when the alleged assault occurred, where the assault occurred, and, for that matter, what it is, exactly, the accuser claims, had occurred, but which, the American public is to believe, has festered in the mind of Christine Blasey Ford for decades.The problem, of course, is that there does not appear to be anyone around who is able to corroborate the accusation. Senate Republican Committee members attempted to find someone, anyone, who might be able to corroborate Judge Kavanaugh's accuser's story. Judge Brett Kavanaugh, for his part, categorically denies the accusation. No matter, Democrats, sitting on the Judiciary Committee, have presented the accusation, and continue to present the accusation to the public as gospel, however sketchy the details. Other, more reasonable, rational individuals, including Republican members, sitting on the Judiciary Committee, are not so obliging; nor should they be; no one should.

A WOMAN LODGES A BAREFACED, UNSUPPORTED, SERIOUS, HEINOUS, IF NOT ALTOGETHER SPURIOUS, ALLEGATION AGAINST A RESPECTED AND RESPECTABLE JURIST DESCRIBING AN EVENT THAT, IF THERE IS ANYTHING TRUTHFUL ABOUT IT AT ALL, REFERS TO A MATTER OCCURRING DECADES AGO; AND THE ACCUSER HONESTLY BELIEVES DOING SO WOULD NOT LEAD TO PERSONAL REPERCUSSIONS FOR HERSELF, HAVING PROFFERED IT? HOW CAN A MIDDLE-AGED, PRESUMABLY RESPONSIBLE, RATIONAL ADULT—REMEMBER WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH A CHILD HERE—WHO HAS HAD MANY LIFE EXPERIENCES, AND WHO HAS EARNED A DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEGREE IN PSYCHOLOGY, WHO TEACHES PSYCHOLOGY AT AN ACCREDITED UNIVERSITY IN CALIFORNIA, AND WHO IS, THEN, OBVIOUSLY INTELLIGENT, BE SO CALLOUS, SO HEARTLESS, SO SELF-CENTERED, AND, AT ONE AND THE SAME TIME, SO NAÏVE AS TO BRING UP A PERSONAL MATTER THAT DOES LITTLE, IF ANYTHING--CONTRARY TO WHAT SOME MAY BELIEVE--TO BUTTRESS HER OWN NAME, CHARACTER, AND REPUTATION?

A serious allegation has been lodged against a man whom dozens of other individuals, male and female professionals, know well. Individuals have come forward, pointing to a sensitive, caring person, with impeccable character and reputation; a person having a brilliant legal mind, honed through many years of service to the Nation as a Judge sitting on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. So, if one person’s deprecating comments against Judge Kavanaugh are to be given honest consideration, as both the accuser and Democrats hope—as there are, to date, no negative remarks from those individuals who know Judge Kavanaugh either personally or professionally—then it stands to reason this person must come forward and explain herself to the Nation.We know, however, that Christine Blasey Ford, did not wish to come forward, and does not wish to come forward and that, through her attorney, Debra Katz,** she has made and continues to make many outrageous demands, frustrating, and, obviously, deliberately so, the patience of Senate Republicans, sitting on the Judiciary Committee.One of Christine Blasey Ford’s demands are that Judge Kavanaugh testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, before, Blasey Ford testifies. That is a ludicrous demand to make and it is one contrary to our system of justice and legal procedure.An accuser bears the burden of proof, and must present evidence in support of the accusation so that the accused has an opportunity to hear and view the evidence and has an opportunity to respond to it. It is patently unfair and contrary to our Nation’s judicial practice and procedure and, for that matter, illogical to demand that the accused testify before the accused has had an opportunity to know just what it is the accused is being accused of and has had no opportunity to rebut the accusation made against him or her.The accuser is also demanding that a Senate Confirmation vote be delayed so that she has time to prepare her testimony. But, does Christine Blasey Ford truly require time to prepare? She presented her letter to Senator Feinstein in July. She should have known, ultimately, that she could not simply present a damning accusation, attacking the reputation, character, integrity, and good-name of the man without personally testifying and presenting independent corroborating evidence, to support her accusation, if she has any, that is to say.Christine Blasey Ford’s attorney, probably working closely with Senate Democrats in the shadows, is  attempting to create unnecessary delay when there is no tenable reason to do so. She, and Senate Democrats working with her, are doing this, not because the attorney really needs to prepare her client's testimony before the Senate Committee, even as she says there exists a need to do so, but because they both want to delay a Senate vote on Confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court until after the  2016 Midterm Elections in the hope, once again, that Democrats gain control of both the House and Senate and can then prevent a majority vote in the Senate, in favor of confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. A Senate Democratic Party majority will effectively block Judge Kavanaugh from being confirmed as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, thereby frustrating the President, and also frustrating the people who elected Donald Trump as President of the United States, and who had every reason to expect that the President would nominate a person to the high Court who would preserve the Constitution and the rights and liberties of American citizens, in strict accordance to the plain meaning of the Constitution, as drafted by the framers of it. And, Donald Trump has kept his word. We, who support the President, seek to defend the U.S. Constitution, our legal system, the supremacy of our laws and the continued sovereignty of our Nation. And the best way to do so is to secure jurists on the U.S. Supreme Court and on the lower Courts who would do the same. Activist jurists who legislate from the Bench are precisely what supporters of the U.S. President do not want. That is what Barack Obama has given to the American people, and the American people have seen what that has wrought for Nation, and Americans have had enough of that. Is not the derailing of the Confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, then, the central reason that Christine Blasey Ford, a supporter of Hillary Clinton, contacted Senator Feinstein? And, isn't the presentation of Christine Blasey Ford's barefaced damning allegation, to Senate Republicans and to the Nation--an isolated, solitary, ludicrous allegation attacking a good man's honor, character, good name, and reputation--the purpose of this smear, this attempt at character assassination? Isn't this what Congressional Democrats had planned all along: to deny Judge Kavanaugh a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of his ability and brilliance as a jurist and regardless of his integrity, character, reputation, sensitivity, and decency as a person and American citizen? Isn't this what a last ditch attempt to disrupt the assured confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh is really all about? Of course it is. And, Democrats have nothing else to use in their attempt to derail the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to a seat on the high Court. They can come up with nothing else. So, then, this is what Senate Democrats have allowed themselves to be reduced to, ghoulish wretchedness. They utilize the most despicable of tactics in a last ditch attempt to prevent confirmation of a man eminently suited to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. They resort to character assassination. And, they don't care whether the claims impugning Judge Kavanaugh's character are true or not. Indeed, they are reduced to lauding the truth of barefaced damning, unsupported, and vacuous allegation before the accuser has even testified, turning reason, and logic, and common-sense, and proper due process and procedure and judicial fairness; and simple, plain common decency our the door. Indeed, they claim that Judge Kavanaugh must prove his innocence. And, how in law or logic would he even do that, even assuming, for purpose of argument that the onus is on him to prove his innocence? How does one, anyone, go about proving a negative?For purpose of delay, Christine Blasey Ford’s attorney has also demanded that the FBI conduct an investigation of the charge her client has made against her client. That demand is equally absurd. No individual can demand as a matter of right—and, for that matter, it is even wrong to ask—a police department or agency to conduct a criminal investigation. It is the prerogative of a police agency, whether local, County, State, or Federal, to conduct an investigation if, in the first instance, proper jurisdiction exists and it appears worthwhile to do so, which means that forensic evidence likely exists that a crime actually occurred.In this instance it is particularly absurd for the FBI to conduct a criminal investigation. First, the FBI has no jurisdiction to conduct a criminal investigation. The matter would have been within the jurisdiction of the State where the alleged matter purportedly occurred, as the matter is a State matter, not a federal one. No federal law has been violated. So, jurisdictionally, the FBI cannot investigate the matter as a crime, even if it wanted to. Second, as a possible State crime, the State’s Statute of Limitations on assault, sexual or otherwise, may have expired if a Statute of Limitation exists in the jurisdiction where the alleged assault took place. And, even if a Statute of Limitations does not exist, still, in the absence of forensic evidence and in the absence of witnesses who can corroborate the allegation--both of which are highly unlikely--given the fact that the allegation refers to a matter occurring if it occurred at all, literally decades ago, no competent prosecutor would ever attempt to prosecute such a case, as there would be little, if any, chance of obtaining a conviction.If, third, the accuser is demanding that the FBI investigate the allegation not as a crime, but as an investigation into Judge Kavanaugh’s character, then that demand is pointless if not altogether absurd as well because the FBI has already conducted numerous extremely extensive background investigations on Judge Kavanaugh as he has worked for both the Executive Branch of the Federal Government and for the Judicial Branch of Government, the Federal Judiciary, where he presently serves as a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.There is nothing further to be gained from use of taxpayer funds for the FBI to do another background investigation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, as he has gone through thorough background investigations already, the last one of which would have been required in the Judge’s capacity as President Trump’s nominee to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. If the FBI had come up with anything concrete to cast doubt on the Judge Kavanaugh’s character, to prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the high Court, the Confirmation process would have been short-circuited, at the inception. There would never have been Hearing. FBI background investigations are extremely thorough, and especially so for those individuals who are being considered to hold powerful positions in the Federal Government, as is true here.It strains credulity to believe the FBI would have been unable to obtain evidence of criminal wrongdoing or evidence of anything suggesting a person has character flaws if any such evidence truly exists.  We should not be looking at Judge Kavanaugh at all. Americans, should, rather, be looking at the accuser, Christine Basely Ford; for if her accusation were true, it is difficult to believe that she would not have mentioned the matter to someone, if not the police, then, perhaps, to a friend, or to her pastor, or, if not to one or more of them, then certainly to her parents who themselves would have contacted the police. In this era of the hysterical "Me Too" movement (or #MeToo) with women coming out of the woodwork, many with the most outrageous of claims, reason dictates that a reasonable person be skeptical of claims of moral impropriety or criminal wrongdoing when all that exists is a bare bones allegation.In the instant case, a decades old claim of assault (sexual or not)--and one, at that, coming from a person holding political views antithetical to Republicans, a person who is certainly no supporter of President Trump, and a person who is represented by an attorney who is, herself, a known hard-core left-wing activist--smacks of an orchestrated scheme, a design, a plan, concocted by Democrats and Left-wing agitators to undermine the President at every turn. The American public has certainly seen substantial evidence of that to date. A direct, concerted attack on the President's nominees to sit on Federal Courts, especially the President's nominee to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, when that nominee would create a clear conservative-wing majority on the Court, is something that Democrats and Leftists cannot, it is evident, abide. Indeed, since a Supreme Court Justice holds a lifetime appointment, the power of the high Court, with Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation, would provide the best means possible to preserve: the U.S. Constitution and a free Republic; the supremacy of our laws, and the sovereignty of our Nation; the fundamental rights and liberties of the citizenry, and an  appreciation for the continued autonomy and sanctity of the individual--all of which exists within the framework of our Constitution and system of laws, as established by the founders of our Nation. None of this, Democrats and Leftist groups want to preserve. Their aims and goals require a tortuous reading of the Constitution. They see our Constitution and fallible and malleable. They do not accept the supremacy of our Constitution and laws, but rather as contained within a broader spectrum of international law and pacts and treaties and foreign tribunals, all impacting our Nation and its people. They do not believe in the conception of natural law--that the fundamental rights and liberties of the American citizen exist beyond their lawful power to curtail or eliminate. They believe that all laws, even our natural unalienable rights, codified in our Bill of Rights are merely man-made constructs, and, as such, they see rights and liberties as subject to constant reconfiguration, refinement, regulation, even elimination; and they seek to create new substantive rights that nowhere exist in the Constitution, such as a right to an abortion on demand. These Leftists would destroy our Country, as originally constituted: an independent Sovereign Nation. They would accomplish this by opening up our borders to virtually anyone who wishes to reside within our borders, and they would provide these individuals, these aliens, with all the rights, liberties and privileges attendant to citizens, thereby destroying the very concept of 'citizen,' along with the concept of our Country as an 'independent, Sovereign Nation' in the process. These Leftists would destroy our Nation and its Constitution as assuredly as would a foreign military invasion. In fact, it would be worse, as destruction of our Nation and its Constitution would be completed, quietly, insidiously, from within. We have seen this playing out before, through the actions of the previous President of the United States, Barack Obama. We see this playing out now, even more clearly, only because Donald Trump, rather than Hillary Clinton, secured the Presidency in 2016. And Americans now know, cannot reasonably deny, that Barack Obama, when he held Office, was busy at work, not doing the work of the American people, but, rather, busy at work quietly creating within the federal bureaucracy and within the Judiciary, mechanisms to weaken our Constitution, and our rights and liberties and dismantling our Nation, a free Republic. Much of his disassembling, consisted in part of the placement of individuals in key positions, thousands of them--Leftist ideologues, who have, it is fair to conclude, no love for our Nation, for its Constitution, or for its system of laws--certainly no love for our Nation, for its Constitution, or for its system of laws, as conceived by our founders. President Trump has begun to rectify this. He has attempted and is attempting to reconstitute our Nation in the manner envisioned and implemented by our founders. Democrats and Leftist groups and agitators, and mainstream media newspapers and organizations, perceive what is happening; they see the turnaround, and they are unhappy with it; want none of it. And, we see them fighting back; and they are doing so through means that illustrate their contempt for our Constitution, for our laws, for our jurisprudence, as their methods and actions are patently unlawful. Again, they don't care, as it is their design to dismantle this Nation and to rewrite our Constitution anyway. They have an agenda; it is one that Barack Obama has been following. It is one that Hillary Clinton--had she gained the Office of U.S. President--would have continued. It calls for control of the massive federal bureaucracy. It calls for control of the Press. It calls for control of the Judiciary; it calls for the very destruction of the fundamental rights and liberties of the citizenry. This process was well underway during Barack Obama's terms in Office; and it is still underway, even as President Trump attempts methodically, albeit with great difficulty, to set things right; to set things back to the way they were; to the way they ought to be; to the way our founders intended. And, we see the Press, an organ of this vast bureaucratic and judicial conspiracy--publishers, editors, reporters, commentators, editorialists, commentators--working assiduously, aggressively, ceaselessly  against our Nation, against our Nation's Constitution, and against the best interests of the Nation's citizenry. They strive to force the United States into a trans-nationalist, globalist, world order. That do not deny this. They do not disagree with our assessment. They embrace it, talk lovingly about it. They argue that President Trump has a view of this Nation and its laws that are archaic, that our Nation must enter a new age; that it must become part of a larger community of nations, politically as well as economically. They argue that we must not be insular. That we must embrace multiculturalism, alien ideas, extreme diversity. They argue that we must be willing to relinquish our old jurisprudential standards, along with those  parts of our Constitution that reflect a history, a conception of our Nation and its people, that is no longer,as they see it, useful and relevant, and that is, in fact dangerous to a new conceptual schema, a new political, legal, economic, social, and cultural framework, a new paradigm, as the old ways--the Constitution as originally articulated, the Nation State as originally conceived--all of it is no longer consistent with conception of and aims of a new international world order. The Press is, in fact, correct in its assessment of President Trump of what President Trump is attempting to do. But, the Press is wrong in one critical respect. It is this: the conception of our Nation and of our Nation's laws, and of our Nation's Constitution, as conceived by our founders, is precisely what the American people do wish to preserve. The Press, as the mouthpiece of those elements both in our Nation and abroad that wish to reconfigure our Nation to cohere with the model of the EU, see the design of our Constitution, and see the notion of the sovereignty and independence of our Nation State as old and archaic--reminiscent of  an Order conceived by our founders, that is no longer relevant and, so, no longer worth preserving, no longer worth even remembering. They see our Constitution, as drafted by its framers, and as ratified by the States, as anachronistic. They see our centuries of law and jurisprudence, and of the citizenry's rights and liberties, as codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution as reflecting ideas that are no longer relevant or useful. They see the notion of the sanctity of the autonomy of the individual as altogether incompatible--which it is--with the utilitarian concept of "the good" achievable only when people are conceived as and ruled over as "a collective." All that, which the American public sees as timeless and which has preceded us and which the American public sees is worth preserving, and worth remembering, and worthy of adulation, these Democrats and Leftists, see as unimportant, and, in fact, destructive to their goal of incorporating our Nation into a new international, globalist world order, one where our citizens are perceived as no different than the citizens of any other nation of the world--where, in fact, the very notion of 'citizen,' so long pervasive in our society, is now perceived as detrimental to their goal of a one world government, requiring our citizenry to be shoehorned into the populations of the world, reduced to abject servitude. Those things that we see as timeless, permanent, worthy of preserving and, in fact necessary and vital, Democrats and Leftists have been altogether dismissive of. They have quietly, but, of late, vociferously, sought to undermine, our history, our culture, our pride of Nation, our system of laws and jurisprudence, our fundamental rights and liberties. There is a war proceeding now, a war for the soul of our People; for the soul of our Nation; for the soul of our Constitution and four our system of laws. Donald Trump was elected precisely because enough Americans realized--could see--the destruction of a Nation occurring before their very eyes and therefore sought a person to hold high Office who would prevent this, would turn the destructive tendencies, impulses, as well, as design for a new conception of our Nation, for a new conception of our laws and a new conception of our Constitution, completely around. There is a war brewing in this Country. It is a war fought, not, at the moment at least, with bombs, and guns and swords, but with words. But the winds of violence, of strife and turmoil are brewing, ominously on the horizon, as we see Leftist agitators, using violence, more and more: rapidly, incessantly, with more severity; and Democrats and their echo chamber, the mainstream media, the Press, do not condemn this violence. Far from it. They condone it, even encourage it. Democrats and their echo chamber, the mainstream media, the Press, are, therefore, complicit in the incitement of it.The Leftists in this Nation and abroad, who control the media--seek to control the mind, the psyche of the public. They are losing, nonetheless. Thus, they resort to the use of agitators; and they besmirch the character and reputation of those individuals who are not on board with their game plan. This much is clear; this much is obvious; this cannot be denied. As the Democrats and Leftist radicals lose control of the discourse, they become more discouraged, and then disgruntled. By degrees, they become agitated, then enraged, and ever more determined. They thrash about, making ever more ridiculous assertions, devising ever more noxious, disreputable schemes for fighting back. In so doing, they no longer appear like human beings. They take on the wild-eyed look of animals, of beasts. And, the more obstreperous they become, the more the public turns against them, in repugnance, in loathing, as well we should; for, these people, these Democrats, these Leftists, are not the voice of restraint. How can they be? They cannot even restrain themselves. And, so the public turns against them, enraging them even more; and they devise ever more outlandish schemes and make ever more outlandish pronouncements. They are not the voice of reason. Their claims of concern for the health, safety, and welfare of others are empty, vacuous, as the public knows their words are not heartfelt. It is no more than pretense; and not subtle pretense. Their moral tone is a charade, and so it appears to the public, as their outrageous actions belie their words. These Democrats, these Leftists, are not the voice of sanity; they are not the voice of morality, despite their claims to the contrary. They are not the voice of reason. How can they be? Their pronouncements are reduced to gibberish, mere sanctimonious patter, endlessly repeated, by one and then others of them. And, the American public has contempt for them and for good reason, as they are not sincere. The public is disgusted with their empty rhetoric, their bombastic retorts; their bald faced arrogance.These Democrats and Leftists, seeming liberal in outlook as they wish to appear, as they think they appear to others, become more and more radical in bearing, as their tone becomes more strident and either childishly simplistic, or completely incomprehensible. They resort to ever more alarming, ever more irrational assertions, remonstrations, and actions. As  more and more Americans turn against them, as they see the tide of the public turning against them in disgust, these Democrats, these Leftists, become ever more agitated, ever more desperate. They resort to ever more ridiculous, outrageous, and reprehensible assertions and actions; devise ever more insidious, outlandish, and illegal schemes in an attempt to turn the tide--to return to their program, their agenda. They cannot help themselves. They are on a runaway train. They don't even know how ludicrous they look; how clownish they appear; how irrational their actions are; how irrelevant they have become. As conservatives, we American conservatives--conservatives , indeed, in our very restraint, and in our thought and in our behavior and in our deeds, and in our outlook on life--hold more securely to our Constitution, to our Nation as a free Republic, to our system of laws and jurisprudence, to our great history, and to our core values, and to our pride. We see that Democrats in Congress, and Leftist radicals, become ever more radical in presentment of their schemes, and in their protestations, and in their aims; and in their attitudes and behavior toward others. They cannot and will not countenance any view but their own. They will not debate. For, they would lose. Their aims, and goals, and philosophy are nonsensical, completely at odds with our National character. They have lost their sense of balance; of reason. They have lost all semblance of self-control. They are completely forsaken. And, that fact has not been lost anyone.

THE AIMS OF DEMOCRATS AND LEFTIST RADICALS HAVE BECOME INCREASINGLY CLEAR, SELF-EVIDENT: THEY SEEK TO STRIP THIS NATION CLEAN OF ITS HISTORY, ITS HERITAGE, ITS DIGNITY, ITS UNIQUENESS, OF EVERYTHING THAT HOLDS US TOGETHER--EVERYTHING THAT HAS, SINCE OUR NATION'S INCEPTION, BOUND US TOGETHER, AS ONE NATION UNDER THE GUIDANCE AND CARE OF OUR CREATOR.

A Congress controlled by Democrats and Leftists of all stripes, would strip bare the framework of our Nation and reconstruct it as merely a unit within the structure of the European Union. Our Nation would become part of an international world order, unconstrained by traditions or history. Multiculturalism would dominate. Our Nation would become a heterogenous conglomeration of unassimilable people, holding alien ideas to whom our core values, our traditions, our Bill of Rights is simply indecipherable, meaningless. As our societal fabric becomes more tenuous, we will see our Nation, our Constitution, our system of laws fragment. The Nation will be ripe for a takeover by powerful international forces. This new "modern" America would no longer be recognizable. Democrats and leftist groups welcome the change; indeed, they are working for that change; they are working for that very transformation of our Country. And they think that is a good thing; that such transformation is proper; that the old Nation, conceived and established by our founders, no longer adequately "works;" that it no longer represents the values of the modern age; that the founder's "construct" no longer reflects the new age that exists. They see, President Trump's slogan, "America First" as representative of an archaic notion; that it is  anachronistic and, worse, that it is arrogantly defiant. Democrats and Leftist groups argue for a new conception of the way Americans should see themselves, namely that they should see themselves not as citizens of a Nation, the United States, but, rather, that they should see themselves as "citizens of the world,"--an empty concept really, as we, citizens of a new world would be reduced to serfdom, as we fit into a new world feudalistic order, as the European Union is degenerating into.Our Supreme Court, though, our third Branch of Government, that in previous years, the public has been little cognizant of, can prevent this. The public is certainly cognizant of and sees the importance of our high Court now. And, what is it that we want and expect from our Justices? Americans should want and expect Justices who test the lawfulness of Congressional and State action through the Constitution, as it is written, as the framers of it understood it. Such Justices would be a mighty force to be reckoned with even if Democrats to take control of the House after the 2016 Midterm elections. For, a conservative-wing majority on the high Court can withstand a Congress run amok. But, Conservative-wing jurists who defer to and respect the Constitution, who do not legislate from the Bench, will then protect our history; our heritage; our fundamental rights and liberties; the supremacy of our laws; and the sovereignty of our Nation. All that we hold dear would be undone if Democrats are able to prevent competent jurists, such as Judge Kavanaugh, from gaining a seat on the high Court. Yet, the Democrats' tool for thwarting the Confirmation process would be laughable in the contemplation if we did not see it unfolding in practice: a malcontented middle-age woman, holding a decades old grudge. That is what Senate Democrats are using to derail the Senate Confirmation process.One decades old barefaced allegation of wrongdoing, short on details, in the absence of forensic evidence and corroborating witnesses, is hardly a legitimate, rational basis for the FBI to seriously consider launching another background investigation even if they had the authorization to do so.Of course the U.S. President could ask the FBI to undertake an investigation (the seventh?); but one would hardly expect the President to authorize yet another investigation into Judge Kavanaugh's past, as Judge Kavanaugh, after all, is the President’s nominee to serve on the high Court. It would be against the President’ interest to request such an investigation, and there is no suggestion that Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee feel that a further FBI investigation is necessary, anyway.If Senate Republicans wish undertake an investigation of the allegation, let them do so. They have the prerogative to do so; and, likely, they have already quietly undertaken an investigation. For all that, there is nothing to suggest, from one solitary allegation of purported wrongdoing on the part of Judge Kavanaugh--as brought to the attention of Chairman Grassley, at the 11^th Hour by Senator Feinstein--to support an FBI investigation were the President, in fact, inclined to authorize the FBI to do so. The fact of the matter is that any further background investigation would simply delay a Senate confirmation vote and delay a confirmation vote indefinitely—which, of course, is really the point. An investigation into the allegation would be interminable; it would and could never be completed because there is nothing to be undertaken. So, if one considers the entire matter rationally, another FBI background investigation into Judge Kavanaugh's past, would be futile, redundant, and silly, making a mockery of the entire Senate Confirmation process. But, Democrats don't care. They  want to prevent a confirmation vote of Judge Kavanaugh from ever occurring. That is their goal. And, even now, Democrats must be operating in the dark to devise ever more outrageous schemes to prevent Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, if the present "tool" doesn't work. And, they will undoubtedly pull out another"Me Too" tool to use against any person President Trump nominates to the high Court. They will do everything they can to prevent a Conservative-wing Majority on the high Court.

IS JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S CREDIBILITY AND CHARACTER REALLY IN QUESTION HERE? IS IT NOT, REALLY, THE CREDIBILITY, CHARACTER, AND MOTIVATION OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S ACCUSER THAT ARE IN QUESTION?

It is not Judge Kavanaugh's credibility and character that are really in question, here, but those of Christine Blasey Ford. Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser’s recollection of the allegation she has lodged against Judge Kavanaugh demands she personally come forward to the Senate Judiciary Committee to offer testimony to support her allegation if she intends for it to be taken seriously.The Judiciary Committee should also question Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser as to her motivations for having brought a damning accusation against Judge Kavanaugh, pertaining to a matter that, if there is anything to it at all, references an event occurring well over thirty years ago. The Judiciary Committee might ask Christine Blasey Ford about the possibility of her having had an hysterical reaction to something unrelated to assault or attempted assault, and the nature of the alleged assault or attempted assault—whether of a sexual nature or not. There is a possibility, perhaps a probability, that Christine Blasey Ford is misremembering critical facts. There are certainly gaps in her account, as the accusation, as presented to the public, as reported in the news, is short on critical details. The Judiciary Committee might ultimately and reasonably infer that the event, in any critical particular, had not really transpired at all.Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser may simply be recalling a bad dream she had as a child or as a teenager, mistakenly, albeit honestly, believing the dream to constitute reality; or if the event described actually happened, she may be mistaken as to the identity of the individual she believes had assaulted her or attempted to assault her. The entire accusation, from what the public has seen, to date, is altogether murky, but Democrats expect the public and Senate Republicans to accept the account as given, as true on its face. That is decidedly irrational.The Judiciary Committee should question Christine Blasey Ford as to her political leanings, as the  motivation for bringing up the matter is definitely relevant. In that regard, would Christine Blasey Ford have sent her damning letter to Senator Feinstein, if the allegation in the letter pointed to a nominee of the U.S. President who happened to be favored by Democrats? If not, would not that mean that the purpose of the letter is not to preclude an individual from being confirmed as a Justice on the high Court because of purported character flaws, but to preclude an individual from serving on the high Court that the accuser, along with Democrats, doesn’t like because of his jurisprudential philosophy and approach to case analysis? And if the accuser and Senate Democrats do not like Judge Kavanaugh, not because of any doubt as to his professional qualifications, but because of negative and baseless presumptions about how, they believe, that Judge Kavanaugh might happen to decide a case; and based on their personal biases toward the Judge, totally apart from and irrespective of his qualifications to decide cases before the Court in a well-reasoned, sensitive manner, consistent with the import of Judicial precedent and with due regard to the plain meaning of words as set forth in the U.S. Constitution and in Statute. If, then, Senate Democrats--with assistance from a compliant Press sympathetic to Democrats' goals, and philosophy, and desires to rewrite the Constitution and to change the very fabric of American society to correspond to a "modern" world, as exemplified in the social and political and legal framework we see in the Nations comprising the European Union--have orchestrated a scheme, have hatched a devious plan, have devised a plot to undermine the Kavanaugh Confirmation process as part and parcel of a greater plan to contain the U.S. President and his policy goals and objectives as he promised, consistent with the will of the American people, to preserve the U.S. Constitution and a free Republic, as the founders of our Nation had intended, then Democrat's  attempt to derail the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to a seat on the high Court has nothing to do with and has never had anything to do with getting to the truth; it has nothing to do with and never had anything to do with the vindication of a woman, Christine Blasey Ford, who claims to have been wronged by Judge Kavanaugh, and who brings up a decades old claim of  wrongdoing on the part of Judge Kavanaugh; for that is nothing but pretext. No! The real reason Senate Democrats seek to delay a Senate Roll Call vote on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to sit on the high Court is to frustrate President Trump; to frustrate the will of the people. And the attack on Judge Kavanaugh's character and reputation is merely one more tactic, like the Mueller probe. Simply, Judge Kavanaugh is in the way of the agenda that Democrats intend for this Country once they resume power. A conservative wing majority in the high Court would be capable of continuing to frustrate Democrats and Leftists groups in this Country from reconfiguring the Constitution and the institutions and laws of society to conform to their new world view. Hence, they are pulling out all the stops to prevent Judge Kavanaugh from becoming a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, in spite of his good character, solid reputation, impeccable judicial work, intellectual brilliance, and love and respect for our Constitution and system of laws. If, then, the delay in holding a confirmation vote is politically motivated, and not rationally related to the qualifications or character of the President's nominee, as is obvious, Senate Republicans must stand firm, and make clear to their counterparts, Senate Democrats, and to the American people, that they support Judge Kavanaugh fully and that they will not allow Senate Democrats to take control of the Confirmation process, which, unfortunately, as is becoming increasingly obvious, is happening. Senate Republicans are allowing Democrats to do just that.Of course the American public knows this to be the case, but these facts are not supposed to be obvious. Increasingly, though, it is becoming glaringly obvious to the American people that the accusation against Judge Brett Kavanaugh is nothing more than yet one more weapon in the toolbox of Democrats and extreme leftists in this Country, pulled out with no legitimate aim but only to frustrate the will of the American people who elected Donald Trump as President of the United States, in anticipation that, one day, they will regain control of the reins of Government.Judge Kavanaugh for his part is perfectly willing to come forward, once again, before the Committee, to respond to the accusations, to get this matter behind him. He has already categorically denied the truth of Blasey’s accusations. Christine Blasey Ford, an American citizen, has made a damning accusation against another American citizen; and there must be a public accounting for it. After all she made a conscious decision to contact Senator Feinstein, accusing Judge Kavanaugh of a heinous act. Christine Blasey Ford, and her attorney, and Senate Democrats, sitting on the Judiciary Committee apparently believing it unnecessary for Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser to make a personal appearance before the entire Nation, despite smearing Judge Kavanaugh’s character, reputation, and good name before the Nation, and, in the process, potentially, psychologically harming Judge Kavanaugh’s wife, children, and parents. Many on the political left don’t seem to care, including those in the mainstream media. Nonetheless, as of this writing, Christine Blasey Ford, through her attorney has agreed to testify, albeit reluctantly, although the conditions under which and the manner in which Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser testifies, whether openly before the Nation, as she should, or secretly, behind closed doors, as she might, are, apparently, still being hammered out, by the accuser’s attorney and Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, along with other conditions, to be hammered out, patently ridiculous though they be.Chairman Grassley and other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have made clear that, if they are compelled to play the game Democrats demand they play, then, Democrats are not going to make up all the rules as they go, changing them at will. His patience must be running thin, and with good reason. But, one thing is clear. Whatever the facts happen to be, surrounding the allegation that Christine Blasey Ford has brought against Judge Kavanaugh, and whatever her motivations for bringing it, Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser must come forward and testify. She must explain herself. Christine Blasey Ford, her attorney, and Senate Democrats sitting on the Judiciary Committee had thought that Christine Blasey Ford need not testify. They are all profoundly mistaken.

CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD HAS OPENED A PANDORA’S BOX WITH HER BAREFACED ALLEGATION, WHICH, IN THE ABSENCE OF INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE, SUPPORTING THE ALLEGATION, IS VACUOUS. NOW SHE MUST DEAL WITH THE TROUBLES SHE HAS UNLEASHED AND THAT SHE AND SHE ALONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR.

Media accounts refer to the psychological toll the entire matter has had on Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser, with little, if any, regard, shown for the psychological toll this matter has had on Judge Kavanaugh and his family. Why is that? Media accounts proclaim how courageous Christine Blasey Ford is to come forward with her allegation. Really? How much courage does it take to write a letter, attacking and impugning a person’s character, and demanding that and believing that one’s identity remain obscured, hidden in the shadows, and that the accuser’s identity will forever remain anonymous? Christine Blasey Ford is an adult, not a child; and no longer a teenager. She should have known that an intelligent person, as she undoubtedly is, cannot reasonably expect to smear the name of another, publically, especially a highly respected person—presently serving as a Judge on a federal Circuit Court, nominated by the U.S. President to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court—and, yet, expect no personal repercussions to emanate from that smear. Indeed, if the accusation is false, that amounts to the commission of a serious tort. What is clear enough is that this matter has political overtones—political overtones that cannot be denied. Christine Blasey Ford, along with her attorney, and along with Congressional Democrats, seek retribution against Donald Trump for having prevailed in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. They seek retribution against the President’s nominees to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. But, it is retribution on their own heads that they deserve and that they will receive from the American public.It must need be reiterated that no person has come forward, to date, to corroborate Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation. So, who can defend the repugnant claim, apart from the accuser, herself? Apparently they include only those people who would like to believe Christine Blasey Ford and who have become inappropriate stand-ins, in the absence of a witness to the purported event. One stand-in is Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand. Senator Gillibrand, a Democrat sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has her own agenda, which likely includes a run for the U.S. Presidency in 2020. This is what the Senator had to say about the veracity of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation against Judge Kavanaugh, as reported by the National Review:“‘I believe Dr. Blasey Ford because she’s telling the truth. You know it by her story. You know it by the fact that she told her therapist five years ago. She told her husband. This is a trauma she’s been dealing with her whole life. She doesn’t want to be in a bedroom that doesn’t have two doors. People knew that about her a long time ago,’ Gillibrand said.”“‘These are the hallmarks of truth, these are the hallmarks of someone who wants to be believed. I believe her because she’s telling the truth. She’s asking the FBI to investigate her claims,’ the senator added. ‘She’s asking for that kind of review, that investigative work, that oversight, that accountability. Someone who is lying doesn’t ask the FBI to investigate their claims.’” From these remarks, a reasonable person can come to two diametrically opposed inferences about Senator Gillibrand: one, either she is omniscient; or, two, she is a moron. It is unlikely that Senator Gillibrand is omniscient. Other Democrats have proclaimed similar ludicrous and imbecilic remarks.Curiously, though, Senator Dianne Feinstein, herself—the Democrat who tactically, but untactfully and disgracefully released Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation, inopportunely, on Chairman Grassley and on other Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans, without, at the very least, attempting to investigate the veracity of the accusation before releasing it at all, and then having decided to release the barefaced accusation on the Judiciary Committee, as well as on the Nation, only days before a Senate Roll Call vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation was planned even though Senator Feinstein had received the accusation, in the form of a letter, months earlier—pointed out, as reported by the Washington Times, that: “Ms. Blasey Ford has been ‘profoundly impacted,’ but [Senator Feinstein] added, ‘I can’t say that everything is truthful. I don’t know.’”  Those remarks were the most neutral and most reasonable of remarks that any Democrat has said to date on the matter, coming from any Congressional Democrat. But, perhaps, not unexpectedly, Senator Feinstein backpedaled—no doubt at the urgent behest of other Congressional Democrats as Feinstein had essentially contradicted Senator Gillibrand; for, Senator Feinstein had created a new narrative, with her account of Christine Blasey Ford's accusation--an account not synchronized with the narrative Democrats and the mainstream media had orchestrated for the American public and have been playing incessantly to the public to encourage public support in Democrats' attempt to derail the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the high Court. Democrats and the mainstream media always operate in lockstep with each other, often reciting verbatim, ad nauseum, the same trite talking points.So, then, as reported in the same article by the Washington Times, “Ms. Feinstein . . . later clarified her statement on Twitter. ‘During every step of this process, I’ve found every single piece of information from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford eminently credible, sincere and believable. She knew this would have a huge effect on her life and she was incredibly brave to come forward.’” But, note: Dianne Feinstein’s “clarification” still falls noticeably short on one critical point, and this certainly wasn't accidental. While saying she believed Christine Blasey Ford’s “information” to be “eminently credible, sincere and believable,” the Senator still refrained from asserting a belief that the information is in fact true. Thus, to her credit—and Dianne Feinstein owes the American public that much since it was the Senator who, after all, brought the barefaced allegation, directly impugning the character of an honorable man, to the public’s attention in the first place—Senator Feinstein knows that, however “credible, sincere and believable” the allegation is, it may still be false. Displaying such obvious concern for precision in her remarks--something, by the way, that we do not see from Senator Gillibrand--and from many other Congressional Democrats, who have exhibit no inclination toward the importance of personal integrity and who have no sense of personal honor but only demonstrate concern for results and for the amassing of personal power--it is odd that Senator Feinstein released the accusation prior to undertaking a quiet vetting process, herself, before the fact. Perhaps, though, Senator Feinstein did attempt to conduct a quiet, secretive investigation into the veracity of Christine Basely Ford's allegation against Judge Kavanaugh when the Senator first received the Professor's letter; and, perhaps, Senator Feinstein was unable to obtain independent evidence to corroborate the barefaced allegation. This would not be surprising given the passage of so many years and given the extensive gaps pertaining to the account as related in the accuser's letter, as related to the public by the Press. Conceivably, as we speculate, Senator Feinstein may very well have fretted over all of this, but felt, ultimately, inevitably, calculatedly, and, perhaps, even resignedly, that, if Democrats were to have any appreciable chance at all of derailing, or, at least, delaying the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court--and despite realizing the damage that could and undoubtedly would be done to the Senator's own professional reputation by unilaterally releasing a barefaced, heinous accusation--Senator Feinstein would take the risk of damaging her own reputation anyway; and, so, she released a barefaced, unsupported, uncorroborated, damning allegation, that she knew or had every reason to presume would unfairly impugn the character and integrity of an honorable man and highly respected jurist, as well as doing psychological harm to Judge Kavanaugh's wife and young, impressionable daughters. Having taken this action, probably at the urging of other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Feinstein has done irreparable damage to her own personal and professional reputation, and deservedly so. Perhaps, then, Senator Feinstein’s “clarification” was meant to inform Congressional Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee that she bears some animosity toward those Democrats by having been urged by them to release Christine Blasey Ford's allegation to the Senator Grassley and to other Senate  Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, and to the Nation. That would certainly explain why Senator Feinstein's "clarification" still manages to conflict with Senator Gillibrand’s remark—and the remarks of other Democrats--who exclaimed, unabashedly, that they accept the veracity of the allegation on its face, even though there is no reasonable, rational basis at all to do so.

BELIEFS ARE NOT EQUIVALENT TO KNOWLEDGE

Senator Feinstein acknowledges, subtly, but more than merely impliedly, that one’s belief that a statement is true does not, of itself, make a statement true even if, as with Senator Gillibrand's comment and that of other Congressional Democrats, as a group,  for political reasons, the claim is made that beliefs about truth and factual truth amount to the same thing. Senator Feinstein is correct. They aren't the same thing. She knows that it is ridiculous  to say that because someone believes a statement to be true that that the statement is true.  So, it appears, on some level, at least, that Senator Feinstein continues to insist that she simply doesn’t know if Christine Basely Ford's allegation against Judge Kavanaugh is true. But, as she brought this mess to the attention of the public, Senator Feinstein, more than anyone else, is responsible for the mess she created.No one needs to take courses in formal or informal logic, or in epistemology, to know that beliefs, however sincere do not ipso facto equate with truth. Beliefs that such and such is the case may be false, and often are. Centuries ago most people believed the Earth was flat. They sincerely believed that and, given the number of people who believed that the Earth was flat and that if one travels too far on a flat Earth, one would fall off the Earth, were held to true and credible beliefs, insofar as the majority of the people believed this to be the case. But, scientists, of course have proved, conclusively—indeed Christopher Columbus has shown through his voyage to the "New World"—that the Earth is indeed round. The Earth is a sphere, not a flat disc or plate. The point is that bare beliefs, in the absence of evidence, do not equate with truth. They never did. There is, then, no reason to raise Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s asserted belief in the truth of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation to the level of truth, however sincerely felt that belief may be, if, in fact, Senator Gillibrand does in fact sincerely believe the accusation and is not simply pulling a political stunt. Senator Gillibrand, as with many Democrats, are conjurers, sleight-of-hand artists, who attempt to control the public's perceptions, no less so than an actual stage illusionist, doing seemingly wondrous things, but merely playing tricks, controlling the audience's perceptions. Democrats are doing the same thing, and the mainstream media is merely one of the assistants of the Democrats. The mainstream media is not interested any longer in imparting truth to the public, passively, The mainstream media is, as well, attempting to shape public opinion.As to the matter at hand, we simply don’t know whether the accuser's “information” is true, rather than false. And, contrary to Senator Gillibrand’s remark, the Senator doesn’t know either. She may profess a belief in the truth of the accusation, but, once again, one's belief in the truth of a proposition does not make that belief, true. Beliefs can be and often turn out to be mistaken. Indeed, given the span of time, Christine Blasey Ford’s recollection of the event amounting to an assault may be wholly or partially false. Her recollection may certainly be false or fallible given the passage of time, even if she sincerely believes the account to be true. We simply don’t know in the absence corroborating reports, and forensic evidence—difficult things to collect now, from a decades old allegation. But, always keep in mind: it is not necessary for Judge Kavanaugh to disprove Christine Blasey Ford’s account. This matter does not boil down to a “He said; She said” debate, as some have argued, with due allowance, as some give it, but improperly, to the accuser, for presumptively assuming the truth of the accuser’s claim.In a criminal trial, the burden of proof is always on the accuser, as it should be, as it must be, and, as, under our system of laws and procedure, always is. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution, never on the defendant. The defendant may remain silent and need not present any evidence to support or contradict the accusation. If the accuser’s evidence is insufficient or lacking in all or any important detail, then the prosecution’s case falls flat. The accused therefore has the presumption of innocence, not guilt, as that presumption must be given to the accused, if fairness is to prevail. Now, we are not, of course, faced with a criminal trial here. Still, the methodology of presumption of innocence persists and other important judicial presumptions, consistent with our legal procedure, still hold. If Christine Blasey Ford fails to testify and fails to provide credible evidence to support a bald allegation of wrongdoing on the part of Judge Kavanaugh, then the allegation falls flat, and must be given no force or effect.

SO, WE ASK:

Do those individuals who believe in the veracity of the accusation that Christine Blasey Ford has lodged against Judge Kavanaugh—belief in the accuser’s account, without reservation and without need to hear her testimony, under oath, before the Senate Judiciary Committee and before the American public, and without need to see, and, indeed, to insist on seeing independent evidence that supports the bare allegation—believe the accuser because they happen to know the accuser personally and have, through their own observations, never known the accuser to fabricate a story or to have been subject to a delusion or hallucination, or do they elicit confidence in the truth of the accusation simply because it serves an agenda: namely keeping Judge Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court, and in the process, frustrating the U.S. President, and frustrating the will of the American people, who, in full accord with the Constitution, legitimately elected Donald Trump as 45th President of the United States. If the latter is the case, then these people—Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and in their echo chamber, the mainstream media; and Leftists, supporters of “Planned Parenthood” and the “Me Too” movement and supporters of other Left-wing radicals, among others—evince belief in the truth of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation because they have a political and ideological reason to do so, they have items on a political agenda to see through to fruition. Now, these people and members of left-wing groups may convince themselves, albeit irrationally, that they really do believe the accusation of Judge Kavanaugh's accuser to be true, when, however, in a contemplative, self-reflective moment, they may admit to themselves, that they really do not know, as they have no basis in logic to do so. But, whether they do honestly, sincerely believe the accusation, or not, the belief is not equivalent to truth. Perhaps, as appears likely, they really don't care in the truth. They only care in the spectacle and if the spectacle operates well, according to plan, to derail the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and others may, then, choose to believe whatever they wish to believe, whether sincerely felt or merely presented for political expediency. Whatever the case, that is no reason why anyone else should accept as true what it is that the Senator or others believe to be true and happen to say is true, however fervently and loudly they proclaim their belief to accord with the truth. And, the public must be mindful of an intricate illusion--a magical trick being played upon it.

THERE IS MUCH AT STAKE HERE.

For the sake of preservation of our system of laws and justice, Americans should not accept and should not be expected to accept an uncorroborated accusation as true simply because they would like to believe the accusation to be true. But that is likely what we are seeing here. Our Constitution and our system of laws require that one be circumspect, rational, and diligent.One should not be headstrong, emotional, haphazard, gullible, in accepting as gospel things that one would, perhaps, like to believe are true simply because they fit a particular paradigm of one’s personal reality, of the way one would like things to be, irrespective of rational reflection. Americans should expect no less from a jurist. Americans should want a jurist to be competent and capable, to dispose of cases, carefully, in accordance with law, as it is written, as it is. This is why, after all, Americans should want to see confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh. They should not want a jurist sitting on the high Court who disposes of cases the way a jurist happens to believe the law ought to be. Unfortunately, we see the latter among jurists, at all levels. Judge Kavanaugh, though, is not that kind of jurist.Judge Kavanaugh has the temperament as well as the intelligence to serve on the high Court. He is careful to render decisions that comply clearly, carefully, and narrowly with the original intent of the Constitution, and does not go off half-cocked, as all to many jurists, unfortunately do, rendering decisions that comply with a personal ideological perspective, irrespective of the plain words of the Constitution, of Statute and of high Court precedent. Too many jurists render legal opinions that operate more like personal, rhetorical political tracts than as true legal opinions, demonstrating less the idea of cogent and clear and articulate knowledge and application of  and adherence of the law to the facts, and more like polemics, asserting the jurist's desire for the way he or she would like the world to be, fitfully forcing law to fit a particular factual paradigm. This explains why Democrats are afraid of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation and why they have made a spectacle of the entire confirmation process. They do not want to see calmness, intelligence, rationality on the high Court; quite the opposite. They want to see someone sitting on the high Court who renders decisions on the basis of emotion, and sentiment, and sentimentality, those things that the Left ascribes to, devoid of sound reason, exhibiting little if any respect for the plain meaning of the Constitution and of our laws, as written. Indeed, haven’t we seen, during the Confirmation Hearing, Democrats exhibiting themselves those very attributes in a jurist that no American should want to see in a jurist: someone who renders opinions emotionally, irrespective of what the law and Constitution say? Haven’t Democrats shown the American people that they want jurists who render decisions beyond the scope of case precedent, beyond the plain meaning of Constitution and Statute? Hasn’t it become clear to all Americans that Democrats want jurists on the high Court who are not afraid to rewrite the Constitution and laws to reflect their view of what they think the law should be, to reflect a Country the way they think the Country ought to look, rather than what the law and the Constitution demand; what the law and the Constitution dictate? Don't Americans, rather, seek to maintain a Country operating coherently and cohesively and consistently as the founders of our free Republic prescribed; as the framers of the Constitution intended?

WHAT IS CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD’S BAREFACED ALLEGATION AGAINST JUDGE KAVANAUGH REALLY, THEN, ALL ABOUT?

The hysteria that is being displayed, deliberately whipped up by the mainstream media, exemplifies the character of the kind of jurist the Left in this Country would like to see sitting on the high Court: a person that mirrors themselves; their personal view of what a “modern” America should look like, completely at odds with the framework the Founders of our Republic established as set forth clearly, categorically, and meticulously, in the U.S. Constitution.Mainstream media newspapers, such as The New York Times, lost little time in posting numerous articles on Christine Blasey Ford, supporting the veracity and efficacy of her remarks in both news articles and editorials, lending a sympathetic voice to the accuser’s concern for her dignity and character and for her safety and that of her family. But, why is there no complementary statements made in the mainstream media for the well-being of Brett Kavanaugh and his family? After all, Judge Kavanaugh’s character has been seriously impugned by bald, sketchy, uncorroborated allegations of one person, purporting to recall an event going back literally decades. Judge Kavanaugh has a family, too, and that family includes a loving, devoted wife, and two young, impressionable daughters. The mainstream media expresses nothing that we have seen to suggest concern for Judge Kavanaugh and his family. Apparently, in the age of the “Me Too” movement, we are to throw out concerns for the harm that this heinous accusation has had on Judge Kavanaugh and his family, for the unstated but obvious purpose of political expediency.

THERE IS MUCH AT STAKE HERE.

Ultimately, Democrats and the mainstream media are not really concerned about the health, safety, and well-being of either Christine Blasey Ford or Judge Brett Kavanaugh. For Democrats, an accusation against Judge Kavanaugh, however weak, constitutes a last ditch effort to prevent the installation of a fifth originalist on the U.S. Supreme Court. Democrats know full well that the high Court has the last word on the constitutionality of State and Federal legislation. Democrats have an agenda and a policy that they seek to implement. It is one that essentially rewrites the U.S. Constitution. Democrats seek to create new “rights” out of whole cloth that don’t exist in the Bill of Rights, and never did. Contrariwise, they seek to constrain fundamental, natural rights, like free speech, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms--rights that are clearly and succinctly etched in stone. They know that any legislation that they enact that fails to comply with the Constitution of this Nation as originally conceived, as plainly set forth in text, will not withstand Constitutional scrutiny and will be struck down, as well it should. Thus, the idea of a jurist who applies rigor and restraint to legal opinions, with proper deference to the written word of the Constitution is not to their liking. The idea of a fifth originalist sitting on the high Court drives those on the political Left to apoplexy, as they see their agenda for a new kind of Country--one envisioned by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a Country uncontained by and unrestrained by the Nation's Constitution, laws, and jurisprudential history--completely undone.Democrats, both moderates and far left progressives, know that, once Judge Kavanaugh sits on the high Court, as the fifth and decisive conservative voice, Constitutional questions will be analyzed and decided utilizing the jurisprudential approaches and methodology championed by the late eminent Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia’s approach serves to preserve and strengthen the Constitution, consistent with the intentions of the framers of it. The Constitution that we have that has served our Country well for over two centuries would be fractured, severing forever the rights and liberties codified in the Bill of Rights, and severing the tenuous checks and balances that the framers carefully put in place as set forth in the Articles of the Constitution, if Democrats are able to sit activists on the high Court, as they would like to do, as Barack Obama has done and would have continued to do had Judge Merrick Garland been confirmed to sit on the high Court, and as Hillary Clinton would certainly have done had she prevailed in the 2016 general election for U.S. President.Leftists in this Country want to see high Court decisions that reflect radical narratives; that display a novel and disjointed view of our Nation; a view that is completely at odds with the Nation, conceived by the founders. The rights and liberties the founders codified in the Bill of Rights and the careful attention they paid to the separation of powers as exemplified in the Articles of the Constitution are in peril if Leftists have their way; for they do not see the Constitution as demonstrative of fundamental, core values, concrete and timeless. They see the U.S. Constitution as something equivocal, temporary, even archaic—subject to the whims of the moment, and to ideas that, if expressed in high Court law, would result in the disruption of our Nation’s core values, the diminution of our natural rights and liberties, and the fracturing of the fragile concept of “separation of powers” that, together with the Bill of Rights, comprise the mainstay of a free Republic. The late Justice Scalia, and the conservative wing of the high Court is careful, in their analyses of cases that come before them, to render opinions, consistent with the plain meaning of our Constitution and laws—opinions designed to preserve and strengthen our core rights and liberties and to maintain a free Republic, as the founders of our Nation intended. Do not expect anything like that from the opinions of the liberal-wing of the high Court, who tend to read the Constitution and laws expansively, to reflect ideas that go far beyond the parameters of text, and who, using their own methodologies, at odds with the methodology of the Conservative wing of the high Court, would, in so doing, destroy the very fabric of the Republic, given the chance if they ever secure a majority.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

Take the matter of the fundamental and natural right of the people to keep and bear arms. Liberal Jurists sitting on the U.S. District Courts and U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have chiselled away at the holdings in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), and in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010). The reasoning of the majority in the Heller and McDonald cases has been patently ignored, thereby weakening State Court precedent and destroying jurisprudential history.Second Amendment cases that have, to date, wended their way to the U.S. Supreme Court, to challenge outrageous State gun laws, have failed to secure a fourth vote necessary for a case to be heard. Firearms that are in common use, including many, and eventually, most semiautomatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns, are in danger of being banned outright in many states.Justice Thomas, Justice Gorsuch, and the late Justice Scalia have made clear, in their dissenting comments, in cases that failed to secure a fourth vote necessary to have the cases heard by the Court, their frustration at the failure of the U.S. Supreme Court to hear lower Court cases that directly confront and blatantly attack the import and purport of Heller and McDonald. With Judge Kavanaugh sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, though, those cases will definitely secure the fourth vote necessary for a Second Amendment case, negatively impacting the core of the right, to be heard. Those lower Court cases that permit Government to subvert the rights and liberties of the American citizen, will be overturned. Once overturned, the Supreme Court will assert once and for all, through cases consistent with and building on Heller and McDonald, that which we know: semiautomatic weapons fall within the core of the Second Amendment. States cannot ban such firearms outright under the guise of calling them illegal “assault weapons.” Democrats know this would happen. That worries them. That is why they do not want Judge Kavanaugh sitting on the high Court.Senate Democrats devoted substantial time directing questions to Judge Kavanaugh, during the Confirmation Hearing, concerning the legality of certain firearms. They are aware that Judge Kavanaugh understands and appreciates the precedential import of the Heller and McDonald cases—precedential import and value of cases they don’t share. Democrats want an activist on the Court. They want someone who shares their ideological imperatives; a jurist who does not defer to the plain written word of the Constitution; a jurist who is not afraid to legislate from the Bench. They won’t get that from Judge Kavanaugh or from any Judge that President Trump is likely to nominate. That disturbs Democrats deeply. That is why they have pulled out all the stops in a reprehensible attempt to disrupt the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh.Democrats succeeded in derailing the confirmation of the late Judge Robert Bork to the high Court, and they attempted, fortunately unsuccessfully, to do the same during the Confirmation Hearing of Justice Thomas. They are using the same strategy here. They are attempting to impugn the character of a great man, devoted father, and brilliant Judge who would serve this Nation well once he sits on the U.S. Supreme Court. They will not abide this. They intend to disrupt the confirmation process, as they have done during the Hearing itself. They intend to deny confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the high Court. They may try, but they will not succeed even as they, at the moment, attempt nonetheless to delay a vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the high Court until after the 2018 Midterm elections. Democrats hope they can obtain a majority in the Senate. If that happens, Judge Kavanaugh would not, of course, be confirmed to sit on the high Court. And that is the Party’s wish. That is their goal. That is their fervent desire. Of that, there can be no doubt; but—as to that end—these Democrats, moderates and  Progressives; Socialists and Communists, and Billionaire Globalists and Transnationalists, too, will certainly fail. As their wishes, their goals, their desires, are all immodest and impure; and as their wishes, their goals, their desires are antithetical to the needs, wishes, will, and welfare of the American people; and as their wishes, their goals, their desires, are completely contrary to the application of the laws of our Nation, they will fail. They will fail utterly.There exist forces in this Country that wish to recreate a reality that suits their personal preconceptions of what our Country should look like, based on a personal conviction and certitude that they know what is best for the rest of us. That is a very dangerous attitude to have and one, were it to prevail, absolutely destructive to the continued existence of the U.S. Constitution; altogether inconsistent with and contrary to the rights, liberties, dignity, and continued autonomy of the individual American citizen; altogether incompatible with the continued maintenance of a Constitutional Republic; and wholly inconsistent with the manner in which both our legal and political systems work. Even as these left-wing power brokers claim to follow basic precepts, namely the “rule of law” and “a Nation ruled by laws, not by men,” they mean, in practice, no such thing. These people are the implacable foes of a truly free people and they have silently declared war on the very concept of a free Republic, a Republic and Nation ruled by law, not by men, in accord with the Constitution, as written.To those on the political Left our fundamental legal precepts and, indeed, the words of the Constitution itself are nothing, mere platitudes—things that at the moment are seen as convenient, perhaps, merely to mention; but, in actuality, such lofty legal precepts, to the political Left, are no more than pretext, mere rhetorical verbiage, to be discarded, eventually, like old clothes. To these left-wing power brokers who claim to speak for all Americans, concepts such as ‘Sovereign Nation,’ ‘One Nation under God,’ ‘E Pluribus Unum,’ ‘Bill of Rights,’ ‘Rule of Law,’ ‘Individual Worth and Dignity,’ ‘Individual Liberty,’ ‘U.S. Constitution,’ ‘U.S. Law,’ and ‘U.S. Citizen,’ will simply be discarded when deemed no longer necessary; when the very meaning and purport of these great concepts grow dim in the American psyche, in the Nation’s memory; lost to history, as these left-wing power brokers intend to happen once their vision for a new Country, unconstrained by the U.S. Constitution, unconstrained by our system of laws, and by our core values and history has been realized.These people hold contempt for the President of the United States. They refuse to recognize him as our President and their President, too, duly elected by the people of the United States, in accordance with the Laws of the United States. They are so beset by rage and raw hatred, so motivated and mesmerized by personal lust for power and grandeur, so enamored with themselves and with their personal vision, so convinced of the righteousness and certitude of their personal beliefs, and so assured of their own infallibility, that they do not see themselves as the buffoons they are; the buffoons they demonstrate themselves to be to the American people. These people are blind to their own conceits and pride—to those things that comprise their passions; those things that drive their actions. They reproach, demean, lecture, and scold the American people they pretend to represent—the American people they no longer even pretend to care about; unaware that the public is aware of their deceit; of their feigned concern for the needs of the American people, of the needs of the citizenry of the Country. These left-wing power brokers are oblivious to how sordid and ridiculous they look; and how patently obvious it is, the drivel they spew out.Those forces in this Nation who seek to dismantle the Bill of Rights, to rewrite the U.S. Constitution, and who seek to weaken our Sovereign Nation State and free Republic must not succeed in their endeavor. The American people must not let them. Americans must vote in the 2018 midterm elections to maintain Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress. It is all up to “We, the People” to protect our Sovereign Nation, our Constitution, our sacred Rights and Liberties from the forces that would, if given the chance crush this Nation and its citizenry into submission.________________________________________________________*The New York Times has provided a forum for those who wish to attack the honor and integrity of Judge Kavanaugh, merely on the basis of one bald-faced allegation, referencing an uncorroborated extraordinarily sketchy event that purportedly occurred over three decades ago—an event that Judge Kavanaugh categorically denies ever took place. But it is an event that those on the political “Left” take as self-evident true, nonetheless.In an Op-Ed, published in the NY Times, Saturday, September 22, 2018, titled, “The Case for Impeaching Kavanaugh,” written by a Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr., Professor at the University of Alabama School of Law, Professor Krotoszynski lays out his argument for impeaching Judge Kavanaugh even before the Judge has been confirmed to sit on the high Court. What is this law Professor’s “case” for impeaching Judge Kavanaugh? In his article, Professor Krotoszynski’s argument for impeachment boils down to: (1) a single bald-faced, decades old allegation of sexual misconduct, brought to the attention of Senator Dianne Feinstein, by a middle-aged Professor of Psychology, Christine Blasey Ford, albeit in the absence of any corroborating evidence or independent forensic evidence; and (2) two claims that Judge Kavanaugh committed perjury in giving testimony to the Senate, predicated on “subsequently released emails [that] suggest [Judge Kavanaugh’s] answers were at best misleading and at worst false.” What? Does this make sense?Has Professor Krotosznski made out a decipherable, compelling basis for impeachment of Judge Kavanaugh? We do not think so. Let’s take a close look at the Professor’s stated grounds for impeachment.Professor Krotoszynski argues that impeachment of Judge Kavanaugh is warranted on two grounds, both of which are extraordinarily tenuous. One ground consists of a solitary, bald-faced allegation, extremely short on details, referring to a purported event that, if the accuser is to be believed at all, involved a matter that occurred over one-third of a Century ago. Judge Brett Kavanaugh categorically denies the allegation. Moreover the allegation, apart from the accuser’s recitation of the allegation itself, cannot and is not buttressed by any supporting evidence or argument. Whatever forensic evidence that existed, if any such evidence existed at all, has long since been lost to time; and no one else to date—after Senate Republicans did in fact conduct an investigation of the accusation, although neither Democrats nor the mainstream news media acknowledge as much—offer independent support for accepting the allegation as true. At the very least, the Senate certainly has the right to demand the accuser testify and respond to questions. At the moment, it is not clear, though, when and how exactly the accuser, herself, will proffer testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, if at all. And Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, some of whom are trained attorneys, are asserting, bizarrely, that Christine Blasey Ford, the accuser, should not be required to testify. Imagine what this means. It turns our system of law and justice on its head. For, if all that a person need do is simply accuse another person of a crime without any requirement that the accuser face the accused, testify in the open, in public, present independent evidence to support the accusation, bear the burden of proof, and be subject to cross-examination, then what does that do to the very notion of “due process” in this Country? Yet, Democrats claim the barefaced accusation can and should speak for itself.Granted, the matter here does not involve a formal criminal proceeding. Judge Kavanaugh does not face criminal charges and cannot. Nonetheless, his character has been impugned, and his fate—whether a Senate Roll-Call vote for Confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court is to take place—is placed in jeopardy, at least if Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are to have their way in the Confirmation process. Apparently our system of laws and procedure are to be perceived as infinitely flexible, subject to the whims, and desires, and predilections of those powerful people who seek a predetermined outcome. That would mean reducing our system of laws to nothing more than ad hoc, rules of expediency, never concrete, ever changing; and that would mean no tenable system of laws and judicial procedure would exist in this Country that anyone could rely on. Thus, the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments would have no real effect. Any person could lose his or her life, liberty, or property by the decree of whomever it is that wields power. This is the Country that Democrats would bequeath to the American people; and we see this in the manner in which Democrats seek to use an unsupported allegation of a middle-aged college Professor, purportedly referencing an event that cannot be reasonably proved. Professor Krotoszynski, though, sees this allegation as sufficiently credible that it warrants a full Senate investigation—evidently one that would not be complete until after the 2016 midterm elections. That would be convenient! Obviously, the lack of forensic evidence and the motivations of Christine Blasey Ford are seen as inconsequential factors to Professor Krotoszynski.The second ground amounts, as Professor Krotoszynski acknowledges,—if a person wishes to give the law Professor even that much leeway—to emails that “suggest” perjury. Mere suggestions of perjury though—suggestions that a person would like to believe are true—hardly rise to the level of essential irrefutable, undeniable proof. There is, then, neither a cogent legal nor logical basis upon which to impeach Judge Kavanaugh, were he to be confirmed as Associate Justice to the high Court. But, Professor Krotoszynski would relax standards to allow impeachment to proceed on the flimsiest of reasons, and this what we see.So, then, what is really going on here? Just this: as with the election of Donald Trump to the Office of President of the United States, we see that Democrats and other elements in society—and, as it is becoming increasingly obvious, elements abroad as well—who resist political results they did not expect and cannot and will not abide—have taken it upon themselves to manipulate our Constitution and system of laws to support a reality that they personally want and had, as they felt, every reason to expect, the American public be damned. And, so, they attempt, through an abhorrent, illegal, unjustifiable misapplication of law and irrespective of the import and purport of the Constitution, to reset the clock to a time prior to the 2016 election—to a world they would like to imagine exists and imagine must exist: a world where Hillary Clinton prevailed and who would have, then, appointed two activist jurists to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. One such jurist whom Hillary Clinton would have been likely to nominate to the high Court would have been Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee to sit on the high Court, or someone like him, a person who has no qualms about legislating from the Bench. A second activist jurist who Hillary Clinton would nominate to sit on the high Court would no doubt share the same non-orthodox philosophy and jurisprudential methodology of Merrick Garland and of other liberal-wing Justices who presently sit on the high Court. Consider the jurisprudence of retired Justice John Paul Stevens who would, as he has pointed out, rewrite the Bill of Rights to reflect his personal philosophical whims and who believes, as does Justice Breyer, that American Constitutional analysis and decision-making can and should take into account the laws of other Nations, including so-called international law. This jurisprudential methodological approach to case analysis is altogether anathema to that of Justice Thomas, of Justice Alito, of Justice Gorsuch, and to that of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. The liberal-wing jurisprudential approach to case analysis that admits of judicial activism and to legislation from the Bench is, as we know, anathema to that approach utilized by Judge Kavanaugh in his judicial opinions, as well. Democrats don’t want jurists sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, or, for that matter, sitting on U.S. District Courts, and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, who do not share their philosophical perspective, requiring, then, that they wish to sit jurists on the high Court who read the U.S. Constitution and Statute expansively, and who would be willing to create new rights that nowhere exist in the Constitution, such as the “right” of a woman to abortion on demand, and who would be just as willing to curtail those fundamental, natural rights that do exist in the Constitution, as clearly codified in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, such as the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the right of the people peaceably to assemble, the free exercise of  of religion, and the right of free speech, among other fundamental, natural rights.The mainstream media continues to deluge the public with spurious reports and opinions concerning Christine Blasey Ford's accusation against Judge Kavanaugh. It does so with the clear aim of preventing confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to a seat on the high Court. In the New York Times, we see news reports and accounts written like opinion pieces. Reporters claim that Judge Kavanaugh will not be confirmed. How do they know this? The newspaper also claims that Democrats will secure a majority in the House, and conceivably the Senate; and news accounts of the Christine Blasey Ford spectacle readily assert that the Christine Blasey Ford accusation against Judge Kavanaugh will help Democrats to retake control of Congress. These are odd comments to make in news reports, as they are written as future forecasts--purportedly telling the public what will happen, rather than what has occurred or is presently occurring. They are also laying out the strategy of Democrats and of Leftist groups in this Country for retaking control power. The aim of the mainstream media seems to be to compel the public to believe the forecasts are true, so that Americans will lose faith and hope and acquiesce to the will of Leftists in this Country. Americans should not fall for that. They didn't fall for that by believing prognostications related to the outcome of the 2016 General Election, and they shouldn't for that now. Yet, the mainstream media intends to control the public discourse.It is clear that the wrench Democrats have thrown into the Confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court has utility for Leftists beyond the Confirmation process. Democrats, with the help of the mainstream media, do intend to take control of both Houses of Congress. If they succeed, they will be able, as is also their aim, to contain the President and to frustrate him at every turn. That means, as well, that Democrats, Leftist groups in this Country, "Deep State Bureaucrats" and the mainstream media--all of them, working in lockstep--intend to frustrate the will of the American people too. We must not allow these Left-wing elements to succeed.Americans should make clear they will not permit Democrats and their Leftist compatriots to control the Confirmation process. They must tell Republicans to hold firm. Republicans must not capitulate to Democrats as seems to be happening. Democrats do not now control the Legislative Branch, and "Deep State" Bureaucrats do not control the Executive Branch and the public should not allow Democrats and Deep State Bureaucrats to act like they do. The Judicial Branch, in particular, must remain pure and above the fray. Democrats know that, in terms of long range social policies and goals, the Judicial Branch of Government is the most important Branch. They seek jurists who read the Constitution and federal statute expansively, without concern with the literal word and without proper deference to the Constitution and our laws. What they don't want is the seating of jurists on the federal Courts who would preserve the Constitution as crafted by the framers of it. They seek to place jurists in the Federal Courts--from the U.S. District Court level, through the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, up to the U.S. Supreme Court--with activist jurists who have no reservation in rewriting the Constitution, as they view the Constitution expansively, interpreting the Constitution and laws in a manner that fits personal ideology, not hindered by precedent and demonstrating little if any deference to the plain words of the Constitution and federal statute. Barack Obama has done tremendous damage to the high Court with his placement of two left-wing activists on the high Court. Fortunately, the U.S. Senate was able to prevent Obama from placing a third activist jurist on the high Court, Merrick Garland. So, we know that Republicans can work successfully on the part of the American people to preserve our Nation, our core values, our Constitution if they set their minds to do so. Still, Barack Obama has done extraordinary damage through numerous appointments of left-wing activist jurists to the lower federal Courts--the U.S. District Courts and in U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal. We have seen what this has wrought as activist jurists have frustrated the U.S. President's efforts to protect our Nation by enjoining the President from implementing his temporary travel bans. Only through a U.S. Supreme Court decision, secured by the Conservative wing of the high Court, as we have seen, has the President been able to salvage, if temporarily, some vestige of his policy to protect this Country from Mideastern terrorists. Democrats are determined to frustrate the President and the American people at every turn. Nothing less is at stake than the preservation of our Constitution, our core values, even our history, and, as well, the Sovereignty of our Nation, and the supremacy of our laws. Judge Brett Kavanaugh, on the high Court, as Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh can help, immensely, in preserving our Nation, its values, its history, and the rights and liberties of the American people, as the founders of our free Republic intended. Democrats and other Leftists--many on the extreme, radical Left--intend to dismantle our free Republic, curtail or end, altogether, our fundamental rights and liberties, subvert our core values, rewrite our history, and denigrate our Nation, subjecting it to a new Globalist world order where our Nation becomes subordinated to the will of an internationalist body--merely one more spoke in a massive wheel. Simply take a look at the EU, and you can see what Leftists have in store for our Nation and for our citizenry. We must not allow this to happen. It is imperative that Judge Kavanaugh be confirmed to a seat on the High Court. Failure of Republicans to confirm Judge Kavanaugh will serve both to encourage Democrats to continue in their destructive practices of frustrating the President and denying the public the exercise of their Will, and likely preclude a Conservative-wing majority in the U.S. Supreme Court from emerging, thereby endangering our Constitution, endangering our fundamental rights and liberties, and enabling Leftists to dictate the future of our Country, one countenancing a new paradigm, one completely at odds with the framework created by our founders. There is no doubt of this.___________________________________**Debra Katz is a left-wing activist attorney, who was also a fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton. Please be advised that, Roger Katz, one of the authors of this AQ article, is not at all related to Debra Katz. We happen to share a common surname, nothing more. The New York Times reports that Judge Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, has added two more attorneys to her legal team: Lisa Banks and Michael Bromwich. Likely, Senate Democrats, with the assistance of Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, have had a hand in this and are, behind the scenes, controlling the Confirmation process. Judge Kavanaugh has retained counsel too, as the Daily Caller reports that Judge Kavanaugh "has retained . . . Beth Wilkinson, to advise and represent him." Recent news accounts mention that Christine Blasey Ford has agreed to testify in open, before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. It isn't clear whether she will be questioned by members of the Judiciary Committee or by an attorney appointed by Republicans on the Committee to question Ford. It does appear, though, that her testimony will be heard prior to the testimony of Judge Kavanaugh, as would be appropriate and consistent with criminal legal procedure. The question we have is why Republicans should allow the charade to go this far. It could only mean that Republicans do not believe that they can be assured of the votes they need to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. The Senate majority is a razor thin. They can survive through no defections. Politico points to several Republicans whose vote in favor of Confirmation is in doubt and who have, apparently, demanded to hear Christine Blasey Ford's testimony. It is these Republican Senators, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, and a couple of others who have, unfortunately played directly into the hands of Democrats. Democrats, for their part, are cohesive. Republicans are not. This would explain why Senator Grassley has agreed to delay a Confirmation vote. It is unfortunate and deeply disturbing that some Republicans can allow themselves to be the instrument of Democrats and Leftists in this Country. The Christine Blasey Ford matter is a trap. Apparently, Democrats, with the aid of Republican Senators Flake and Corker, and with the complicity of a couple of other Republican Senators, are using this "Me Too" movement nonsense to destroy our Constitution. If the Supreme Court secures a liberal-wing majority, all is lost for the preservation of our Constitution, our  natural, fundamental, unalienable rights and liberties, and the continued maintenance of our Country as an independent Sovereign Nation and free Republic. Why would Senators Flake and Corker fall for this? Is their hatred of President Trump so pronounced that they would jeopardize the preservation of our sacred Constitution and the preservation of our cherished history; the preservation of our core rights and liberties; the supremacy of our laws and jurisprudence; and the continued independence and Sovereignty of our Nation, and its continued existence as a free Republic because they happen, simply, personally to abhor the present President of the United States. Apparently so. Their behavior is childish, churlish, disgraceful, altogether unredeemable. No American should expect this kind of behavior from any other American, least of all from a United States Senator. These individuals are not worthy of the status they have. They are not worthy of their station. Americans should well remember them for this if Judge Kavanaugh fails to be confirmed to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, for these people, these Republican Senators, have allowed a charade, a travesty, an illusionist's trick concocted by Democrats and Leftist groups to play out, to hijack our Nation and its Constitution--one so lovingly, carefully created by our founders--our Birthright. They wish to dictate a new Constitution, reflecting ideas alien to those of the framers of it. They will destroy our Constitution, and for what? Personal animosity? A private agenda? And, by what means? Well, we know of one, and we see it playing out in the matter of the Confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court.Here we see a disgruntled middle-aged woman, whom, it would seem, has a personal bone to pick with a man, as she tells us, having done harm to her. But did he? This woman concocts a story out of whole-cloth or dredges a story up--if one is to give any credence to this woman's story at all--relating an event that occurred, if "memory" serves her, literally one-third of a Century ago, when the two of them were teenagers. And, because this woman, who is a Leftist whose agenda coheres with that of other Leftists in this Country and with that of Democrats, she allows herself to be used for political purposes, truly unrelated to a matter, long-dead, trivial--one that no prosecutor who has any sense at all would ever dream of prosecuting, and a matter that no police department would ever investigate (how would a police investigator begin to investigate this matter, anyway, with no forensic evidence whatsoever available, the account itself extraordinarily sketchy, with no one at all able to corroborate it, and the accused, the true victim, adamantly denying it). And, why would this woman wait, at this juncture, 30+ years later to smear the reputation of a man she has not seen, or known--assuming that she ever knew him--for over thirty years. Bringing up such a matter in a reprehensible attempt to destroy a brilliant jurist, a devoted husband, and loving father, does nothing to serve  justice, or fairness; nor can it even provide "closure," for this woman. This is a matter of pure vindictiveness, brought to the attention of the entire Country to serve a political end, unrelated to justice or fairness. Christine Blasey Ford is merely a "tool," of ruthless forces that have not her well-being at heart, but a political goal to achieve. She is not even the real victim here. But, there is a victim. It is not the accuser, but the accused, Judge Brett Kavanaugh; and the sad thing here is that Christine Blasely Ford, a college Professor and psychologist, no less, does not seem to realize that she is being used as a tool. She is simply a pawn in an elaborate chess game that Democrats and Leftist groups in this Country are playing and intend to win. Democrats and the Leftist interests they represent have lost power and they want it back; and they intend to get it back by any means, however reprehensible. They have goals for this Country that they intend to implement; that they began to implement with Barack Obama in Office, and which they thought they would continue to implement with Hillary Clinton in Office--Clinton, a felon no less, who only escaped prosecution and assured conviction because she, too, serves those forces that seek to destroy this Nation, its Constitution and the fundamental rights and liberties of its people; but she is a willing pawn too, who sold her soul for money, and influence and power. She is a wretched creature. But, a great switcheroo occurred. Hillary Clinton, lost the U.S. Presidential election.  Her election to the highest Office in the Land was seemingly assured. Horror of Horrors! What went wrong. The public did not play along? They didn't listen to the soundbites; the news accounts; the cajoling. So, what do Democrats and Leftist Groups both here and abroad that sought a Clinton Presidency to do now? Their game plan is not on track. So they plan, they theorize, they brainstorm, they conspire to come up with something, anything, however ridiculous, to contain and restrain the will of the American people who saw what was coming and who fought back. They work behind the scenes in an attempt to destroy the President whom the American people elected, in full and proper accordance with the Constitution. They see in the moronic, so-called "Me Too" sex harassment movement, a useful mechanism to bring low every man, any man who doesn't tow the Leftist line, who presents a danger to their agenda; to the Leftist Internationalist agenda. And, so, we see here an 11th Hour clown's act, entertainment for children and idiots, produced by and directed by Congressional Democrats with the avid assistance and complicity of the Press, and with the connivance of a few, wayward, unthinking Republicans, who have fallen for the spectacle, totally unaware, it would seem to them, what is clear enough to others: that they have been taken for fools. Stupidity of the Highest Order! Truly Incredible. Senate Democrats must be having a quiet chuckle over their successful manipulation of the public and of their brethren on the other side of the political aisle, during their private Happy Hour. Toasts for everyone! The Grand Game continues, as they see themselves as winning._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

BRETT KAVANAUGH SENATE SUPREME COURT CONFIRMATION HEARING: DEMOCRATS GRILL TRUMP NOMINEE ON “ASSAULT WEAPONS.”

DO NOT FOR ONE INSTANCE BE TAKEN IN BY FALSE CLAIMS OF DEMOCRATS THAT "OF COURSE" THEY DEFEND THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND THAT THEY ONLY SEEK TO ENACT SO-CALLED SENSIBLE, COMMON-SENSE GUN LAWS. THAT IS PURE, NAKED DECEPTION. THE KEY GOAL OF CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS IS AND, FOR DECADES, HAS BEEN THE REINING IN OF THE RIGHT OF THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. AND THEY WILL NOT STOP THERE. CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS ALONG WITH OTHER LEFT-WING ELEMENTS IN SOCIETY, INCLUDING THEIR ECHO CHAMBER, THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA, SEEK NOTHING LESS THAN THE UTTER, TOTAL DISSOLUTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

THE DUBIOUS LEGAL ARGUMENT EMPLOYED BY THOSE WHO SEEK DESTRUCTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS PREDICATED ON THE NOTION THAT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS REFERS TO A COLLECTIVE RIGHT, ASCRIBED ONLY TO ONE'S CONNECTION WITH OR ASSOCIATION WITH A MILITIA. WERE THIS TRUE, THE SACRED, FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE, NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS WOULD BE TRIVIALIZED AS WOULD THE CITIZENS THEMSELVES BE TRIVIALIZED. IF SUCH WERE IN FACT THE CASE, AMERICANS WOULD WITNESS THE FALL OF A ONCE GREAT NATION AND FREE REPUBLIC.

BUT THOSE WHO WOULD DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT HOLD TO A FALSE  NOTION OF THE IMPORT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. FOR, THEIR NOTION THAT THE WORD, 'PEOPLE,' THAT APPEARS IN THE OPERATIVE CLAUSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, REFERS TO THE CITIZENRY IN A "COLLECTIVE" CAPACITY OR SENSE HAS BEEN REPUDIATED. IT IS NOW SETTLED LAW THAT THE WORD, 'PEOPLE,' AS IT APPEARS IN THE OPERATIVE CLAUSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, REFERS TO THE CITIZENRY OF THIS NATION IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY OR SENSE. AND THE RIGHT THEREFORE RESIDES, INTRINSICALLY IN THE INDIVIDUAL, AND NOT IN AN AMORPHOUS COLLECTIVE MILITIA.  AS SUCH, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS FUNDAMENTAL, AND MUST BE RESPECTED. THE RIGHT REFERRED TO IS NOT INCIDENTAL, AND, THEREFORE, THE RIGHT IS NOT TO BE PERFUNCTORILY DENIED, AS THOSE WHO DETEST THE SECOND AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE YOU, FALSELY, TO BELIEVE.

“The first salient feature of the operative clause [in the Second Amendment] is that it codifies a ‘right of the people.’ The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase ‘right of the people’ two other times, in the First Amendment's Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment's Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (‘The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people’). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not ‘collective’ rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.Three provisions of the Constitution refer to ‘the people’ in a context other than ‘rights’—the famous preamble (‘We the people’), § 2 of Article I (providing that ‘the people’ will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with ‘the States’ or ‘the people’). Those provisions arguably refer to ‘the people’ acting collectively—but  they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights.  Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to ‘the people’ refer to anything other than an individual right. . . .This contrasts markedly with the phrase ‘the militia’ in the prefatory clause.  As we will describe below, the ‘militia’ in colonial America consisted of a subset of ‘the people’—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range.  Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to ‘keep and bear Arms’ in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that right as ‘the people.’We start therefore  with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. We move now from the holder of the right—‘the people’—to the substance of the right: ‘to keep and bear Arms.’”~ (A portion of the Opinion of the Majority, penned by the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia), in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 578-581 passim (2008) Well before the Brett Kavanaugh Senate Confirmation Hearings, the Arbalest Quarrel pointed out that Congressional Democrats’ assault on and goal of elimination of the right of the natural, sacred, and unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms, as succinctly codified in the Second Amendment, was and always has been a central plank of the antigun Democratic Party agenda. See "the United States Safe Act in the Making: Penned and Penciled by Andrew Cuomo."This was so even though in the weeks and months leading up to the Hearing. Democrats and their liberal media echo chamber talked incessantly about Democrats’ Party’s other goals. These goals included: one, open borders; two, expansion of personal federal income taxes; three, the complete elimination of ICE, and the hamstringing of other law enforcement agencies across the Country; four, the clamping down of all investigations into subversive activities of high ranking Governmental Bureaucrats of the Deep State; and five, the removal of Donald Trump from Office.

DEMOCRATS CONSISTENTLY REMONSTRATE AGAINST THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. THEY DO THIS BECAUSE THEY SEE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS OUTMODED, DRAFTED AND RATIFIED TO REFLECT THE NEEDS OF AN ANCIENT TIME AND, SO, IN NEED OF DRASTIC REVISION. THUS, THEY SEEK TO REWRITE THE DOCUMENT TO REFLECT A MODERN WORLD. THIS, UNFORTUNATELY, A NOTION  NOTION HELD NOT JUST BY POLITICIANS AND LAY PERSONS, BUT  BY JURISTS AS WELL. IN FACT, RETIRED LIBERAL-WING JUSTICE, JOHN PAUL STEVENS WISHES TO REWRITE THE BILL OF RIGHTS. HE SAYS SO IN A BOOK HE HAS PUBLISHED. AND, IN THE WORDS OF THE LIBERAL-WING U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG, OUR CONSTITUTION IS, AFTER ALL, “A RATHER OLD CONSTITUTION” MEANING THAT GINSBURG, TOO, APPARENTLY THINKS OUR CONSTITUTION IS IN NEED OF RADICAL REVISION.

The Senate Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing on the President’s nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, that took place for several days, laid bare the Democrats contempt for our Constitution and, especially, their misconception of the Bill of Rights as framed by the founders of our Republic. Spending a good part of three days of the Senate Confirmation Hearing process, by turns pontificating, chastising, and even excoriating Judge Kavanaugh, it became clear to all Americans that those Democrats, who sit on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, have succumbed to the will and wishes of Americans on the far left of the political spectrum, or otherwise always held to extreme left-wing views concerning the Constitution. Americans who believe that the Constitution, and especially that part of it--the Bill of Rights--that sets forth the fundamental rights and liberties of the American citizen, proclaim that the Bill of Rights can mean essentially whatever it is they choose it, or wish for it, to mean. They do not look at the plain meaning of the text, but read into the sacred Document what they wish for the words of the Document to mean; not what the framers of it meant, as clearly articulated in it.But, application of such an erroneous belief concerning the Constitution, destroys the very efficacy of it. Revisionists take the U.S. Constitution to be infinitely malleable, flexible, bendable. This is what they mean by the Constitution as a "living document"--that it can be changed to reflect changes in society, changes they seek to impose on the Nation. Thus, they would twist the Constitution and contort it to a degree that essentially destroys its import and purport, as conceived by the framers of it. These leftist revisionists don’t care, and they do not care for a jurist, such as Judge Kavanaugh, who does not share their view of a Constitution they perceive to be easily malleable, like a lump of clay that one might knead into any convenient shape.Judge Kavanaugh’s jurisprudential approach to Constitutional case analysis is in line with that of Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. These eminent jurists do not read into the Constitution what they may happen to wish to see. They take the Constitution for its literal word. That doesn’t sit well with Americans who hold to a Socialist philosophy; who have drafted a new plan, a new design for our Nation; who have a Socialist Agenda and who seek to implement radical Socialist policies for our Country--policies destructive to a free Republic and destructive of a free market Capitalist economic society; policies inconsistent with the Constitution of this Nation as ratified by the founders of our Nation. Hence, progressive forces in our Nation do not want Judge Kavanaugh—brilliant and thoughtful a jurist though he be—to sit as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

SENATE JUDICIARY DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE THEIR IDEAS AND GOALS PATENTLY CLEAR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

The Democrats sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee made no attempt to hide their distaste of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, known. Even as the right of the people to keep and bear arms is explicitly set down in stone in the Bill of Rights, these Congressional Democrats would like to see the Second Amendment weakened, disassembled, abandoned, and eventually, even obliterated from historical records and memory.Yet, curiously, wrongly, and even weirdly, Congressional Democrats believe it to be perfectly permissible to expand the domain of what they presume to be fundamental rights, worthy of protection, such as a right to abortion on demand, and equal protection rights expanded to include individuals exhibiting gender dysphoria—an expansion of purported rights, nowhere explicitly mentioned or even alluded to in the Bill of Rights. All the while, Congressional Democrats seem to be under no similar compunction to retain those fundamental rights that are expressly codified in the Bill of Rights.For example, Democrats see no legal or moral compunction against constraining Americans’ free exercise of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of speech—to proscribe what they, alone, perceive as permitting ideas anathema to their own—and they see no legal or moral issue with doing away with the Second Amendment altogether. That is their goal, clearly inferred through three days of Senate Hearing on Trump’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and as further evidenced in antigun legislation Congressional Democrats have proposed in the last twenty plus years.Democrats argue, as they made pointedly clear during the Confirmation Hearing that, in matters pertaining to the citizen ownership and possession of firearms, State orchestrated cries for “public safety,” as the ground for curtailing the exercise of a fundamental and natural right should, and, indeed, must, invariably outweigh the personal right of self-defense. Moreover, Congressional Democrats consistently and continuously convey at best a blasé attitude toward the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a natural and fundamental right that the framers of the Constitution saw need enough to codify in the Bill of Rights, and did so to preserve a free Republic and to protect the sanctity and autonomy of the American citizen.From the questions posed by Senate Democrats to Judge Kavanaugh, and by the comments they made, these Democrats do not perceive the Second Amendment to be worth protecting and strengthening, or, otherwise they simply don’t care that, as the framers of the U.S. Constitution well knew, it is only through an armed citizenry that tyranny in Government can be ultimately, successfully, forestalled. The need for the free exercise of that right has not diminished with the passing years, decades, and centuries. Rather, contrary to the pronouncements of those who seek to constrain the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the need to preserve and to strengthen this sacred right has actually, increased, many-fold, as the power of the Nation's Federal Government with the assistance of technology has itself increased exponentially in the centuries since both the formation of our Country as an independent sovereign Nation and free Republic, and since the ratification of our Constitution.

DESTRUCTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS ALWAYS FIRST AND FOREMOST IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS’ CROSSHAIRS.

While expressing concern for the survival of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973)* which was certainly a central point of discussion manifested through three days of Confirmation Hearings, Democrats made abundantly clear, on the flipside, their disgust for the salient holding in Heller vs. District of Columbia, 554 U. S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). Indeed, at times, Democrats’ expression of their disdain for Heller eclipsed their concern for the preservation of Roe vs. Wade. In fact, as Senator Diane Feinstein began her questioning of Judge Kavanaugh, during the first day of the Confirmation Hearing, the first set of questions that she directed to Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee did not involve the issue of female reproductive rights, but were aimed squarely at the Second Amendment—namely and most notably at so-called “assault weapons”—which, as one of a plethora of antigun measures that antigun zealots would love to impose on the Nation as a whole, this one, in particular, has been, for decades, the especial target of Congressional Democrats. Wallowing in the abyss of fallacious reasoning and seeming self-pity, they plead with Judge Kavanaugh to forsake centuries of case law and jurisprudential history, ostensibly to ensure the safety of children, but oblivious to the fact that it is not the firearm, an inanimate object--their singular target for annihilation--that is the cause of violence, but, rather, a weakness of heart and will that prevents them from actively and avidly enforcing the hundreds of laws that Congress has enacted to forestall aggressive acts of those who would wreak violence on innocent lives: the lives of innocent adults as well as children.

WOULD DEMOCRATS BE SUCCESSFUL IN IMPLEMENTING A FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN IN 2019 IF THEY WERE TO CEMENT MAJORITIES IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS?

To be sure, it is by no means certain that Democrats will take control of the House in November, after the midterm elections. Less likely, but of greater concern, is the prospect of Democratic Party control of the U.S. Senate. If Democrats do take control of both Houses of Congress, what is certain is that they intend to muscle through Congress a new “assault weapons” ban, modeled on the New York Safe Act of 2013.Democrats would get substantial assistance from progressive State Governors, led by the virulently anti-Second Amendment Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo—assuming, which is likely, albeit depressing to contemplate, that Cuomo does prevail in the coming New York Gubernatorial election, in November, to secure a third term in Office.

SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN’S RAISON D’ETRE IS TO PROHIBIT CIVILIAN OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF ANY FIREARM THAT SHE PROCLAIMS TO BE AN “ASSAULT WEAPON.”

If you recall, Feinstein attempted to ram through an “assault weapons” bill in 2013. That bill was even more draconian than the original restrictive U.S. Senate Legislation, “The Violent Crime and Control Protection Act of 1994.” In Subtitle A of Title XI of the 1994 Act, Senator Feinstein laid out a comprehensive nation-wide ban on an “assault weapons.”  Subtitle A of Title XI severely restricted the “manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semiautomatic assault weapons.” The “assault weapons” provision included a sunset provision and, in 2004, the “assault weapons” provision of the 1994 Act did expire. It was not reauthorized by Congress.Feinstein wasn’t done. On the heels of enactment of, and in lockstep with, Governor Andrew Cuomo’s New York Safe Act, signed into law by Cuomo, on January 15, 2013, U.S. Senator, Dianne Feinstein, sought to generate public interest in a new and incredibly ambitious federal “assault weapons” ban, modeled in substantial part on the “assault weapons” provisions of the NY Safe Act. The Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy provided the pretext for this.Feinstein’s bill, used much of the language of Cuomo’s NY Safe Act, but to emphasize her personal distaste for firearms, the federal bill included over 110 specifically named firearms and categories of firearms. This categorization of specifically named firearms was unnecessary as the list was redundant. No matter, Subtitle A of Title XI “The Violent Crime and Control Protection Act of 1994” included the list anyway. Feinstein’s “assault weapon”, bill, if successful, would have caused the entire Nation to suffer the constraints on a weapon in common use by the American citizenry that Cuomo’s New York assault weapons ban has imposed on residents of New York.Fortunately for American citizens, Feinstein’s federal bill, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, went nowhere because the Senate Democratic Party Majority Leader at the time--Harry Reid--stripped Feinstein’s assault weapon ban out of a broader gun control bill that Democrats sought to pass. Senator Reid evidently believed that doing so would make the restrictive gun control measures more palatable to reluctant members of the Senate. Feinstein was furious, but Reid remained undeterred. The bill, sans Feinstein's “assault weapons” ban provision, was still soundly defeated on Roll Call vote of the Senate held on April 17, 2013.

IF BRETT  KAVANAUGH IS CONFIRMED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AS AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, A FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS’ BILL THAT BECOMES LAW IS LIKELY TO BE STRUCK DOWN AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee know full well that, even if they were to secure majorities in both Houses of Congress, any “assault weapons” bill they happen, in 2019, to enact into law would be immediately challenged on the ground that a ban on an entire category of weapons in common use is contrary to the core of the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in the 2008 Heller decision and as reiterated by the high Court in the 2010 McDonald decision (561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010)). Unlike the unhappy present situation with core Second Amendment cases that wend there way to the high Court, that are invariably not taken up for high Court review, this is likely to change with Brett Kavanaugh sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court as a petition for a Writ of Certiorari would likely be granted. Brett Kavanaugh would provide the crucial fourth vote necessary for a Second Amendment case (subsequent to the seminal Heller and McDonald cases) implicating the core of the Second Amendment, to finally be heard.** Once granted, and the case heard, a Conservative-wing majority, properly employing sound judicial and logical and jurisprudential reasoning, would likely determine that an outright ban on civilian ownership and possession of a substantial number of semiautomatic firearms—including handguns, rifles, and shotguns, as well as non-semiautomatic weapons, such as  revolving cylinder shotguns, along with so-called large capacity magazines, that are all in common use in this Nation—would be and must be struck down as inconsistent with the import and purport of the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the high Court’s Majority in the U.S. Supreme Court Heller and McDonald cases. And this explains why Senate Democrats are particularly worried over the confirmation of Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court—enough so that they devoted substantial time to questioning Judge Kavanaugh over his methodology for resolving cases involving the Second Amendment. And this explains why the American people must suffer through a delay on a confirmation vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee, due to the 11th hour political stunt pulled by Senator Dianne Feinstein, herself. Feinstein has raised an issue concerning a naked, uncorroborated allegation against Judge Kavanaugh, of a purported event allegedly occurring decades ago, that the Senator learned about through a letter she received in July of this year, and which she had sat on all this time, obviously to bring up at an inopportune time as it serves purely as a convenient political delaying tactic. Chairman Grassley and Senate Democrats, sitting on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, should not allow Democrats to turn the Confirmation process into a circus act. Unfortunately, Democrats are not acting alone. Senate Republican, Jeff Flake, who also sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee said he wishes to hear from Judge Kavanaugh's accuser before he will vote to allow the Confirmation process to proceed. It is no secret, though, that Senator Flake, who will be stepping down from the Senate, anyway, has no love for President Trump, and apparently takes delight in constantly admonishing him to the Press. It therefore stands to reason why Senator Jeff Flake would jump ship and play with Democrats in opposing the President's nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to sit on the high Court even though a brilliant jurist, such as Judge Kavanaugh, sitting on the highest Court in the Land would help preserve our free Republic and strengthen our Bill of Rights. Does Jeff Flake think so little of the President that he would be willing to sacrifice the well-being of both the Nation and the American citizenry by placing obstacles in the President's path. Apparently this is so. For our part, we believe that Jeff Flake cannot leave Congress soon enough. That is the best thing he can do for this Nation and its people.

IN OUR UPCOMING ARTICLE:

The methodology which Judge Kavanaugh utilizes to analyze and resolve Second Amendment cases, which Democrats sitting on the Senate Judiciary Panel, scarcely touched upon, but denigrated nonetheless, will be discussed in detail in our next article on the Kavanaugh U.S. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing. We look specifically at Judge Kavanaugh's critical important dissenting opinion in the case popularly styled, Heller II (Heller vs. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 ; 399 U.S. App. D.C. 314; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20130).___________________________________________*Associate Justice Byron White and Justice William Rehnquist dissented from the Majority Opinion, penned by then Chief Justice Warren Burger. Note: Justice Antonin Scalia had not yet been appointed to the high Court at the time Roe was decided. Justice Scalia was confirmed to the high Court in 1986, the same year that then U.S. President Ronald Reagan nominated Justice Rehnquist to serve as the new Chief Justice to replace retiring Chief Justice Burger, and whom the Senate subsequently confirmed as the new Chief Justice.Six years later, in Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. 833, 112 S. Ct. 2791, 120 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1992), the high Court essentially reaffirmed the holdings in Roe, namely that a Constitutional right to elective abortion exists, but only until viability as the State “has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting . . . the life of the fetus that may become a child.” Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. at 846. The majority in Casey held that an elective abortion is a fundamental right but the Casey Majority loosened the standard for determination of whether a State regulation unduly burdens a woman’s right to elective abortion. The Court replaced the stringent strict scrutiny approach, that favors a State’s interest in protecting an unborn child, to a lesser standard that would operate in favor of a woman’s decision for an elective abortion. Note: Justice Scalia who dissented from the Majority made clear that nothing in the Constitution elevates a woman’s decision to have an abortion to the that of a fundamental right. His dissenting opinion is critical to the methodology of textualism and originalism. Justice Scalia opined: “The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so.” Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. at 978. Further, Justice Scalia opined:“That is, quite simply, the issue in these cases: not whether the power of a woman to abort her unborn child is a ‘liberty’ in the absolute sense; or even whether it is a liberty of great importance to many women. . . . A State’s choice between two positions on which reasonable people can disagree is constitutional even when (as is often the case) it intrudes upon a ‘liberty’ in the absolute sense. Laws against bigamy, for example—with which entire societies of reasonable people disagree—intrude upon men and women’s liberty to marry and live with one another. But bigamy happens not to be a liberty specially ‘protected’ by the Constitution.The [majority on the high] Court destroys the proposition, evidently meant to represent my position [which they in fact misrepresent, namely] that ‘liberty’ includes ‘only those practices, defined at the most specific level, that were protected against government interference by other rules of law when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified,’ ante, 505 U.S. at 847 (citing Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 127, n.6, 105 L. Ed. 2d 91, 109 S. Ct. 2333 (1989). That is not, however, what Michael H. says; it merely observes that, in defining ‘liberty,’ we may not disregard a specific, ‘relevant tradition protecting, or denying protection to, the asserted right,’ ibid. But the Court does not wish to be fettered by any such limitations on its preferences. The Court’s statement that it is ‘tempting’ to acknowledge the authoritativeness of tradition in order to ‘curb the discretion of federal judges,’ ante, 505 U.S. at 847, is of course rhetoric rather than reality; no government official is ‘tempted’ to place restraints upon his own freedom of action. . . . The Court’s temptation is in the quite opposite and more natural direction—towards systematically eliminating checks upon its own power; and it succumbs.” Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. at 979-981. Justice Scalia’s remarks are directed against a jurist’s wrong, albeit, natural tendency, as is the case with anyone who wields power, but particularly jurists, who--specifically invoking the force of law in their decisions--operate without restraint, when they ought to be circumspect. As a result, such jurists tend to create an ever expansive array of dubious substantive rights. Not surprisingly, we see these same jurists irreverently curtailing fundamental rights and liberties that do exist and have existed since ratification of the Bill of Rights, namely and particularly, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which they happen to be personally philosophically opposed to.AQ’s Note: The liberal wing of the Supreme Court—and the liberal wing of U.S. District Courts and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, as well—sees fit to play with standards of review whenever it suits the result it wants. Thus, liberal wing judges and the liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court tend to revert to “interest-balancing” approaches to judicial review as that approach invariably serves to support the results they want, that is to say, tends to support predetermined decisions. Thus, in Second Amendment cases, liberal-wing Judges of the lower Courts and liberal-wing Justices of the high Court employ “interest-balancing” to support restrictive, draconian firearms’ regulations even where Government enactments clearly and blatantly impinge upon and infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a right succinctly codified in the Bill of Rights. These same jurists also resort to “interest-balancing” in abortion cases, but, in those cases, rather than using “interest balancing” to support legitimate actions of Government that seeks to preserve the life of the unborn child, these jurists conclude that “balancing” the interests of Government, on the one-hand, and the interests of the individual on the other hand—the interests of the individual seeking abortion ought prevail over that of Government that seeks to protect the unborn child. With little wonder, then, Justice Scalia was leery of invoking a traditional, "interest-balancing" standard of review in Heller that might, after the fact, ostensibly, give judicial cover to a liberal-wing Judge who happens to detest the very existence of the Second Amendment.It is clear enough that some regulations, such as the District of Columbia law banning, altogether, citizen ownership and possession of handguns within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, are clearly, categorically unlawful. Thus, the majority in Heller saw no need to revert to an "interest-balancing" standard of review, when it rendered its opinion that the D.C. handgun ban is de jure unconstitutional; for, application of any traditional standard of review would amount to mere legal pretense—an empty, redundant exercise, devoid of import. Although Justice Scalia was circumspect in penning the Majority’s Opinion, one finds, clearly enough, when perusing the opinion, that the Majority in Heller knew full well that the D.C. handgun ban was audacious in its conception and abjectly ludicrous--a bald-faced "slap-in-the-face" at the fundamental right codified in the Second Amendment. The D.C. handgun ban therefore deserved no serious judicial consideration.If the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights were to have any meaning and purpose at all, the D.C. restriction had, properly speaking, to be struck down, and struck down unceremoniously; and so it was. The Heller majority, though, used the case to exemplify once and for all, beyond any further need for clarification, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unconnected to one’s service in a militia. With that point now clearly articulated, it was the fervent hope of the Heller Court’s majority, that Government action that fails to give proper deference to the right as codified in the Second Amendment would at once be struck down; and that it would be unnecessary for courts to go through tortuous gyrations to strike down firearms’ laws and regulations that are facially unlawful.Unfortunately, the late Justice Scalia, and Justices Thomas and Alito may not have realized the tenacity of governments and courts that abhor the Second Amendment, to find lawful governmental action that is facially and categorically unlawful. The philosophical disposition of jurists who personally abhor the Second Amendment, as we have seen, leads them to patently ignore the principal holdings of, and of the Majority's reasoning in Heller and McDonald, even as they perfunctorily mention those cases in their opinions to which they give no more than lip-service. Unfortunately, too, the late Justice Scalia, and Justices Thomas and Alito may not have realized the reluctance of moderates on the high Court--now the lone Chief Justice, John Roberts, now that Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy has retired--to take up cases that blatantly ignore Heller and McDonald. This means of course that this Nation requires the swift confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the high Court. Judge Kavanaugh would hold the crucial fourth vote, that would allow cases that infringe the core of the Second Amendment to receive high Court review that they deserve.The 11^th Hour attempt by Senator Dianne Feinstein to throw a wrench into confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh must not be allowed to gain traction. If Republican Senators Jeff Flake, and Lindsey Graham, who sit on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, and who, according to news reports, indicated they may refrain from allowing the vote on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh by the full Senate to proceed, then that would send a clear message to the American citizenry, that elected Donald Trump to the U.S. Presidency, that elements exist, both among Republicans and Democrats, who do not wish for the U.S. President to fulfill his promises to the American people. President Trump has promised to nominate people to the U.S. Supreme Court who believe in the sanctity of the Bill of Rights as ratified. A confirmation vote of the full Senate, on President Trump's nomination of John Kavanaugh to sit on the high Court, must proceed forthwith**See, Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, 136 S. Ct. 447, 193 L. Ed. 2d 483, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 7681, a Second Amendment case implicating the very core of the Second Amendment that failed to receive a critical fourth Supreme Court Justice vote, necessary for review. This case, as with others decided by liberal judges of the U.S. District Courts and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, who take a very dim view of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, deals directly with the issue as to whether so-called "assault weapons" fall within the core of the Second Amendment.Jurists deciding these cases use methodologies at odds with the reasoning of the majority in Heller and McDonald. Not surprisingly, these Courts invariably find for the government and against the American citizen in holding that firearms defined as "assault weapons" in l0cal regulations or State law, are not protected by the Second Amendment.  That was the finding of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the Friedman case. These are the pertinent facts of the case: The City of Highland Park, Illinois, bans the manufacturing, selling, giving, lending, acquiring, or possessing many of the most commonly owned semiautomatic  firearms, which the City branded “Assault Weapons,” which many Americans own for lawful purposes like self-defense, hunting, and target shooting. The City also prohibited “Large Capacity Magazines,” a term the City used to refer to nearly all ammunition feeding devices that “accept more than ten rounds.” §136.001(G), id., at 70a. The City’s ordinances were challenged by an American citizen and resident of Illinois. The federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment for the City. The Petitioner appealed. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that routinely upholds such bans, affirmed the decision of the District Court. The Petitioner appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Certiorari was denied as the case did not receive a fourth critical vote from the Justices, necessary for the case to be heard. When cases are not decided for high Court review, the reasons for refusing to take up a case are not generally stated. The high Court simply asserts that a Petitioner's Writ is denied, and the Court leaves the matter at that. The nature of the votes cast by each Justice is never given, either. In the Friedman case, it is clear that the Seventh Circuit blatantly ignored the reasoning of the Majority in Heller and McDonald. The Writ for Certiorari should have been granted. It wasn't. It is clear enough that the liberal-wing of the Court and two members of the conservative wing, likely the so-called swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who recently retired, along with Chief Justice Roberts, did not want the case to be heard, and they did not want the case heard for a specific reason. They obviously feared that application of the holdings of Heller and McDonald, together with the reasoning of the majority in those cases, would dictate the overturning of the Seventh Circuit Court's decision in Friedman, and that, in turn, would result in a cascading effect, across the Country, where assault weapon bans would be overturned in every jurisdiction that presently ban or severely restrict the ownership and possession of a large category of semiautomatic weapons, including firearms that are not semiautomatic in operation, namely, revolving cylinder shotguns. Understandably, Justices Thomas and Scalia were livid that Heller and McDonald could and would dare be blithely ignored by jurists for ideological reasons, predicated on personal biases, mandating results that are contrary to law. Justice Thomas wrote a blistering dissenting comment in response to the high Court's failure to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's decision in Friedman. The late, eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia, who penned the Heller decision for the Majority, joined Justice Thomas in the Associate Justice’s dissenting comment. We can reasonably infer that Justice Alito, who penned the majority opinion in McDonald, also voted in favor of reviewing the Friedman case, even though he did not join with Justice Scalia in Justice Thomas' dissenting comment. Even so, that meant that, at best, only three votes--one short, of the required minimum, four--were cast for high Court review of the Friedman case.Justice Thomas wrote in salient part:“[O]ur central holding in” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), was “that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (plurality opinion). And in McDonald, we recognized that the Second Amendment applies fully against the States as well as the Federal Government. Id., at 750, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3026, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894, 903; id., at 805, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3058, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894, 938 (Thomas, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).Despite these holdings, several Courts of Appeals—including the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the decision below — have upheld categorical bans on firearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes. See 784 F. 3d 406, 410-412 (2015). Because noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents warrants this Court’s attention as much as any of our precedents, I would grant certiorari in this case. . . . Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald.The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions. E.g., Maryland v. Kulbicki, ante, at 1 (per curiam) (summarily reversing because the court below applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), “in name only”); Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U. S. ___ , 135 S. Ct. 1368, 191 L. Ed. 2d 459 (2015) (per curiam) (summarily reversing a judgment inconsistent with this Court’s recent Fourth Amendment precedents); Martinez v. Illinois, 572 U. S. ___, ___ , 134 S. Ct. 2070, 2077, 188 L. Ed. 2d 1112, 1120 (2014) (per curiam) (summarily reversing judgment that rested on an “understandable” double jeopardy holding that nonetheless “r[an] directly counter to our precedents”).There is no basis for a different result when our Second Amendment precedents are at stake. I would grant certiorari to prevent the Seventh Circuit from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right.” Had Judge Kavanaugh been sitting on the high Court, instead of Justice Kennedy, at the time the Court was considering Petitioner’s Writ in Friedman, it is highly likely that Judge Kavanaugh would have provided the critical fourth vote necessary for the Friedman case to be heard, along with one vote each cast in favor of review from Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito. Were the Friedman case heard, then consistent with the Heller and McDonald holdings—and this is a point that bears repeating—it is also highly likely the majority on the high Court would hold that so-called “assault weapons,” which include many popular semiautomatic weapons, and other kinds of weapons, including shotguns that operate through revolving cylinders, do in fact fall within the core of the Second Amendment. That would put to effective rest all the media fanfare and ridiculous uproar over this matter. Thus, any legislation that bans the civilian citizenry of our Nation from owning and possessing such weapons would be struck down as unconstitutional. This, then, easily explains, in great part, the apoplectic reaction by progressives, and by other left-wing radical elements in our society, toward Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to sit as the next Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. These left-wing elements know that unlawful legislation, which includes much of what it is they want, and what they would have obtained had Hillary Clinton won the 2016 Presidential election--and had she appointed non-originalists to the U.S. Supreme Court, which she would certainly have done--will not withstand judicial scrutiny at the level of the Supreme Court, with Judge Kavanaugh on the Bench. If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed to sit on the high Court, that will put a damper on the efficacy of a Socialist agenda, ever coming to fruition, long after Donald Trump’s Presidency has ended. Thus, Donald Trump's legacy and, indeed, the jurisprudential legacy of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, will be preserved. Thus, the blood spilled by those who sought to create a free Republic, and the blood spilled by Americans, since--in all the wars and conflicts fought to maintain our free Republic--will not have been in vain._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO SAYS: "AMERICA IS NOT GREAT."

CUOMO DEMEANS THE NATION AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH INSULTING, OUTRAGEOUS, VINDICTIVE REMARKS.

Ever pandering for votes in his bid for a third term as Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo shamelessly blurts out increasingly incendiary, outrageous, and shameful remarks.During a speech on Monday, August 13, 2018, at an event hosted for women and girls, this so-called “leader” of New York, who might harbor greater ambitions—U.S. President perhaps?—slammed, denigrated, and insulted the United States and its people. Yet, strangely, he evidently believes he is the best person to represent and to lead this Country and its people even though he has such a low regard for both. In pertinent part, he said this, as reported by one source, the Daily News:"We're not going to make America great again. It was never that great. We have not reached greatness. We will reach greatness when every American is fully engaged.” Without going into the nuances and expansive exposition of the meaning of the word, ‘great,’ suffice it to say that the common understanding of the word when applied either to a person or to a Country is that such a person or country is great if perceived as eminent, honorable, or worthy of respect, reverence, and veneration.By exclaiming that America “was never that great,” and that the Nation “has not reached greatness,” Cuomo has denigrated the Country he resides in; the Country he would deign to lead. And he has denigrated, too, the people whom he believes he can, in good conscience, represent and lead.Cuomo’s half-hearted attempt to walk back his explosive, inane diatribe—after the fallout that, not surprisingly, ensued—cannot reasonably be, and should not honestly be, considered heartfelt. But, were it so, still, Americans should not forgive Cuomo’s use of reprehensible insults leveled at the Country and its people. Some words, by their nature, cannot be taken back. Cuomo’s insolent words fall into that category. Like a bullet from a spent cartridge of a gun, once a shot has been fired, the bullet, like Cuomo’s abhorrent remarks, cannot be taken back.The defeated Democratic Party Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, learned this hard lesson when, at a fund raising event on September 9, 2016, she insulted Trump supporters, saying that half of them are a “basket of deplorables.” Americans don’t take kindly to politicians that scoff at them; nor should they.What this man blurted out to his audience that Monday night—a group of people on the far left of the political spectrum, whom Cuomo felt, would, apparently, be receptive to anything this left-wing politician had to say, even the most hateful, spiteful, disgusting, disparaging anti-American rhetoric he could muster—shocked the conscience, as it turned out, as well it should have, of many, even in that audience. The depths of depravity to which Cuomo could and would wallow, as illustrated in his abhorrent rhetoric, amply reflects what this man is and always has been: a petty, yet pompous  politician—a man surrounded by sycophants; a megalomaniac, bloated with delusions of grandeur and feelings of smug self-aggrandizement; a man who will do or say anything, no matter how ludicrous, or outrageous, or abhorrent the pronouncements or actions may be, as long as they happen to serve the particular moment and the serve the man’s copious and ruthless, power hungry ambitions. But, some assertions fall well beyond the pale. Some words cannot be convincingly retracted.

EVEN THE LEFTIST LATE-NIGHT SHOW HOST, STEPHEN COLBERT, WAS SURPRISED BY CUOMO’S VITUPERATIVE REMARKS, AND SAW FIT TO ADMONISH CUOMO.

As reported by The New York Times, Stephen Colbert exclaimed on hearing Cuomo’s bizarre remarks: “That is the dumbest thing you can say as a politician.” One may wonder whether Colbert, hardly one averse to taking cheap shots at his favorite target—Republicans and Conservatives—was, as an American, himself, really put off by Cuomo’s loathsome remarks, or felt, rather, that Cuomo, along with the despicable messaging, and antics, and violent tactics of extremist socialist, communist, and anarchist groups, active in this Country, was harming Democrats’ chances to retake the House in the 2016 Midterm Elections.

CUOMO’S DIABRIBE OPERATES AS A PERSONAL VITUPERATIVE, VINDICTIVE INDICTMENT OF THIS NATION AND ITS PEOPLE.

Americans need only consider what Andrew Cuomo’s damning pronouncements mean. In pertinent part Cuomo has, through his disrespectful, insulting, damning words, vehemently denounced this Nation’s history, its culture, its values, its laws and legal system, its institutions, and its people.This, then, is, in part, the import of Cuomo’s words:1)  In pandering to the progressive far left, Cuomo apparently cares not at all of the work and effort of those men who founded our Nation and wrote its Constitution. For Cuomo, the founders of the Nation, who had the courage to stand up to the might of Great Britain— a despotic Monarchy and the most powerful Nation on Earth at that time—who placed their good names and their lives on the line, and, who, having done so successfully, established a free Republic, where sovereignty resides in the people, not in the State, are not, according to Andrew Cuomo, worthy of emulation. For Andrew Cuomo, neither these men, nor the Republic they established, nor the natural, unalienable rights and liberties they codified in a Constitution that has stood the test of time, are worthy of emulation, or respect, or reverence. They are not deemed to be great; they were not engaged; and this Nation has not, for Cuomo, achieved greatness.2)  Americans who fought and, for many, who died in foreign lands to secure this Nation’s safety and security and the safety and security of many other Nations, from the threat and scourge of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, are not, in Cuomo’s estimate, to be considered great, and are not to be considered to have achieved greatness either for themselves or for their Country.3)  This Nation and its people that stood up to and that defeated the threat posed to the security of the World by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—the old USSR—and the economic doctrine this despotic empire espoused for the entire world—communism—are not to be considered worthy of respect, or reverence, or emulation. This Nation and its people are not, then, to be considered, great, according to Cuomo. And, these Americans according to Cuomo, were not to be considered, “fully engaged.” Really? What, for Cuomo, amounts to the full engagement of the American people?4)  This Nation that provided economic opportunity for its people, creating more wealth for more people, through the operation of free market principles, and through the principle reflected in the private ownership of property—a Nation that has become the envy of the World—is not considered worthy of reverence and veneration. This Nation and its people are not to be considered, great, for Cuomo; they have not reached greatness; and they have not been fully engaged.5)  This Nation and its people that provided incredible innovations in science, technology, nuclear physics, medicine, aerospace, are not to be considered worthy of respect, and awe, and reverence. This Nation and its people are not to be considered, great; have not reached greatness; and were not fully engaged.6)  This Nation that realizes the importance of diversity of thought and of expression and that understands that this Nation’s strength and fortitude rests first and foremost in its armed citizenry, composed of the common man—and not in such power of arms that a small group of elite noblemen and royalty might bear for themselves—is not to be considered worthy of respect. This Nation and its citizenry are not to be considered great, according to Cuomo; are not to be considered to have reached greatness; and are not to be considered fully engaged.

IF THIS NATION AND ITS PEOPLE ARE UNREMARKABLE, OF WHAT, THEN, DOES "GREATNESS" REALLY CONSIST?

We must ask Andrew Cuomo, if this Nation and its people are not great, have never been that great, and have never achieved greatness, and have not been fully engaged—are, in a word, ‘unremarkable,’—then:1)  Why do tens of millions of foreigners seek, nonetheless, to come to this Country?2)  How is it that this Nation is the wealthiest, per capita, in the World?3)  How is it that this Nation has become the most powerful Nation, militarily?4)  Why is it that many Nations espouse to adopt our Nation’s democratic principles?5)  Why is it that in no other Nation but our own do we see the sanctity of the individual held to such great esteem?

IF OUR NATION AND ITS PEOPLE ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED GREAT, WE HAVE A MODEST SUGGESTION FOR ANDREW CUOMO.

If you, Andrew, have such a low opinion of this Nation, we think it best that you renounce your citizenship, and, simply, leave.Select a Country that meets your personal standard of greatness, whatever that standard happens to be; however it is that you define, ‘greatness,’ in a Nation and however it is that you define ‘greatness’ in a Nation’s people. For, obviously, your standard for "greatness" has not been met in the United States, nor has it been met by any of its people, either now in the present; in the recent or more distant past; or at the founding of our Nation.Clearly, you do not deem this Nation and its people to be worthy of your talents, of your own greatness of spirit and of your piety. That being so, we think it best for all concerned, that you take "your own “greatness” somewhere else, to a land where the populace can truly appreciate "your greatness" and where the people are truly worthy of "your greatness." There, perhaps, in some other land, among another group of people, where "greatness," as you understand it, as you define it in your own private dictionary--where "greatness as you see it, already exists, in that land and in its people--"your own greatness" can, perhaps, shine and flourish. But that, obviously, isn't here, in the United States, among the American people. Clearly, "your own greatness" will not be able to shine and flourish in a Nation and in a people whom, as you say, are not and never have been great, and likely never will be great._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

UNITED STATES SAFE ACT IN THE MAKING: PENNED AND PENCILED BY ANDREW CUOMO

GUN RIGHTS STAY CENTER STAGE

With the midterm Congressional and Gubernatorial elections just around the corner, those Americans who support a strong Second Amendment must not sit idle, but must vote for Congressional candidates and State Governors who will not only support the right of the people to keep and bear arms but who will actively defend that right against those who dare to destroy it. The gun rights issue is of paramount importance and will take center stage if Cuomo Democrats win control of the House and Senate and if they take control of the States.

DESTRUCTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT REMAINS AT THE TOP OF THE LIST FOR CUOMO DEMOCRATS.

The Arbalest Quarrel has pointed out in our article, posted on August 1, 2018, that, although the immigration issue has been hyped by the mainstream media and by leftist politicians, in recent weeks and months, it is the Second Amendment that remains first and foremost, firmly in the crosshairs of those who seek to undermine our sacred Bill of Rights. And, sure enough, the exercise of gun rights is once again in the antigun zealots’ crosshairs.In recent days, as the Governor of New York, Andrew M. Cuomo, gears up for a third term bid, he has taken direct aim at the oldest Civil Rights Organization in the Country, the NRA. NRA exists to defend the single, most important right of the American people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a right critical to the safeguarding of a free Republic, and critical to guaranteeing the autonomy and sanctity of the individual citizen, as the true sovereign authority in and of the United States.The New York Times has taken the lead in shepherding New York residents to elect Cuomo to a third term in Office, making the point of telling the public, in an August 5, 2018 article, titled, “A New Brawl With the N.R.A.? Cuomo Seizes an Opportunity as a Primary Looms”— that “Mr. Cuomo has had a longstanding ideological commitment to gun control. . . [and that] in 2013, Mr. Cuomo successfully fought for passage of the Safe Act, making New York the first state to enact more stringent gun regulations after the Sandy Hook massacre. He has proudly touted his ‘F’ rating from the N.R.A.” Lest there be any doubt where Cuomo’s ultimate ambition lies, the New York Times adds, in that same article, that “he [Cuomo] has also made no secret of his belief that his actions on gun control have made his state a model for the nation—a handy argument for a politician who has garnered some mention as a possible 2020 candidate. ‘Use New York as a test case,’ Mr. Cuomo said in an interview of his gun control measures, including the Safe Act. ‘The state is a laboratory of democracy where I can say: We passed the law five years ago. Come look at our state.’”Come look at New York, indeed! Imagine, if you will, a Nation, where the model for gun control, the New York Safe Act, becomes federal law—thrust on every State in the Union.De Facto, if not outright de jure, repeal of the Second Amendment has been the goal of the Democratic Party for decades. And, Andrew Cuomo will lead the charge on eviscerating the Second Amendment. Long before Democrats changed their position on illegal immigration—calling at an earlier time for curbs on such immigration, but now extolling an open borders policy that would essentially open the floodgates, letting flow, like an angry river into this Country, tens, perhaps even hundreds, of millions of low-skilled migrants, along with a large contingent of criminal gangs and refugees from failed states of the Middle East—Democrats have never wavered but have consistently attacked the sacred, natural right codified in the Second Amendment. They have done so incessantly, unceasingly, vehemently. That single issue is what defines them. That single issue is what motivates them, like no other. For, they know that: once the right of the people to keep and bear arms is destroyed, they--these Cuomo Democrats and other leftists--will do away with other fundamental rights and liberties. In so doing, they contrive and machinate to contort our Nation into a thing unrecognizable, an entity completely alien to the aims and desires of the founders of a Free Republic. These Cuomo Democrats seek to create a quagmire, a geographical "Place," no longer an Independent, Sovereign Nation--but merely a place--overrun by unassimilable alien people. These Cuomo Democrats and other leftists who seek to destroy our Nation--a Nation founded on natural rights and liberties--intend to destroy the very fabric of our Nation: its memory; its history, its values, its culture, its ethos. They intend to wipe the slate clean. And, to assist them in their detestable endeavor, they conspire to bring into our Country, such denizens of other Countries who have no understanding of, no appreciation for and, in fact, no concept, of a Nation that exists under and by the will of the people alone--a Nation whose people are endowed by their Creator with fundamental, natural rights and liberties--rights and liberties intrinsic to their very being: incorruptible, immutable, beyond the power of Government to deny, to ignore, to erase.

CUOMO DEMOCRATS DO NOT PERCEIVE THE BILL OF RIGHTS AS CODIFYING NATURAL RIGHTS BUT AS A CREATION OF MAN THAT CAN, THEREFORE, BE AMENDED OR DELETED AT WILL.

Not surprisingly, Cuomo Democrats and other leftists' disdain for the Second Amendment is reflected in their rebuke of the very notion that the Bill of Rights embodies and codifies a set of basic, natural rights endowed to man by the Creator, intrinsic to man's very being. As Cuomo Democrats and other leftists savagely, mindlessly, mercilessly attack the right of the people to keep and bear arms of the Second Amendment, they have also attacked the right of free speech, codified in the First Amendment, and they have attacked the very notion of private property rights codified in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They consider these rights trivial, anachronistic to, and an anathema to the "new" Socialist Order they wish to create. In their scheme, these Cuomo Democrats, and these other leftists residing in our Nation, consider the Nation's sacred rights to be merely man-made conventions, capable of excision or rescission, at the stroke of the pen.Thus, these Cuomo Democrats and these other leftists belittle the Nation's Bill of Rights, and belittle, too, and especially, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. At every turn these Cuomo Democrats and these other leftists contrive to undermine the sanctity of our sacred rights. In their insidious design first to trivialize the Nation's fundamental rights--natural rights, codified in the Nation's Bill of Rights by the framers of our Constitution--they seek, second, eventually, to strike these fundamental, natural rights from the Constitution, substituting for them, such man-made rights, they happen to construct for the moment; rights that happen, for the moment, to comprise their wish list, consistent with and commensurate with their plans for a new Socialist Order they intend to impose on Americans.And what are some of these new rights? Investor Business Daily wrote, presciently, in 2016, that: “They [Democrats] talk about the ‘right to affordable health care,’ the ‘right to a college education,’ the ‘right to a livable wage.’ But at the same time, many of these same Democrats have been agitating to restrict or outright repeal existing rights enshrined in the Constitution's Bill of Rights.” 

CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATORS MUST SPEAK OUT!

Conservative commentators must speak out against the perils of a Congress controlled by the Democratic Party, and they must do so continuously. They must emphasize the threat that Cuomo Democrats and other leftists pose to the continued sanctity of and continuity of the Bill of Rights and, especially, the threat they pose to the Second Amendment.Yet, conservative commentators remain, for the most part, reticent. Oddly, even the conservative commentator Sean Hannity fails to mention that Cuomo Democrats would strive to weaken the Second Amendment if they gained control of the House and the Senate. On his nightly Fox news broadcasts, Hannity rightly warns the American public about specific dangers posed by a Democratic Party takeover of Congress, including Democrats’ intention to impeach President Trump and their commitment to an open borders immigration policy, but he says nothing about Cuomo led Democrats’ devious, scurrilous plans to enact restrictive firearms measures, on the National stage, in the event they take over the House, and, possibly, the Senate as well.

IS THE WRITING ON THE WALL?

If Democrats do in fact take over Congress, after the November 2018 midterm elections, and if Andrew Cuomo is elected to a third term as Governor of New York, Cuomo will be taking his plans for a National New York Safe Act to a receptive Congress, where he will lead the pack to destroy the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Of that, there can be no doubt._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

CUOMO VERSUS NRA: NEW YORK GOVERNOR ATTACKS NRA AND SILENT MAJORITY IN BID FOR THIRD TERM AS GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK.

“ ‘It is of the utmost consequence that the people should discuss the character and qualifications of candidates for their suffrages.  The importance to the state and to society of such discussions is so vast, and the advantages derived are so great, that they more than counterbalance the inconvenience of private persons whose conduct may be involved, and occasional injury to the reputations of individuals must yield to the public welfare, although at times such injury may be great.  The  public benefit from publicity is so great, and the chance of injury to private character so small, that such discussion must be privileged.’ ” New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 281; 84 S. Ct. 710, 727; 11 L. Ed. 2d  686, 707 (1964), citing, Coleman v. MacLennan, 78 Kan. 711, 724; 98 P. 281, 286 (Kan. 1908)(Opinion by Judge Burch, Kansas State Supreme Court).{Parenthetical Note to Our Readers: The Arbalest Quarrel took the original version of this article off the site yesterday in order to do an extensive rewrite. We apologize for any puzzlement this may have caused.}

IS CUOMO USING HIS CAMPAIGN FOR A THIRD TERM AS GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK TO LAUNCH A BID FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN 2020?

Andrew M. Cuomo, the 56^th Governor of New York and present sitting Governor, seeks a third term in Office. But is Cuomo contemplating a run for the U.S. Presidency in 2020, as the Democratic Party nominee? To the casual observer, it certainly appears so, even as he leaves the option open when asked.  That would certainly be in keeping with Cuomo's character, for Andrew Cuomo is an ambitious man. It is “Andrew M. Cuomo, 46^th President of the United States,” that Cuomo  may very well see in the mirror when he looks at himself. But, if this is indeed Cuomo's desire--this ultimate prize--the Silent Majority*  cannot allow this to happen. The Silent Majority must not allow this to happen. The Silent Majority must stop Cuomo in his tracks, and that means stopping Andrew Cuomo's election to a third term as Governor of New York.  But to stop Cuomo, the Silent Majority must first understand Cuomo.

WHO IS ANDREW CUOMO, REALLY?

Andrew Cuomo is a self-complacent, ruthlessly ambitious, smugly self-assured man. He is the last of “The Three Amigos,” all three of whom, under cover of darkness, spawned and machinated to secure enactment of the oppressive and reprehensible New York Safe Act—legislation that undercuts, and in its very conception is designed to undercut, the import and purport of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The New York Safe Act also negatively impacts the personal property clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as language in the Act makes it impossible for one spouse to transfer his or her firearms to the other spouse as well as to other family members.But, what became of the two close allies of Cuomo—two of the “three Amigos” that we hear so little about today? One of the two Amigos, Sheldon Silver, former Speaker of the New York Assembly, resides in federal prison. The New York Post reports that a federal Court sentenced Silver to 7 years in prison, and  fined Silver $1.75 million dollars, having found Silver guilty of public corruption. In that article, the Post reports that the judge reduced an earlier sentence of 12 years imposed on Silver, apparently as an act of mercy, given Silver's advanced age.Ten days after Sheldon Silver, was sentenced, a U.S. District Court, as reported by the Daily News, sentenced Skelos, Speaker of the New York Assembly, to 5 years in prison, for bribery, extortion, and conspiracy, and ordered him to pay $500,000 in fines. Skelos presently remains free on bail, according to The New York Times, while the Court considers the former Speaker's conviction on the specific charge of graft.And what of the kingpin, himself, the third Amigo, Andrew M. Cuomo? The Governor of New York has since attempted to distance himself from his two former friends and allies. Cuomo seems to remain unscathed, while his underlings, Silver and Skelos, get hit with criminal indictments and convictions. But perceptions can be deceiving. Public corruption is systematic in, systemic of, and endemic to Cuomo’s Administration, and, in fact, to Andrew Cuomo, himself.

ANDREW CUOMO: A MAN OF THE PEOPLE? HARDLY!

Several years ago, when Cuomo first ran for Governor of New York, The New York Times wrote that Cuomo was a man of the people. But, fast forward several years to this present moment in time, it is clear that Cuomo is nothing of the sort. No doubt Cuomo would claim that, then, as now, he represents the best interests of New York residents, but, truthfully, Cuomo has done nothing to earn the trust, support and confidence of New York residents in the heartland of the State.In point of fact Cuomo is unaccountable to and dismissive of all concern for the Silent Majority of New York. By extension, Cuomo would be unaccountable to and would be dismissive of all concern for the Silent Majority of citizens of the entire Nation were he to win the Oval Office in 2020.Cuomo cannot wash the sins of public corruption away, much as he may try. Evidence of Cuomo's embrace of public corruption is legion. The New York Post's expose of Andrew Cuomo is telling. The New York Post writes, ". . . Gov. Cuomo’s political interference with his Moreland Commission panel’s investigation of public corruption pulled the veil from one of the biggest open secrets at the state Capitol: The governor is a liar and almost anything he promises will turn out to be false. Cuomo’s betrayal of major pledges is well known: the promise to cut taxes in a meaningful way, encourage job creation without government handouts, reduce local mandates, conduct public work transparently and have science — not politics — determine if fracking can be done safely.But it wasn’t until it Cuomo violated his No. 1 pledge to rid New York of the “culture of corruption’’ that has dominated Albany for decades that the full extent of his betrayal of the public became clear.People who have known Cuomo for years, including some who go back to the days he served as the thuggish chief enforcer of his father, then-Gov. Mario Cuomo, say they aren’t surprised Cuomo’s penchant for lying has finally exploded in full public view.Andrew Cuomo has surrounded himself with unsavory characters. His own disreputable character is longstanding and his ties to unsavory types deeply entrenched. A case in point: Joe Percoco, a former aide to Governor Cuomo who was sentenced for public corruption. The times union, pointing to charges brought against Percoco in a federal bribery and fraud case, in 2016—which, according to the NY Post, subsequently led to Percoco's conviction on several charges—said that:“Joe Percoco, ‘has long been a bruising political enforcer at times feared by those in the Capitol sphere.‘Trained as a lawyer, he had the guts, brains and stick-to-itiveness necessary to attack any project — hard,’ Gov. Andrew Cuomo called his longtime confidant and former aide in his 2014 memoir, ‘All Things Possible.’ Percoco [first] worked for Andrew Cuomo's father, Mario, during his time as governor, beginning political life at the age of 19, according to Cuomo's memoir. At Mario Cuomo's January 2015 funeral, Andrew Cuomo called Percoco ‘my father's third son, who sometimes I think he loved the most.” 

ANDREW CUOMO IS, DEFINED, FIRST AND FOREMOST, BY HIS OPPOSITION TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AND HE IS DEFINED, SECOND—WHETHER THROUGH PERSONAL CONVICTION OR SIMPLY THROUGH POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY—WITH THE PROGRESSIVE LEFT OF THIS COUNTRY, AS HE HAS, THROUGH BOTH HIS WORDS, AND ACTIONS, CAST THE FATE OF HIS POLITICAL FUTURE WITH THAT FAR LEFT-WING POLITICAL FACTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Andrew Cuomo is known as the man who, more than anything else, detests the Second Amendment, and the NRA, and all those Americans, the silent majority who reside both in New York and in the heartland of this Nation. Nothing defines Cuomo more than his utter contempt for, and his virulent, vitriolic, and absolute hatred for the right of the people to keep and bear arms. His signature Legislation, the New York Safe Act, more than anything else, defines what he stands for and what his vision for America consists of. The NY Safe Act is a testament to his virulent, vitriolic, and absolute hatred of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.Residents of other States may scoff at Cuomo, perceiving him to be little more than a political con artist who, for political reasons, has consciously, calculatedly cast his lot with the most liberal elements of the Democratic Party, who also detest the Second Amendment and who have, of late, insinuated themselves inextricably into the web of the Democratic Party machinery. Centrists within the Democratic Party seem powerless to constrain these insurgent progressive left elements, or otherwise lack the will to do so, and have capitulated to their aims and wishes.The Democratic Party is the mechanism through which these insurgent progressive elements intend to destroy this Nation; and the centrist liberal elements within the Party, headed by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, have shown, through their clearly abject weakness, a willingness to join these progressive forces by either echoing the sentiments of their sentiments and aims or otherwise standing by placidly, ineffectively, unable or unwilling to control them.  Make no mistake about this. The Progressive Left in this Nation seeks to undermine this Nation’s sovereignty, and to undercut this Nation’s Constitution and Bill of Rights. Ever since Donald Trump’s inauguration, as the 45th President of the United States, the Progressive Left in this Country have been systematically working toward their destructive goals—although more openly than they had wished; for, with the election of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States, much to their surprise and consternation, they have been forced to show their hand.To accomplish their reprehensible goal, those who would destroy our Nation and who would destroy our Nation’s history, traditions, and core values have launched an all-out war—a war against the very foundation of our free Republic and of a free People: a war against the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is destruction of the Second Amendment that exists, first and foremost, in their crosshairs. It is the destruction of the Second Amendment they want. It is destruction of the Second Amendment they need.  And it is the destruction of the Second Amendment they intend to bring off, to effectuate their ultimate goal: subordination of the Country as an independent sovereign Nation State; subordination of the Nation's Constitution and the Nation's laws to international laws and international tribunals; and the erasing of our history, traditions, and values, and the subversion of the very concept of  'citizen,' paving the way for the infusion of tens of millions of unassimilable illegal aliens into the heart of our Country. To accomplish their despicable end game, Andrew Cuomo is their man.The destroyers of this Nation, no less so than the silent majority, know that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the very backbone of this Nation. Were the Second Amendment eliminated, the entirety of the Nation’s Bill of Rights, along with the autonomy and sanctity of the American citizen, and, too, the very structure of this Nation’s Government, as laid out in the Articles, as set forth in the Constitution, would topple like a house of cards. The socialists, communists, anarchists, and those that finance their operations in this Country are working tirelessly, unceasingly to see that this happens. The silent majority in this Country, for their part, must see to it that this doesn’t happen.

ANDREW CUOMO ATTACKS THE NRA

Lest there by any doubt, the National Rifle Association (NRA)—as the preeminent defender of the Nation’s singularly critical core, defining precept, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and as preeminent defender of the very bedrock of a free Republic—is the first civil rights organization. It was founded in 1871 ((incidentally, nine years before the founding of the National Association for the deaf (NAD), in 1880, and almost forty years before the founding of the NAACP, in 1909)). Left-wing progressives, becoming increasingly emboldened and radicalized, and with the backing of the mainstream media, have the audacity to call NRA a terrorist organization. Left-wing progressives seem oblivious to the fact that NRA is the first and certainly the most important civil rights organization in this Country. By calling NRA a terrorist organization, left-wing progressives are implicitly, ludicrously calling millions of NRA members, terrorists, too. And, by calling the NRA a terrorist organization, these left-wing progressives explicitly denigrate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, impugning Americans who choose to exercise their natural right to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment, and making a mockery of the Nation's Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is a salient, critical part.The mainstream media does not so much as try to restrain the inane pronouncements of and the dangerous actions of these left-wing progressives elements in society but ignores—indeed, even repudiates—the sacred duty owed to all Americans, under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, namely, to defend the rights and liberties set forth in the Bill of Rights—all ten of them—by seriously investigating and calling out the Un-American activities it observes through the words and actions of these left-wing progressive elements. The mainstream media unconscionably echoes the sentiments of this faction, thereby assisting in and hastening the breakdown of the institutions comprising our society; the destruction of our Constitution and its system of laws; the collapse of our Country as an independent, sovereign Nation State; the extinction of our traditions, our history, our core values and our code of ethics; and the defilement of our citizenry.Of course, the silent majority of this Country can readily dismiss the vitriol and antics of these left-wing progressives who attack NRA, who attack supporters of NRA, and who seek de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. These left-wing progressives in our society have no credibility. For, the Silent Majority knows what they aim to do. They seek nothing less than to destroy the sovereignty of the United States and to subordinate our Constitution and laws to those of foreign bodies.It is one thing for individuals and for the Press to attack our Constitution, repugnant to the conscience as that is. It is quite another thing when politicians, themselves, denigrate the Second Amendment and attack NRA. For politicians—the representatives of the people—were elected to represent the citizenry. They have taken an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, which includes the preservation, protection, and defense of the Second Amendment, as a critical, and, arguably, most critical component of the U.S. Constitution.When these politicians—these representatives of the people, themselves—voice opposition to the sanctity of the right of the people to keep and bear arms and to the premier Civil Rights Organization, NRA, that exists for the sole purpose of defending that right, then, they have betrayed their oath of Office; they have betrayed the Constitution they swore to protect, preserve, and defend; and they have betrayed the American people, the Nation's citizenry, they claim to represent. At that point, the American people, the silent majority of this Nation, can no longer remain silent; must no longer remain silent. The silent majority has the duty to call these disrupters out for the evil they do.

NRA FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST ANDREW CUOMO

On May 11, 2018 NRA filed a lawsuit against the Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo and the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS).** In the lawsuit, NRA sets forth: “This case is necessitated by an overt viewpoint-based discrimination campaign against the NRA and the millions of law-abiding gun owners that it represents. Directed by Governor Andrew Cuomo, this campaign involves selective prosecution, backroom exhortations, and public threats with a singular goal – to deprive the NRA and its constituents of their First Amendment right to speak freely about gun-related issues and defend the Second Amendment. The foundation of Defendants’ selective-enforcement and retaliation campaign is a series of threats to financial institutions that DFS, an agency created to ensure the integrity of financial markets after the 2008 credit crisis, will exercise its extensive regulatory power against entities that fail to sever ties with the NRA.”Last month, NRA filed its Amended Complaint. Cuomo immediately fired back with a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, arguing that NRA’s lawsuit is “frivolous.” But, the appellation, ‘frivolous,’ is more aptly applied to Cuomo’s lack of regard for and respect for the Second Amendment. For, in his outrageous attack on NRA, incongruously using the mechanism of a boycott—a singularly bizarre and illegal maneuver by a Governmental entity to utilize—Andrew Cuomo has made clear that, as Governor, he intends to destroy the efficacy of the Second Amendment in New York. This should give all Americans pause. For, as President of the United States, Andrew Cuomo would do much, much more damage to the Second Amendment. He would work toward excising the Second Amendment from the Constitution of the United States, altogether. 

ANDREW CUOMO MUST BE STOPPED!

Cuomo’s malevolent ill will toward NRA is clear. Indeed, he has had the affront to call NRA--as the first and premier Civil Rights organization, defender of a sacred component of our Bill of Rights--an “extremist organization.” And, in a mocking tone,  as reported by the Daily News, denigrating NRA, and by implication, mocking the organization's members, millions of Americans, the silent majority of our Country, and mocking our Nation's sacred  Bill of Rights, Cuomo retorts: “If the NRA goes away, I’ll remember the NRA in my thoughts and prayers.”In making these insulting statements, Andrew Cuomo can no longer be considered a respectable leader of New York, much less of this Nation, in the event he decides to make a run for the Office of U.S. President in 2020. Cuomo has shown an utter lack of restraint and demonstrates a marked deficiency in character. He does not identify with and, obviously, he has no desire to identify with the vast number of Americans, the silent majority, both in New York and in the Nation as a whole, that reveres the great document, the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution that our founders lovingly gave us and spilt their blood for, on our behalf. Cuomo identifies himself with a small, albeit vociferous, faction of society, left-wing progressives, who do not represent the vast majority of the American citizenry, who do not represent, we the silent majority. Cuomo has through both his words and deeds made himself into an outlier, even an outcast, who, has cast his lot with a small virulently Anti-American segment of the population, left-wing progressives. Cuomo is not the defender of our Nation's liberty and security that he pretends to be. He is, as with the left-wing progressives he identifies most closely with, a disruptor and destroyer of our Nation's traditions, values and history. He is openly contemptuous of the salient right of the people of this Nation to keep and bear arms as etched in stone in our sacred Bill of Rights, and therefore disdainful of all those--the silent majority of this Nation--that support NRA and that support the Bill of Rights in its entirety.Cuomo says he merely seeks to make New York and the rest of the Nation "safe" and will work with other States to make his vision of America a reality as he cannot get Congress on board with is plan for America. Yet Cuomo's vision for New York and for the rest of the Nation serves not to defend the American people but seeks to undermine our Nation and to dismantle our Constitution. Cuomo resides well beyond the pale of decency and respectability and properly merits the condemnation of the American people.

IN CONCLUSION

Andrew Cuomo has given up all pretense of representing the interests of the people of New York, and he has made abundantly clear, both through his statements and actions, that he has no desire or inclination, whatsoever, of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States. He should not serve a third term as Governor of New York. That would do a disservice to the citizens who reside in New York. And, Cuomo definitely should not serve as President of the United States, if he harbors any secret inclination to do so. For, were he to do so, that would inevitably prove fatal to the Nation’s Bill of Rights; fatal to the continued existence of a free Republic; and fatal to the continued existence of our Country as an independent sovereign Nation State, neither subordinate to or subservient to nor beholding to any other nation, federation of nations, or transnational authority._____________________*The expression, ‘silent majority,’—referring to the vast majority of American citizens throughout the Country whose voice is drowned out by the cacophony of noise incessantly, unceasingly, and obnoxiously generated by the mainstream media and by a vocal minority of extremists around the Country and in the halls of Congress whom the mainstream media represents and with whom the mainstream media is closely identified—is, perhaps, most closely associated with and most likely popularized by President Richard Nixon, after a speech he gave to the Nation in 1969. But, significantly, it was President John F. Kennedy, not Nixon, who earlier coined the expression. The expression appears in President Kennedy’s Pulitzer Prize winning book, “Profiles in Courage,”where he wrote: “Some of them may have been representing the actual sentiments of the silent majority of their constituents in opposition to the screams of a vocal minority. . . .”  **See August 3, 2018 update to the NRA's lawsuit, as reported in the Daily News, and the August 5, 2018 update to the NRA's lawsuit, as reported in The New York Times. _________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDERS: FURTHER EROSION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN THE EMPIRE STATE, AS ENVISIONED BY GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO

While Congressional and State Democrats and Centrist Republicans fret over and complain about President Donald Trump’s lawful immigration enforcement actions, directed at tens of thousands of aliens attempting illegal entry across our Nation's Southern Border, these same members of Congress and legislators in State Government are no less busy, albeit at the moment ever so quietly, at work machinating to deprive American citizens’ of their sacred Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. It is singularly odd that Congressional and State legislators and various State and Government officials and media commentators of a liberal bent bemoan what they describe, with a rhetorical flourish, as Border Patrol agents “stripping (or ripping) children from the arms of migrant Moms and Dads” who, for all that, when one stops to consider, have dared enter our Nation illegally. And, it is equally odd that these same legislators and federal Government officials and leftist media commentators wrongly and unabashedly slur federal ICE agents for simply doing their job, for the benefit of the citizens of this Country, and at considerable risk to their own lives, arresting illegal aliens who—showing contempt for our laws, having  illicitly entered our Country and having embedded themselves in our Nation, and who having further compounded their criminal actions by failing to report to the Courts for their deportation hearing—dare argue that these criminals have a moral and legal right to remain lawfully in our Country. And, third, these leftist legislators, leftist Government officials and leftist mainstream media types attempt, outrageously, to inflame public passion over HHS handling of illegal alien children and adults. But, these illegal aliens have dared to skirt our immigration and naturalization laws by entering our Country illegally. These leftist legislators and leftist Government officials and leftist news reporters and commentators ludicrously liken HHS detention of illegal aliens to concentration camp internment, yet, at once fail to acknowledge one inescapable, indisputable fact: American Government officials have not rounded up illegal aliens, spiriting them out of their native Countries, forcing them into detention in the United States.  No! These aliens came illegally to our Country through their own volition. They are, then, by any reasonable consideration, hardly in a position to contest their less than five star hotel treatment.Yet, despite, arguing for the existence of rights and liberties these illegal aliens simply do not have, and never have had--rights and liberties they would nonetheless lavishly bestow on illegal aliens--these sanctimonious leftist Congressional and State legislators, and leftist federal Government officials, and leftist media types, surprisingly, do not demonstrate equal concern for protecting the unalienable and fundamental right of the American people to keep and bear arms. We see just the opposite to be the case. These leftist Congressional and State legislators work strenuously, tirelessly to strip or rip away a sacred right of the American people, codified clearly and succinctly in the U.S. Constitution. And, our free Press, constantly heralding the right to spout dangerous nonsense—a right, just the same, protected under the First Amendment, constantly, consistently echo the work of these leftist Congressional and State legislators, proclaiming, and arguing for, the imposition of ever more restraints on the citizen’s exercise of his or her Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Indeed, some among the media's commentators, like the New York Times' Op-Ed Columnist, Bret Stephens, even argue, outrageously and insidiously, for outright de jure repeal of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—even though it is only through the preservation of and through the continued force and efficacy of the fundamental, sacred, and natural right codified in the Second Amendment that the ultimate, failsafe check by the People, on a runaway autocratic Government, exists to impose accountability on a Government that might run amok.

LEFTISTS PERCEIVE THE EXISTENCE OF RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES, ACCRUING TO ALIEN PEOPLES, THAT SIMPLY DO NOT EXIST AND, AT ONE AND THE SAME TIME, DARE TO DENY THE EXISTENCE OF THE MOST SALIENT FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL RIGHT OF THE AMERICAN CITIZEN THAT CLEARLY, AND LITERALLY DOES EXIST, AS MANIFESTLY CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE NATION’S CONSTITUTION.

In point of fact no non-citizen can assert, as a matter of right, a bald claim to reside in our Nation. Still, many individuals in Government, in the mainstream media, in entertainment, in liberal and socialist groups, along with “elitist” internationalists, assert that virtually anyone who seeks to reside in our Nation has the right to do so even when no such right exists either in our Constitution or in our Nation’s Statutes. At one and the same time these same leftists exclaim vociferously, incessantly, and inconsistently that parts of our Nation’s Constitution ought to be and can be patently ignored, even where the rights are etched firmly in stone.A collectivist mentality infects the airwaves. Collectivists have carefully orchestrated a campaign of propaganda, a campaign designed to divest a Nation’s people of their cultural heritage and history, of their sense of uniqueness and pride. These destroyers of the Nation State utilize a flexible sense of morality, predicated on utilitarian axioms that proceed from the notion that what is in the best interests of the world’s multitude, overrides what is in the best interests of the citizens of a Nation; and that what is deemed to be right, and fitting, and good, and fair, and just, in accordance with collectivist ideology, overrides the laws of a Nation; overrides a Nation’s Constitution; overrides the very needs, rights, personal safety, and sanctity of the individual citizen of a Nation.Collectivists do not like the fact that our Nation is an independent sovereign Nation State and that our Nation, as an independent sovereign Nation, operates through a set of concrete laws, and through a Constitution that exists as the supreme Law of the Land. The U.S. Constitution and the laws that Congress enacts are not subject to acceptance or rejection on a whim, predicated, ostensibly, on a collectivist notion of what constitutes correct action and what constitutes eggregious action. To deny the truth of this statement is to accept in its stead, a state of lawlessness, of anarchy. It is this lawlessness, this anarchy, that the destroyers of our Nation seek, even as they disingenuously and insidiously claim to defend our Constitution and the laws of the Nation. Consider, for example, the confounding, bizarre Collectivist message that proclaims a desire to destroy, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). And through the softening of our Nation’s laws and of our Nation’s Constitution, we, ourselves, become weakened, malleable. In the end, a new international world order, overseeing the conduct of all Nation States, would predominate, and our own free Republic would, in fact, not merely in name, cease to exist.Contrary to those dissemblers of our Nation, our Constitution is not to be toyed with. Our Country ceases to exist but for our Constitution. The United States Supreme Court made patently clear in the seminal immigration law case, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 270; 110 S. Ct. 1056, 1063; 108 L. Ed. 2d 222, 236; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 1175, that: “The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution” “[and that] for better or worse, we live a world of nation-states in which our Government must be able to ‘function effectively in the company of [other] sovereign nations.’” 494 U.S. at 275; 110 S. Ct. at 1066; 108 L. Ed. 2d at 239. President Donald Trump understands this limitation and accepts this limitation and operates within the confines of our laws and our Constitution. And, by the same token, President Trump understands his duty, as Chief Executive of our Nation as an independent, Sovereign Nation-State, to maintain the integrity of our Nation’s Borders.Unfortunately there are all too many members of Congress and in the State Legislatures who allow raw emotion to cloud their judgment. They remonstrate against the President even as he operates within the stricture of Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”Emotion must never override nor cloud reason. Collectivist notions of morality are not and never have been a justifiable reason for ignoring the authority of and stricture of Constitutional precepts. Yet, Democrats and Centrist Republicans—through the echo chamber of the mainstream media—daily denigrate our Constitution and our Statutes even as they assert, disingenuously, to operate within the confines of the rule of law.Both in the matter of immigration and naturalization matters and in the matter of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, we, Americans, are constantly beset with a fusillade of false and misleading pronouncements aimed at confusing us as to the meaning of and purport of our Statutes and of the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution.Even before the two mass shooting incidents—one at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, Florida, and the second at Santa Fe High School, in Santa Fe, Texas—State legislators contrived new ways to deprive citizens of owning any firearm, thereby directly impinging on and infringing the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. States started looking at further ways to impede the citizen’s exercise of his or her fundamental right to keep and bear arms.In New York, for example, in March 2017, Democrat, Brian Kavanagh, introduced A.B. 6994, in the State Assembly. The bill is described as: “AN ACT to amend the civil practice law and rules, the criminal procedure law and the penal law, in relation to establishing extreme risk protection orders as court-issued orders of protection prohibiting a person from purchasing, possessing or attempting to purchase or possess a firearm, rifle or shotgun.” AB 6994 has already passed the Assembly—the First Chamber of the New York State Government, in Albany New York—and it now sits in the Second Chamber, the New York State Senate. AB 6994 appears, fortunately, at least at this moment in time, to have a low chance of passage, but such passage should not be ruled out, especially in light of the two fairly recent high school mass shooting incidents.Those Americans who support our Second Amendment should bear in mind that New York’s AB 6994—along with similar predecessor bills that were introduced in the New York Assembly or State Senate, and that failed—is an altogether new restriction on gun owners. If enacted, this bill amounts not merely to a change in existing restrictive New York gun laws, but to the creation of a wholly new restriction in conjunction with New York’s present, extensive, oppressive set of restrictive gun laws.If enacted into law, AB 6994 says that “the civil practice law and rules are amended by adding a new article 63-A.”What does the bill say? The bill sets forth both the rationale and requirements, in addition those presently existent in New York, for removing firearms from a New York resident’s possession, along with a detailed list of mechanisms for such removal.

EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDERS: A NEW AND OUTRAGEOUS TWIST ON AN OLD LEGAL DEVICE--ORDERS OF PROTECTION AND RESTRAINING ORDERS

We first set forth the bill in its entirety, and then explicate the salient portions of the bill.AB 6994 [AMENDING ARTICLE 63-A OF THE CIVIL PRACTICE LAW AND RULES OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK]:[NOTE: UPPER CASE LETTERS APPEAR IN THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE BILL; NUMBERING HAS BEEN REMOVED GIVEN EDITING DIFFICULTIES]EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDERSDEFINITIONS. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ARTICLE:‘EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER’ MEANS A COURT-ISSUED ORDER OF PROTECTION PROHIBITING A PERSON FROM PURCHASING, POSSESSING OR ATTEMPTING TO PURCHASE OR POSSESS A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN.‘PETITIONER’ MEANS: (A) A POLICE OFFICER, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 1.20 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW, OR DISTRICT ATTORNEY WITH JURISDICTION IN THE COUNTY OR CITY WHERE THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE ORDER IS SOUGHT RESIDES; OR (B) A FAMILY OR HOUSEHOLD MEMBER, AS DEFINED IN SUBDIVISION TWO OF SECTION FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY-NINE-A OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW, OF THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE ORDER IS SOUGHT.‘RESPONDENT’ MEANS THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER IS OR MAY BE SOUGHT UNDER THIS ARTICLE.APPLICATION FOR AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE, A PETITIONER MAY FILE A SWORN APPLICATION, AND ACCOMPANYING SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION, SETTING FORTH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING THE ISSUANCE OF AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER. SUCH APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION SHALL BE FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE RESPONDENT RESIDES. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COURTS SHALL ADOPT FORMS THAT MAY BE USED FOR PURPOSES OF SUCH APPLICATIONS AND THE COURT'S CONSIDERATION OF SUCH APPLICATIONS. SUCH APPLICATION FORM SHALL INCLUDE INQUIRY AS TO WHETHER THE PETITIONER KNOWS, OR HAS REASON TO BELIEVE, THAT THE RESPONDENT OWNS, POSSESSES OR HAS ACCESS TO A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN AND IF SO, A REQUEST THAT THE PETITIONER LIST OR DESCRIBE SUCH FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS, AND THE RESPECTIVE LOCATIONS THEREOF, WITH AS MUCH SPECIFICITY AS POSSIBLE.A STATEMENT TO THE RESPONDENT: DIRECTING THAT THE RESPONDENT MAY NOT PURCHASE, POSSESS OR ATTEMPT TO PURCHASE OR POSSESS A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN WHILE THE ORDER IS IN EFFECT AND THAT ANY FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN POSSESSED BY SUCH RESPONDENT SHALL BE PROMPTLY SURRENDERED TO ANY AUTHORIZED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL;INFORMING THE RESPONDENT THAT THE COURT WILL HOLD A HEARING NO SOONER THAN THREE NOR MORE THAN SIX BUSINESS DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THE TEMPORARY ORDER, TO DETERMINE WHETHER A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER WILL BE ISSUED AND THE DATE, TIME AND LOCATION OF SUCH HEARING, PROVIDED THAT THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO MORE THAN SIX DAYS UPON REQUEST IN ORDER TO PREPARE FOR THE HEARING; AND (III) INFORMING THE RESPONDENT THE HE OR SHE MAY SEEK THE ADVICE OF AN ATTORNEY AND THAT AN ATTORNEY SHOULD BE CONSULTED PROMPTLY; ANDA FORM TO BE COMPLETED AND EXECUTED BY THE RESPONDENT AT THE TIME OF SERVICE OF THE TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER WHICH ELICITS A LIST OF ALL FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS POSSESSED BY THE RESPONDENT AND THE PARTICULAR LOCATION OF EACH FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN LISTED.IF THE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER IS NOT GRANTED, THE COURT SHALL NOTIFY THE PETITIONER AND, UNLESS THE APPLICATION IS VOLUNTARILY WITHDRAWN BY THE PETITIONER, NONETHELESS SCHEDULE A HEARING ON THE APPLICATION FOR A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER. SUCH HEARING SHALL BE SCHEDULED TO BE HELD PROMPTLY, BUT IN ANY EVENT NO LATER THAN TEN BUSINESS DAYS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH APPLICATION IS SERVED ON THE RESPONDENT, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE RESPONDENT MAY REQUEST, AND THE COURT MAY GRANT, ADDITIONAL TIME TO ALLOW THE RESPONDENT TO PREPARE FOR THE HEARING. A NOTICE OF SUCH HEARING SHALL BE PREPARED BY THE COURT AND SHALL INCLUDE THE DATE AND TIME OF THE HEARING, THE ADDRESS OF THE COURT, AND THE SUBJECT OF THE HEARING.THE COURT SHALL NOTIFY THE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE, ANY OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY WITH JURISDICTION, ALL APPLICABLE LICENSING OFFICERS, AND THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES OF THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND PROVIDE A COPY OF SUCH ORDER NO LATER THAN THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY AFTER ISSUING THE ORDER TO SUCH PERSONS OR AGENCIES. THE COURT ALSO SHALL PROMPTLY NOTIFY SUCH PERSONS AND AGENCIES AND PROVIDE A COPY OF ANY ORDER AMENDING OR REVOKING SUCH PROTECTION ORDER OR RESTORING THE RESPONDENT'S ABILITY TO OWN OR POSSESS FIREARMS, RIFLES OR SHOTGUNS NO LATER THAN THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY AFTER ISSUING THE ORDER TO RESTORE SUCH RIGHT TO THE RESPONDENT. ANY NOTICE OR REPORT SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL BE IN AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT, IN A MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES.UPON RECEIVING NOTICE OF THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES SHALL IMMEDIATELY REPORT THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH ORDER TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION TO ALLOW THE BUREAU TO IDENTIFY PERSONS PROHIBITED FROM PURCHASING FIREARMS, RIFLES OR SHOTGUNS. THE DIVISION SHALL ALSO IMMEDIATELY REPORT TO THE BUREAU THE EXPIRATION OF ANY SUCH PROTECTION ORDER, ANY COURT ORDER AMENDING OR REVOKING SUCH PROTECTION ORDER OR RESTORING THE RESPONDENT'S ABILITY TO PURCHASE A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN.THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER SHALL CONSTITUTE AUTHORITY AND DIRECTION FOR A POLICE OFFICER TO REMOVE ALL FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS IN THE RESPONDENT'S POSSESSION. AS PART OF THE ORDER, THE COURT MAY ALSO DIRECT A POLICE OFFICER TO SEARCH FOR FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS IN THE RESPONDENT'S POSSESSION IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE PROCEDURES OF ARTICLE SIX HUNDRED NINETY OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW.UPON ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, OR UPON SETTING A HEARING FOR A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER WHERE A TEMPORARY ORDER IS DENIED OR NOT REQUESTED, THE COURT SHALL DIRECT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT A BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION AND REPORT TO THE COURT AND, SUBJECT TO ANY APPROPRIATE REDACTIONS TO PROTECT ANY PERSON, EACH PARTY REGARDING WHETHER THE RESPONDENT:HAS ANY PRIOR CRIMINAL CONVICTION FOR AN OFFENSE INVOLVING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, USE OF A WEAPON, OR OTHER VIOLENCE;HAS ANY CRIMINAL CHARGE OR VIOLATION CURRENTLY PENDING AGAINST HIM OR HER;IS CURRENTLY ON PAROLE OR PROBATION;POSSESSES ANY REGISTERED FIREARMS, RIFLES OR SHOTGUNS; ANDHAS BEEN, OR IS, SUBJECT TO ANY ORDER OF PROTECTION OR HAS VIOLATED OR ALLEGEDLY VIOLATED ANY ORDER OF PROTECTION.ISSUANCE OF A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE, NO SOONER THAN THREE BUSINESS DAYS NOR LATER THAN SIX BUSINESS DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND, ALTERNATIVELY, NO LATER THAN TEN BUSINESS DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF AN APPLICATION UNDER THIS ARTICLE WHERE NO TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED, THE SUPREME COURT SHALL HOLD A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO ISSUE A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND, WHEN APPLICABLE, WHETHER A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN SURRENDERED BY, OR REMOVED FROM, THE RESPONDENT SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THE RESPONDENT. THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO MORE THAN SIX BUSINESS DAYS IF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED AND THE RESPONDENT REQUESTS A REASONABLE PERIOD OF ADDITIONAL TIME TO PREPARE FOR THE HEARING. WHERE NO TEMPORARY ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED, THE RESPONDENT MAY REQUEST, AND THE COURT MAY GRANT, ADDITIONAL TIME BEYOND THE TEN DAYS TO ALLOW THE RESPONDENT TO PREPARE FOR THE HEARING.AT THE HEARING PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION ONE OF THIS SECTION, THE PETITIONER SHALL HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROVING, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, THAT THE RESPONDENT IS LIKELY TO ENGAGE IN CONDUCT THAT WOULD RESULT IN SERIOUS HARM TO HIMSELF, HERSELF OR OTHERS, AS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH ONE OR TWO OF SUBDIVISION (A) OF SECTION 9.39 OF THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW. THE COURT MAY CONSIDER THE PETITION AND ANY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER, ANY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT, ANY TESTIMONY PRESENTED, AND THE REPORT OF THE RELEVANT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION NINE OF SECTION SIXTY-THREE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO OF THIS ARTICLE. THE COURT SHALL ALSO CONSIDER THE FACTORS SET FORTH IN SUBDIVISION TWO OF SECTION SIXTY-THREE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO OF THIS ARTICLE.AFTER THE HEARING PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION ONE OF THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ISSUE A WRITTEN ORDER GRANTING OR DENYING THE EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND SETTING FORTH THE REASONS FOR SUCH DETERMINATION. IF THE EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER IS GRANTED, THE COURT SHALL DIRECT SERVICE OF SUCH ORDER IN THE MANNER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROTECTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER SET FORTH IN SUBDIVISION SIX OF SECTION SIXTY-THREE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO OF THIS ARTICLE.UPON ISSUANCE OF AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER: (I) ANY FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN REMOVED PURSUANT TO A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER OR SUCH EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER SHALL BE RETAINED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION FOR THE DURATION OF THE ORDER, UNLESS OWNERSHIP OF THE FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN IS LEGALLY TRANSFERRED BY THE RESPONDENT TO ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL PERMITTED BY LAW TO OWN AND POSSESS SUCH FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN; (II) THE SUPREME COURT SHALL TEMPORARILY SUSPEND ANY EXISTING FIREARM LICENSE POSSESSED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ORDER THE RESPONDENT TEMPORARILY INELIGIBLE FOR SUCH A LICENSE; (III) THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE PROHIBITED FROM PURCHASING OR POSSESSING, OR ATTEMPTING TO PURCHASE OR POSSESS, A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN; AND (IV) THE COURT SHALL DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO SURRENDER ANY FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN IN HIS OR HER POSSESSION.AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SECTION SHALL EXTEND, AS SPECIFIED BY THE COURT, FOR A PERIOD OF UP TO ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH ORDER; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT IF SUCH ORDER WAS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDED BY THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, THEN THE DURATION OF THE EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF SUCH TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER.THE ISSUANCE OF A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER SHALL CONSTITUTE AUTHORITY AND DIRECTION FOR A POLICE OFFICER TO REMOVE ALL FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS IN THE RESPONDENT'S POSSESSION. AS PART OF THE ORDER, THE COURT MAY ALSO DIRECT A POLICE OFFICER TO SEARCH FOR FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS IN A RESPONDENT'S POSSESSION CONSISTENT WITH THE PROCEDURES OF ARTICLE SIX HUNDRED NINETY OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW.THE COURT SHALL NOTIFY THE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE, ANY OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY WITH JURISDICTION, ALL APPLICABLE LICENSING OFFICERS, AND THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES OF THE ISSUANCE OF A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND PROVIDE A COPY OF SUCH ORDER TO SUCH PERSONS AND AGENCIES NO LATER THAN THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY AFTER ISSUING THE ORDER. THE COURT ALSO SHALL PROMPTLY NOTIFY SUCH PERSONS AND AGENCIES AND PROVIDE A COPY OF ANY ORDER AMENDING OR REVOKING SUCH PROTECTION ORDER OR RESTORING THE RESPONDENT'S ABILITY TO OWN OR POSSESS FIREARMS, RIFLES OR SHOTGUNS NO LATER THAN THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY AFTER ISSUING THE ORDER TO RESTORE SUCH RIGHT TO THE RESPONDENT. ANY NOTICE OR REPORT SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL BE IN AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT, IN A MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES.UPON RECEIVING NOTICE OF THE ISSUANCE OF A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES SHALL IMMEDIATELY REPORT THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH ORDER TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION TO ALLOW THE BUREAU TO IDENTIFY PERSONS PROHIBITED FROM PURCHASING FIREARMS, RIFLES OR SHOTGUNS. THE DIVISION SHALL ALSO IMMEDIATELY REPORT TO THE BUREAU THE EXPIRATION OF SUCH PROTECTION ORDER AND ANY COURT ORDER AMENDING OR REVOKING SUCH PROTECTION ORDER OR RESTORING THE RESPONDENT'S ABILITY TO PURCHASE A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN.IF, IN ACCORDANCE WITH A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN HAS BEEN SURRENDERED BY OR REMOVED FROM THE RESPONDENT, AND THE SUPREME COURT SUBSEQUENTLY FINDS THAT THE PETITIONER HAS NOT MET THE REQUIRED STANDARD OF PROOF, THE COURT'S FINDING SHALL INCLUDE A WRITTEN ORDER, ISSUED TO ALL PARTIES, DIRECTING THAT ANY FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN SURRENDERED OR REMOVED PURSUANT TO SUCH TEMPORARY ORDER SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE RESPONDENT.IF ANY OTHER PERSON DEMONSTRATES THAT HE OR SHE IS THE LAWFUL OWNER OF ANY FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN SURRENDERED OR REMOVED PURSUANT TO A PROTECTION ORDER ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE, AND PROVIDED THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT TO THE PERSON'S POSSESSION OF A SURRENDERED OR REMOVED FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN, THE COURT MAY, AFTER NOTICE TO THE PARTIES AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, DIRECT THAT SUCH FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN BE RETURNED TO SUCH LAWFUL OWNER.THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE NOTIFIED ON THE RECORD AND IN WRITING BY THE COURT THAT HE OR SHE MAY SUBMIT ONE WRITTEN REQUEST, AT ANY TIME DURING THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, FOR A HEARING SETTING ASIDE ANY PORTION OF SUCH ORDER. THE REQUEST SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FORM AND MANNER AS PRESCRIBED BY THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COURTS. UPON SUCH REQUEST, THE COURT SHALL PROMPTLY HOLD A HEARING, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE, AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER. THE RESPONDENT SHALL BEAR THE BURDEN TO PROVE, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, ANY CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAY JUSTIFY A CHANGE TO THE ORDER.SURRENDER AND REMOVAL OF FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS PURSUANT TO AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER. WHEN A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TAKES ANY FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN PURSUANT TO A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER OR A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, THE OFFICER SHALL GIVE TO THE PERSON FROM WHOM SUCH FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN IS TAKEN A RECEIPT OR VOUCHER FOR THE PROPERTY TAKEN, DESCRIBING THE PROPERTY IN DETAIL. IN THE ABSENCE OF A PERSON, THE OFFICER SHALL LEAVE THE RECEIPT OR VOUCHER IN THE PLACE WHERE THE PROPERTY WAS FOUND, MAIL A COPY OF THE RECEIPT OR VOUCHER, RETAINING PROOF OF MAILING, TO THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENT AND, IF DIFFERENT, THE OWNER OF THE FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN, AND FILE A COPY OF SUCH RECEIPT OR VOUCHER WITH THE COURT. ALL FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS IN THE POSSESSION OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF APPLICABLE LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SUBDIVISION SIX OF SECTION 400.05 OF THE PENAL LAW; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT ANY SUCH FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN SHALL BE RETAINED AND NOT DISPOSED OF BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY FOR AT LEAST TWO YEARS UNLESS LEGALLY TRANSFERRED BY THE RESPONDENT TO AN INDIVIDUAL PERMITTED BY LAW TO OWN AND POSSESS SUCH FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN.IF THE LOCATION TO BE SEARCHED DURING THE EXECUTION OF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER OR EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER IS JOINTLY OCCUPIED BY TWO OR MORE PARTIES, AND A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN LOCATED DURING THE EXECUTION OF SUCH ORDER IS OWNED BY A PERSON OTHER THAN THE RESPONDENT, THE COURT MAY ALLOW RETURN OF SUCH FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN IF IT IS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN WILL BE SAFELY STORED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 265.45 OF THE PENAL LAW, SO THAT THE RESPONDENT WILL NOT HAVE ACCESS TO OR CONTROL OF THE FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN, AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF THE FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN BY THE OWNER.REQUEST FOR RENEWAL OF AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER. IF A PETITIONER BELIEVES A PERSON SUBJECT TO AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER CONTINUES TO BE LIKELY TO ENGAGE IN CONDUCT THAT WOULD RESULT IN SERIOUS HARM TO HIMSELF, HERSELF, OR OTHERS, AS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH ONE OR TWO OF SUBDIVISION (A) OF SECTION 9.39 OF THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, SUCH PETITIONER MAY, AT ANY TIME WITHIN SIXTY DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF SUCH EXISTING EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, INITIATE A REQUEST FOR A RENEWAL OF SUCH ORDER, SETTING FORTH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSITATING THE REQUEST. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COURTS SHALL ADOPT FORMS THAT MAY BE USED FOR PURPOSES OF SUCH APPLICATIONS AND THE COURT'S CONSIDERATION OF SUCH APPLICATIONS. THE COURT MAY ISSUE A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION SIXTYTHREE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO OF THIS ARTICLE, DURING THE PERIOD THAT A REQUEST FOR RENEWAL OF AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER IS UNDER CONSIDERATION PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.A HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN THE SUPREME COURT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION SIXTY-THREE HUNDRED FORTYTHREE OF THIS ARTICLE, TO DETERMINE IF A REQUEST FOR RENEWAL OF THE ORDER SHALL BE GRANTED. THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE SERVED WITH WRITTEN NOTICE OF AN APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL A REASONABLE TIME BEFORE THE HEARING, AND SHALL BE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO FULLY PARTICIPATE IN THE HEARING. THE COURT SHALL DIRECT SERVICE OF SUCH APPLICATION AND THE ACCOMPANYING PAPERS IN THE MANNER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROTECTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER SET FORTH IN SUBDIVISION SIX OF SECTION SIXTY-THREE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO OF THIS ARTICLE.EXPIRATION OF AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER. 1. A PROTECTION ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE, AND ALL RECORDS OF ANY PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE, SHALL BE SEALED UPON EXPIRATION OF SUCH ORDER AND THE CLERK OF THE COURT WHEREIN SUCH PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE COMMISSIONER OF THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES, THE HEADS OF ALL APPROPRIATE POLICE DEPARTMENTS, APPLICABLE LICENSING OFFICERS, AND ALL OTHER APPROPRIATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES THAT THE ORDER HAS EXPIRED AND THAT THE RECORD OF SUCH PROTECTION ORDER SHALL BE SEALED AND NOT BE MADE AVAILABLE TO ANY PERSON OR PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ENTITY, EXCEPT THAT SUCH RECORDS SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO:(A)    THE RESPONDENT OR THE RESPONDENT'S DESIGNATED AGENT;(B)     COURTS IN THE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM;(C)     POLICE FORCES AND DEPARTMENTS HAVING RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE GENERAL CRIMINAL LAWS OF THE STATE;(D)    ANY STATE OR LOCAL OFFICER OR AGENCY WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ISSUANCE OF LICENSES TO POSSESS A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN, WHEN THE RESPONDENT HAS MADE APPLICATION FOR SUCH A LICENSE; AND(E)      ANY PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYER OF A POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER AS THOSE TERMS ARE DEFINED IN SUBDIVISIONS THIRTY-THREE AND THIRTY-FOUR OF SECTION 1.20 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW, IN RELATION TO AN APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT AS A POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT EVERY PERSON WHO IS AN APPLICANT FOR THE POSITION OF POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER SHALL BE FURNISHED WITH A COPY OF ALL RECORDS OBTAINED UNDER THIS SUBPARAGRAPH AND AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE AN EXPLANATION THERETO.UPON EXPIRATION OF A PROTECTION ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE AND UPON WRITTEN APPLICATION OF THE RESPONDENT WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF SUCH ORDER, WITH NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD TO THE PETITIONER AND EVERY LICENSING OFFICER RESPONSIBLE FOR ISSUANCE OF A FIREARM LICENSE TO THE SUBJECT OF THE ORDER PURSUANT TO ARTICLE FOUR HUNDRED OF THE PENAL LAW, AND UPON A WRITTEN FINDING THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT TO THE RESPONDENT'S POSSESSION OF A SURRENDERED FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE RETURN OF A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN NOT OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBDIVISION ONE OF SECTION SIXTY-THREE HUNDRED FORTY-FOUR OF THIS ARTICLE. WHEN ISSUING SUCH ORDER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY FIREARM SUBJECT TO A LICENSE REQUIREMENT UNDER ARTICLE FOUR HUNDRED OF THE PENAL LAW, IF THE LICENSING OFFICER INFORMS THE COURT THAT HE OR SHE WILL SEEK TO REVOKE THE LICENSE, THE ORDER SHALL BE STAYED BY THE COURT UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF ANY LICENSE REVOCATION PROCEEDING.EFFECT OF FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS IN SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY CONTRARY CLAIM BASED ON COMMON LAW OR A PROVISION OF ANY OTHER LAW, NO FINDING OR DETERMINATION MADE PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE INTERPRETED AS BINDING, OR HAVING COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR SIMILAR EFFECT, IN ANY OTHER ACTION OR PROCEEDING, OR WITH RESPECT TO ANY OTHER DETERMINATION OR FINDING, IN ANY COURT, FORUM OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING.PARAGRAPH (B) OF SUBDIVISION 5 OF SECTION 530.14 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW, AS ADDED BY CHAPTER 644 OF THE LAWS OF 1996, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:THE PROMPT SURRENDER OF ONE OR MORE FIREARMS PURSUANT TO A COURT ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSIDERED A VOLUNTARY SURRENDER FOR PURPOSES OF SUBPARAGRAPH (F) OF PARAGRAPH ONE OF SUBDIVISION A OF SECTION 265.20 OF THE PENAL LAW. THE DISPOSITION OF ANY SUCH FIREARMS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUBDIVISION SIX OF SECTION 400.05 OF THE PENAL LAW  ; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT UPON TERMINATION OF ANY SUSPENSION ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION OR SECTION EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY-TWO-A OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, UPON WRITTEN APPLICATION OF THE SUBJECT OF THE ORDER, WITH NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, THE PROTECTED PARTY, AND EVERY LICENSING OFFICER RESPONSIBLE FOR ISSUANCE OF A FIREARMS LICENSE TO THE SUBJECT OF THE ORDER PURSUANT TO ARTICLE FOUR HUNDRED OF THE PENAL LAW, AND UPON A WRITTEN FINDING THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT TO THE SUBJECT'S POSSESSION OF A SURRENDERED FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN, ANY COURT OF RECORD EXERCISING CRIMINAL JURISDICTION MAY ORDER THE RETURN OF A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN NOT OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBDIVISION SIX OF SECTION 400.05 OF THE PENAL LAW. WHEN ISSUING SUCH ORDER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY FIREARM SUBJECT TO A LICENSE REQUIREMENT UNDER ARTICLE FOUR HUNDRED OF THE PENAL LAW, IF THE LICENSING OFFICER INFORMS THE COURT THAT HE OR SHE WILL SEEK TO REVOKE THE LICENSE, THE ORDER SHALL BE STAYED BY THE COURT UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF ANY LICENSE REVOCATION PROCEEDING.________________________________________________________ 

1. AN EXPLICATION OF AB 6994

A couple of observations are in order. First, this bill is not to be considered an adjunct of the Federal “Family Protection and Domestic Violence Intervention Act of 1994” even though a family member, pursuant to both AB 6994 and the Federal Act, may petition the Court for protection against another family member. Under both AB 6994, in the event it becomes law in New York, and, under the federal domestic violence statute, an individual, against whom a Court order is issued, will lose possession of firearms. That much is the same and is clear.In New York, revocation or suspension of firearms licenses, and concomitantly, loss of one’s firearms follows upon issuance of an order of protection. See, NY CLS CPL § 530.14. Second, the merits of statutes aimed at protecting individuals against violence notwithstanding, Americans are in danger of turning against each other as we become a Nation of undercover “shooflies,” constantly reporting on each other, turning family member against family member and turning the police against everyone.In their zeal to protect society from the misuse of firearms, antigun proponents attempt to negate the import of the Second Amendment altogether, leaving ever more people altogether defenseless against criminal assailants. No matter, as antigun groups would rather the Second Amendment did not exist at all. But, the codification of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms does exist, and the constant whittling away of that right under the mask of promoting public safety is not lost on those of us who place the Nation’s well-being on the strength of the citizenry’s Bill of Rights.In reviewing AB 6994, there is a presumption in the bill that sufficient due process requirements are met. But are they? Police officers and district attorneys and family members may both file a petition for a “temporary extreme protection order.” Once filed, that petition takes effect immediately, namely, prior to an evidentiary hearing. The individual against whom the petition is issued immediately loses his or her firearms, as the police are authorized to secure those weapons at once. The respondent is informed of a hearing date to present his case, and the petitioner has the burden of showing that the threat posed by the respondent warrants issuance of a permanent extreme protection order.  Disconcertingly, even before a hearing is held, the Court will notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the issuance of a temporary extreme protection order. That hardly accords with protecting the civil rights of an individual before he has had a chance to proffer evidence in his or her own defense that may warrant revocation of the temporary extreme protection order.As bad as this bill is, for Governor Cuomo, AB 6994, as written, doesn’t go far enough. He would include in the role of petitioners entitled to file for “temporary extreme protection orders,” classroom teachers, along with police officers, district attorneys, and family members. On June 5, 2018, wskg.org, in Albany New York, reported that:“Gov. Andrew Cuomo has proposed an expansion to his Extreme Risk Protection Order bill that would give teachers the power to go to court to prevent a student’s access to guns.Cuomo said the measure gives that power to teachers and school administrators who believe a student might use guns to be a danger to themselves or others.“If a teacher believes there is a troubled student who might be dangerous, that teacher has the legal authority to go to a judge directly,” Cuomo said.A judge could then determine whether the student needs a mental health exam, and whether the student’s or their family’s guns should be taken away.”The session is scheduled to end in a couple of weeks, and Cuomo concedes that he does not expect the measure to pass in the state Senate, which is gridlocked with 31 seats each in the Democratic and Republican factions.But Cuomo said he believes people in the state overwhelmingly support the measure and predicted that it will become an election issue in the fall.”It need hardly be said that teachers are not trained psychologists; nor are they police officers who deal with criminals on a daily basis; nor are they district attorneys, trained in the law; nor are they family members who have an intimate familial relationship with each other; and yet Governor Cuomo would bestow immense authority onto teachers to petition Courts directly against their students with whom they spend little time with. Of course, if teachers truly believe that a student poses a danger to self or others, the teacher may inform and should inform school officials. But, it is one thing for teachers to exercise authority to inform school officials of a possible danger posed by a particular student. It is quite another to grant to a teacher, on his or her own behalf, the power to file a petition with a court to secure a temporary extreme risk protection order. Imagine how this would play out, were a teacher permitted under law to secure such a protection order. Once such an extreme risk protection order issues, police officers would be empowered to go to the student’s home, and with court order in hand, the police would have the authority to secure the firearms belonging to the student’s parents, under the presumption that the student would otherwise be able to gain access to his or her parents’ firearms. The parent’s own firearm’s license would thereupon be suspended. If this scenario seems unlikely, keep in mind that Governor Cuomo hasn’t suggested any checks against such an occurrence. Bear in mind that in the few States that have enacted extreme risk protection laws, none have gone so far as to permit teachers to file such a petition. But, then, few individuals in any State have as far-reaching political ambitions as does Governor Andrew Cuomo, in preempting the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.We will have to wait and see how AB 6994 plays out in the months ahead and whether Governor Cuomo’s desire to expand AB 6994 results in further amendment prior to further action in Albany. But, we know full well Cuomo's antithesis toward the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo has frustrated the right of citizens of the State to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms. That is bad enough; yet his power is constrained, limited to New York. But, Cuomo's ambitions extend well beyond that of Governor of a State. Cuomo has aspirations to become President of the United States in 2020. Were that to happen, the war he would wage against the Second Amendment would be far worse for Americans--the likes of which Americans have not yet seen--having a ripple effect throughout the Country._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

STRATEGIES OF DESTRUCTION: HOW THE NY SAFE ACT EVISCERATES THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND THE RIGHT OF ENJOYMENT IN ONE’S PERSONAL PROPERTY

ANTIGUN GROUPS ADVANCE THEIR POLITICAL AGENDA BY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF TRAGEDY

American citizens who hold dear our sacred Bill of Rights may think that leftists in this Country, and abroad, have placed their goal of destroying the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution on the back burner by virtue of the fact that the mainstream media has said nothing, or virtually nothing, about it, in the last few weeks. This is due to a few other matters that have piqued media interest and attention in recent days and weeks: one, the crisis at the Nation’s Southern Border, resulting from a massive influx of individuals—tens of thousands of them—from Central America, trekking through Mexico, to our Nation’s doorstep, outrageously demanding entrance, at various ports of entry, to our Country, or otherwise illegally crossing over into our Country; two, the retirement of Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy from the U.S. Supreme Court; three, the closed door Congressional hearings with the renegade, Trump-hating FBI Official, Peter Strzok; and, four, today’s open door Congressional hearing of Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, who has, for months, wrongfully and defiantly placed impediments in the path of Congress, making Congressional oversight functions of the Department of Justice and FBI extremely  difficult. While these issues have, at the moment, taken center stage—and, make no mistake, these are critical issues—still, destruction of the Second Amendment forever remains the major goal of both so-called “moderate” Democrats, and those of the radical “Left.”

FIREARMS AND MENTAL HEALTH

The issue of mental health and access to firearms has become a focus of concern in the mainstream media due to two mass shooting incidents occurring in public schools: one at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14, 2018, and a second, not that long ago, at Santa Fe High on May 18, 2018. These two tragedies follow in the wake of two other major school shootings: Columbine High School, in Jefferson County, Colorado, that occurred in April 20, 1999, and a later shooting incident taking place at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in Newtown, Connecticut, on December 14, 2012.Mass shooting incidents occurring in public elementary and secondary schools across the Nation—these four, in the span of 18 years—are statistically small in number. But the mainstream media’s control of the airwaves, newsprint, and the internet—thrusting the issue into the public consciousness and conscience—has warped perspective. An illusion has been created and deliberately fostered, suggesting that school shootings are common when in fact they are not. Consider that, according to a 2013-2014 National Center for Educational Statistics (“NCES”) study, there are over 98,000 public elementary and secondary schools in the Nation, and another 33,600 private schools. Four mass shootings have taken place have in four schools in the span of 18 years. Statistically, the number of mass shooting incidents in schools is small. Of course, any gun shooting incident, especially in schools, is a serious matter, never to be taken lightly. The number of such shooting incidents should be zero. But, it is a mistake to believe that the cause of gun violence is the gun itself and not the sentient being who misuses the firearm. It is a mistake that many citizens make because it is one that the mainstream media, on behalf of antigun groups, fosters. Antigun groups, and their echo chamber, the mainstream media, always blame the misuse of firearms on the firearm itself, rather than on the individual who misuses the firearm. They do this, of course, in furtherance of their agenda, emphasizing, as they see it, the need to curb, in this Country, gun ownership, generally, all the while remarking little, if at all, that even the four tragic mass shooting events that did occur in public schools would never have occurred—indeed could never have occurred—had the schools in question undertaken, in the first instance, rigorous school security assessments, following these security assessments up with the implementation of effective security measures and procedures.In each case, failure at the “backend”—failure to implement effective school security—was a major factor in the horrific tragedies that ensued. But there also existed a failure at the “front end” as firearms fell into the hands of young people who should never have had access to them in the first place. In each of these four mass shooting incident cases, there was: one, a failure to secure firearms away from disturbed young people and, two, a failure of Governmental authorities and/or adult family members to provide these disturbed young people with appropriate mental health treatment.Had appropriate measures been taken at both the backend and front end, the four mass shooting incidents that took place in the Nation’s public schools would never have occurred. In fact, there have been no shooting incidents in those schools that have implemented comprehensive, effective school security measures.Obviously, no reasonable person would argue that a severely disturbed individual ought to have access to firearms. But, by the same token no reasonable person--if that reasonable person should stop to consider the matter--would posit that a severely disturbed individual should have access to any instrumentality through which such severely disturbed individual might do violence to self or others.Yet, it is, invariably, the misuse of guns by disturbed individuals that receives mainstream media attention. It is never the misuse of knives* or automobiles by disturbed individuals that receives attention. The reason for this is clear. The mainstream media, as the dutiful mouthpiece for fanatic antigun groups, targets the gun, an inanimate object, for elimination from society, rather than preventing the agents of violence, those individuals who pose a threat to self or others, from acquiring access to these weapons.

NEW YORK IS THE FIRST STATE OUT OF THE GATE TO FURTHER RESTRICT A CITIZEN’S RIGHT TO USE, POSSESS, AND ENJOY THEIR PERSONAL PROPERTY

Antigun Legislators, most notably, those in New York, jumped on the antigun bandwagon early, through the creation of ever more stringent gun laws, following the Sandy Hook School shooting incident in 2012. Almost one year to the day of the occurrence of that tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law the New York Safe Act. As for the purpose of instituting further firearms restrictions on resident gun owners, the Governor said this, as emblazoned on the Governor's NY Safe website: “The SAFE Act stops criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from buying a gun by requiring universal background checks on gun purchase, increases the penalties for people who use illegal guns, and mandates life in prison without parole for anyone who murders a first responder, and imposed the toughest assault weapons ban in the country.” But that wasn’t all. In what could only be seen as provoking resentment among those residents of New York who wish to exercise the fundamental right codified in the Second Amendment, the Governor had the gall to add: “For hunters, sportsmen, and law abiding gun owners, this new law preserves and protects your right to buy, sell, keep or use your guns.”Actually, the ability of law-abiding gun owners to buy, sell, keep or use their firearms—through implementation of the Safe Act—is extremely restricted, contrary to Governor Cuomo’s pronouncement. For example, those individuals who lawfully owned firearms, dubiously referred to as ‘assault weapons,’ prior to enactment of and now banned by the Safe Act, are in fact denied the right to possess, use, and enjoy their property because of substantial Government interference. Further, if one has any doubt as to the parameters of one’s right to possess, use, and enjoy one’s firearms qua private property, the Safe Act does little to reassure that person, because there is nothing in the Safe Act that clearly clarifies the parameters of that property right.Like so much of the NY Safe Act, one finds inordinate ambiguity and vagueness. A person can debate whether such ambiguity and vagueness is due simply to negligence in the drafting of the Act or is, rather, the product of careful and crafty deliberation on the part of the Act's drafters to make it ambiguous and vague. Be that as it may, the law-abiding gun owner, licensed gun dealers, mental health practitioners, and even executors of estates are left scratching their heads as to the meaning of several of the provisions of the Safe Act. One thing, though, is manifest and clear, and cannot be overstated. Those New York State legislators who pushed for this thing detest firearms and would gladly abolish guns from civilian hands outright if they could. The only thing that prevents complete gun bans and gun confiscation in States such as New York, and in States, such as Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, California, Hawaii, and others—States that hold the Second Amendment in low regard if not outright contempt—is the very existence of the Second Amendment as etched in stone in the Nation's Constitution.Given that the framers of the Constitution, specifically the antifederalists, were adamant in demanding codification of the natural, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, the gun grabbers of today are compelled to take a seemingly more measured approach to the matter of gun ownership and gun possession in this Country, albeit they do so reluctantly and disgruntledly.   As heretofore stated, the New York Safe Act is the first major piece of antigun legislation to hit the public. Coming on the heels of the Newtown, Connecticut Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy, Governor Cuomo sought, one, to be the first out of the gate to tighten the noose around those individuals who seek to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment, and, two,As with all restrictive gun measures, emanating in antigun jurisdictions across the Country, but predominately on the East and West coasts, the NY Safe Act is heralded not as an attempt to constrain the exercise of the right embodied in the Second Amendment, which it is, but as a “common-sense,” “sensible” measure meant to secure that right. Through a feat of legerdemain, the public is expected to buy into the proposition that restricting Americans’ gun rights somehow preserves and strengthens Americans’ gun rights. It does no such thing. The NY Safe Act as with those Acts modelled on the Safe Act in other jurisdictions is no less than a scarcely disguised attempt to eviscerate the Second Amendment. Congressional Democrats, for their part, would just love to see a New York Safe Act measure applied to the Nation as a whole, through federal law enactment; and make no mistake, Congressional Democrats, with the quiet backing of some Centrist Republicans—no friends of the Second Amendment—will work toward accomplishing that very goal in the unhappy event they happen to attain a majority in Congress, in November.

IN WHAT MANNER IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT MERCILESSLY ATTACKED BY CONGRESSIONAL ANTIGUN FORCES AND BY ANTIGUN PROPONENTS IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE?

There are three primary strategies by which and through which antigun groups and antigun legislators in Congress and in various States seek to significantly reduce the efficacy of the Second Amendment. One, expand, exponentially, the domain of firearms that the citizenry is precluded from lawfully owning and possessing. Two, expand, incrementally, the domain of individuals who are precluded from owning and possessing any firearm. And, three, increasingly restrict the free exercise of one’s property rights in one’s chattel among those people within the law-abiding civilian population of this Nation who are permitted to own and possess firearms. These are the three strategies employed in the NY Safe Act. One, the Safe Act is specifically designed to expand the domain of guns banned in New York. Two, the Act expands the domain of those New York residents who are prohibited from owning and possessing firearms. And, three, the Act makes increasingly expensive, onerous, and oppressive, gun ownership and gun possession for those New York residents who wish to exercise their property rights embodied in the Second Amendment right, who are not denied the exercise of their right outright.We will, in upcoming articles, look at how the NY Safe Act applies these strategies to curtail one’s enjoyment of his or her personal property as guaranteed under the Second Amendment, and we will see how these strategies are then replicated in various jurisdictions across the Nation._________________________________________________*Once guns are effectively banished from a society, a government will go after other implements, using the pretext of societal violence to constrict and constrain a nation's populace under the guise of protecting it. In one of several articles on the subject--this one from a May 2018 article, posted by the BBC, titled, "Judge calls for rounded knives to stop stab deaths,"--the BBC reports:“Judge Nic Madge said ordinary kitchen knives were causing a "soaring loss of life", rather than more heavily regulated large-bladed weapons.He was speaking at Luton Crown Court at a ceremony to mark his retirement.Knife crime rose by 22% in England and Wales in 2017, according to the Office for National Statistics.‘Kitchens contain lethal knives which are potential murder weapons and only butchers and fishmongers need eight or 10 inch kitchen knives with points,’ the judge said.He wants manufacturers to produce knives with rounded points for domestic use and those with points to be sold under strict rules.In past two months in Bedfordshire, 77 knife related street attacks went through the courts, with three deaths and 44 injuries.”Rather than dealing with the perpetrators of violence, governments tend to cast a wide net, capturing an entire population, treating the entire populace of a nation to "population control." Is it really the criminal element of society that a nation's government seeks to control, or is it a nation's citizenry that a nation's government seeks to control, albeit under the cloak of promoting "public safety?"  Consider our Nation under the thumb of the Democratic Socialists of America. The Democratic Socialists of America openly admits, on its website: "We are a political and activist organization, not a party."Not since the heyday of the Communist Party USA, one century ago, 0f which the Democratic Socialists of America may be considered one of several offshoots, struggling for membership, have Leftists in this Country actually gained some modicum of political traction, due in no small part to the surprising upset of Alexandria Ocasio-Ortiz over the U.S. House of Representatives Democratic Party incumbent and power broker, Joe Crowley. What it is that people like Ocasio-Ortiz envision for our Nation is not equality for the masses, regardless of her pronouncements, but, rather, mass serfdom, for one and all, and an end to the fundamental rights of the American people as codified in the Nation's Bill of Rights. Americans shouldn't for a moment take Alexandria Ocasio-Ortiz seriously. After all the Party of Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi has, as evidenced by the election of Alexandria Ocasio-Ortiz to the House of Representatives, devolved into a burlesque imitation of itself, if ever it were to be seen as anything more or other than a sad joke. But we, Americans, must nonetheless ever be cognizant of erosion of our sacred rights and liberties if we become too complacent. To be sure, there is more danger posed by smug, status-quo Centrist Republicans, to the preservation and strengthening of our sacred rights and liberties, than any danger to the preservation of our fundamental rights and liberties posed by sordid leftists, whatever their stripe: Socialist, Communist, Moderate Democrat, Democratic Moderate, Progressive Democrat, Democratic Socialist, Socialist Democrat, Socialistic Communist--so forth and so on--however this or that leftist may happen to define him or herself._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

SCHOOL SHOOTINGS SERVE AS PRETEXT FOR GUN BANS TARGETING THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY.

SINCE THE SANTA FE, TEXAS SCHOOL SHOOTER DID NOT USE A SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPON TO KILL OR INJURE HIS VICTIMS, WILL ANTIGUN GROUPS NOW SEEK TO BAN ALL FIREARMS?

Antigun groups must be throwing a temper tantrum. When the Santa Fe High School shooter committed his horrific act of murder and mayhem in May 2018, he had the temerity to use the wrong weapons. Antigun groups fully expected the shooter to destroy innocent lives utilizing a semiautomatic long gun— a firearm often referred to by the politically charged but specious expression, ‘assault weapon’—thereby keeping with the antigun zealots’ running narrative. But the shooter killed or seriously injured innocent students, teachers, and a police officer, with a shotgun and with a revolver, not an "assault weapon." Moreover, the weapons utilized by the shooter did not belong to the shooter and the shooter did not procure them from a gun dealer, through the internet, or through a third party at a gun show. No! The weapons belonged to the shooter’s father who had failed to properly secure his weapons from his severely mentally disturbed son. The failure of parental responsibility, here, is, in the first instance, where blame for the tragedy rests and where blame should properly be placed.

WHAT WEAPONS, SPECIFICALLY, DID THE SHOOTER USE IN COMMITTING HIS HORRIFIC ACT?

Specifically, the shooter utilized his father’s Remington model 870 pump action, manually operated shotgun, along with his father’s .38 caliber revolver to maim, injure, and kill innocent people. The police have not, apparently, identified, or otherwise officially released  the specific make and model number of the .38 caliber handgun utilized by the gunman as of the posting of this article. No matter. It is clear enough that the weapons the gunman utilized were not the typical firearms of choice for committing murder and mayhem—semiautomatic long guns—as antigun proponents and their echo chamber, the mainstream media, constantly and erroneously, maintain. But, that fact didn’t stop some individuals from surmising, without bothering to first verify, the nature of the weapons used.Apparently, in an attempt to get ahead of the curve, John Cornyn (Senator-Texas) said, as reported by the Houston Public Media Service, that, “. . . the 17-year-old student accused in a fatal shooting at a Texas high school used a semi-automatic pistol and a sawed-off shotgun to kill 10 people. The Republican from Texas says investigators are still determining whether the shotgun’s shortened barrel is legal.” Well, contrary to Senator Cornyn's conjecture, which he asserted as fact, the American public quickly learned that the shooter did not use a semiautomatic handgun, after all, and that the shooter likely did not use a so-called “sawed off shotgun” either. The killer used a common revolver handgun as mentioned above. And, as for Cornyn’s ludicrous, off the cuff remark about the shooter having used a “sawed off shotgun,” if that were the case, how long would it take “investigators” to determine whether the “shortened barrel is legal?” It is, of course, possible, but highly, and presumptively, unlikely, that the Remington Model 870 pump action manually operated shotgun the shooter’s father owned had a barrel length less than the limit prescribed by the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. A cursory check of the Remington website does provide the prospective buyer of the popular Model 870 pump action shotgun with in depth data about the shotgun along with substantial graphics. The Model 870 shotgun is available in a myriad of configurations and in several barrel lengths, from 14 inches to 30 inches, to meet a user's specific needs, whether employing the weapon for sporting uses or for self-defense.

DID THE SANTA FE TEXAS HIGH SCHOOL SHOOTER USE A SHOTGUN WITH A BARREL LENGTH LESS THAN 18 INCHES—A  SO-CALLED “SAWED OFF SHOTGUN”—AS U.S. SENATOR, JOHN CORNYN, MAINTAINS?

If, in fact, the shooter’s father’s Remington Model 870 had a barrel length of less than 18 inches, then ATF approval for a shotgun with a barrel length of 18 inches, or less, would be necessary. As pointed out by the ATF, in the atf.gov website, “A shotgun subject to the NFA [National Firearms Act] has a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length. The ATF procedure for measuring barrel length is to measure from the closed bolt (or breech-face) to the furthermost end of the barrel or permanently attached muzzle device.”The website, gundata.org discusses, assiduously, the matter of barrel length of both rifles and shotguns.“Simply put, on the whole, a rifle barrel should be no less than 16" and a shotgun barrel should be no less than 18". While the overall gun length for either a rifle or a shotgun has to be 26" according to the ATF, paying extra for an exception can make a difference. Even though black powder guns don't have this limitation, guns that fire ‘smokeless powder’ do have to adhere to ATF and federal guidelines.That's why shotguns like the modern Mossberg 500 and 600 series riot shotguns will measure out to these specifications. While sawing off a double barreled shotgun or cutting a M1A1 to lengths as short as 12" is possible to make them a lot more cancelable, especially under a dustcoat, the government says that a short shotgun or short rifle isn't legal unless you apply for a specific license.It is possible to apply for a license for a short rifle or short shotgun with the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms). The fee is either $200 or $5 depending on circumstances and the way the gun is manufactured, but owning a gun shorter than the ‘standard’ legal limits is possible. For a gun manufacturer, adhering to the legal limits is mandatory and if you find a shortened gun at a gun show or even at a private sale, be aware of your rights and the applicable laws.” 

A QUANDARY FOR ANTIGUN PROPONENTS

Unlike sophisticated semiautomatic weaponry, manually operated pump action shotguns and manually operated revolver handguns have been around for a long time, approximately 130 years. The pertinent question is this: how have antigun proponents and the mainstream media spun the narrative in the call for further gun restrictions since the Santa Fe, Texas school shooter, here, didn’t use what antigun proponents, along with the mainstream media, often refer— contemptuously, pejoratively, slyly, and clearly erroneously—to as an “assault weapon?” It should be abundantly clear to anyone with half a brain, that, for your average, garden variety killer, who desires to create carnage, any weapon at hand will do. Unless a killer happens to be a psychopathic “professional” assassin or a psychotic member of a drug cartel, either of whom would likely have the contacts, wherewithal, and grim determination to acquire access to specialized, unlawful weapons, the kind of weapons that fall in a domain well beyond those weapons commonly available to the law-abiding American public—an American public that generally acquires firearms through a licensed firearms dealer—a killer will use whatever weapon he is able to get his hands on. That was certainly the case with the Santa Fe Texas shooter. But, given the circumstances of that recent school shooting incident in Santa Fe, Texas, antigun proponents are in a quandary as to whether to stay with their present running narrative—that non-semiautomatic weapons only are okay for law-abiding, rational, average American citizens to possess because semiautomatic weapons and full auto or selective fire weapons are weapons of war that have no place in a modern civilized society—or to sharply alter the current narrative, admitting to the American public, at long last, what it is they are truly after: a ban on civilian ownership and possession of all firearms—to turn the entire Nation into a “Gun-free Zone.”Clearly, antigun proponents’ calls for increasingly tight restrictions on civilian access to so-called assault weapons—meaning, of late, virtually all, not merely some, semiautomatic weapons—suggests a marked reluctance on their part to show their hand too soon, by calling for a total, or, otherwise, comprehensive ban on civilian ownership and possession of firearms of all types. Antigun proponents and zealots have traditionally preferred an incremental approach to gun bans and gun confiscations—one category of firearms at a time, and ever widening the domain of Americans who are precluded lawfully from owning and possessing any firearm—in order to slowly acclimate the public toward acceptance of a gun-free Country.In fact, antigun proponents—a few of them, ostensibly gun owners, posturing as supporters of the natural, fundamental, and unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms—disingenuously claim by mere assertion, and rarely if ever by hard argument—that some firearms are specifically designed for self-defense, and so, are deemed the good weapons; and that other weapons—various kinds of semiautomatic firearms, the so-called “assault weapons”—are designed for war; and that this latter category of  firearms therefore fall, presumptively, into the bad kind of weaponry that, as antigun proponents vehemently exclaim, civilians should not have access to.Antigun proponents evidently like to recruit and trot out seemingly avid “antigun gun owners” who, in accordance with the central theme and narrative, argue for reinstating a national ban on “assault weapons,” a catchall expression that is increasingly becoming synonymous with all semiautomatic firearms, not merely some semiautomatic weapons. Antigun proponents falsely assert that no one is trying to take all firearms  away from the civilian population of the Country, just some of them—the bad sort, the ones they have corralled under the brand of “assault weapons” or “weapons of war.” They assert that banning such weapons of war is okay because, after all, law-abiding, rational Americans can still keep true self-defense weapons, like .38 revolvers and shotguns handy at the ready, at home.But is that assertion true, especially when it is clear that so-called weapons for self-defense, or for sport, or for plinking at targets, like revolver handguns and shotguns, are capable of offensive use, as well, and with devastating effect, when in the hands of irresponsible individuals; or in the hands of gangbangers; or in the hands of the common criminal; or in the hands of  severely disturbed individuals, such as the shooter who murdered, maimed, and injured several innocent individuals in a Santa Fe, Texas high school? Do not these self-described antigun gun proponents, after all, deviously, deceptively, insidiously, mislead the American public by proffering a seeming reasonable compromise solution to curtailing gun violence and at once "permitting" lawful gun ownership? Are American gun owners expected, honestly, to suspend their skepticism? How many times in the past have American gun owners heard antigun proponents and antigun legislators preface their antigun diatribes with the assertion that they do, of course, support the Second Amendment, when clearly we know that they do not? So, whom are these antigun proponents and antigun legislators really fooling?LET US TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT A COUPLE OF SEEMING “PRO GUN” ANTIGUN GUN PROPONENTS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT CIVILIAN GUN OWERNSHIP AND POSSESSION AND CONSIDER THE EFFICACY OF THEIR REMARKS, CONCERNING REVOLVERS AND SHOTGUNS IN LIGHT OF THE SANTA FE, TEXAS HIGH SCHOOL INCIDENT.Consider the assertions of one antigun zealot, Ashley Addison, who claims, incongruously, to support the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Addison refers to herself as a definitive gun owner. In the weblog, scarymommy.com (an obvious antigun forum, merely masquerading as a weblog supportive of the Second Amendment), this self-proclaimed gun owner claims that she owns only the right and proper sort of weapons—that is to say, weapons for self-defense. Addison says:“I’m a gun owner. I have two pistols, a rifle, a shotgun . . . and a (now-expired) concealed carry permit. I’ve been shooting since I was a kid. I also support every single gun control measure out there. . . . But an AK-47 (and other assault weapons) is not an ideal weapon for personal defense, and it serves no purpose for “home protection.” It was designed for military use. A a [sic] 12-gauge shotgun is a better, more realistic choice for home defense. I’ve never seen any peer-reviewed study/expert/article anywhere that can refute this. Bottom line: Assault-style weapons should never be in the hands of civilians.” Would Addison be so quick to assert that she does, in fact, “support every single gun measure,” as she bluntly says in her blog post if that means having to relinquish her shotgun, since, as anyone with any knowledge of the operations of firearms knows that a “self-defense” weapon can be used offensively and that a self-defense weapons, namely a revolver handgun, and a shotgun were in fact utilized by the Santa Fe, Texas shooter to murder, quite effectively, several innocent young people, and in short order? Would Addison continue to suggest that a 12-gauge shotgun is somehow a good weapon—a safe and humane kind of weapon—one particularly suitable for civilians to wield, but that a semiautomatic “assault-style weapon” is not, when considered in light of this recent mass shooting in Santa Fe, Texas. Is the distinction that Addison draws a sound one? One website, internet armory.com has this to say about the shotgun:“The shotgun is, by far, the deadliest and most formidable, effective firearm ever created for short range personal defense. No other firearm will devastate, disable, or discourage an aggressor as reliably as a shotgun.  No other firearm is as likely to obtain decisive hits on an assailant as a shotgun loaded with buckshot.”When used at shortrange—for example, a school room—Addison’s remark about shotguns (for civilian use) versus assault-style weapons (for military or other non-civilian use is not only patently ridiculous but truly bizarre. One must ask: Does Ashley Addison know what she is talking about? And, by the way, Ashley, shotguns have been and continue to be used by the military and by the police.The point is that any firearm in the wrong hands is deadly. A psychopath or lunatic can create monstrous horror, wielding any firearm. Moreover, while some firearms or firearm configurations are useful or ideal for a particular purpose, any weapon in the wrong hands can dispatch many innocent people, quickly and effectively, as factual accounts of recent shooting incidents bears out.In another “scarymommy.com” blog post, a second female, also a self-described “gun owner,” and purported supporter of the Second Amendment, Marissa Bowman, writes: “The fact of the matter is that guns in America are not going to disappear — at the very least not anytime soon. [Is Bowman suggesting they should disappear? If so, she is hardly the supporter of the Second Amendment that she claims to be]. Our Second Amendment rights guarantee that, and more importantly, our social structure is keeping it in place. Until we can guarantee safety for all children — not just our own — parents like me feel it necessary to utilize the right to have added protection for our family. “That does not mean, however, that anyone should be able to own whatever type of gun that they want and without restrictions. As a part-time solo mom whose partner is frequently away for his job, I absolutely feel it’s necessary to own a gun which I keep in my home. My family’s safety is simply not up for political debate. The Smith & Wesson M&P Bodyguard (.38 Special) that I carry makes me feel as though I can protect and defend my children in a moment’s notice, which in turn makes me feel empowered as a mother.”In light of the Santa Fe, Texas school shooting, the incongruity of the claims of Addison and Bowman are abundantly clear. The notion that some firearms are acceptable for Americans to own and possess and that some are not is demonstrably weak. The fact of the matter is that, in any confined public area where people are cowering, or even in an open area where people are densely packed and running hither and yon into each other, in panic, a would-be killer can use any firearm, or, for that matter, even a knife, to injure or kill a substantial number of people, quickly, effectively, and unceremoniously. It is therefore dubious for a person to claim that law-abiding, rational Americans have a right to acquire some firearms, but not others--with antigun groups and antigun legislators, along with the mainstream media, being the ultimate arbiters as to what firearms some members of the American citizenry, and, increasingly, an ever dwindling number of the American citizenry--to own and possess. We know where this leads. Given a plethora of ad hoc, inconsistent, and unsound arguments propounded, almost daily, concerning what firearms the law-abiding citizen may own and possess, along with a call for increasing restrictions on one's use of his or her personal property, and further restrictions on American civilians who are deemed worthy of owning and possessing a firearm what must inevitably come to pass is the virtual extinction of ownership and possession of any firearm in this Country.

HOW HAVE ANTIGUN WRITERS FOR MAINSTREAM PUBLICATIONS RESPONDED TO THE SANTA FE SHOOTING INCIDENT, WHERE THE KILLER DID NOT USE A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM, BUT A BASIC DOUBLE-ACTION REVOLVER HANDGUN AND A MANUALLY OPERATED PUMP ACTION SHOTGUN?

Had the shooter utilized a semiautomatic long gun qua “assault weapon,” the antigun groups would merely claim, as they have been doing for some time, that no one needs such a weapon for self-defense, and that Congress should therefore enact another “assault weapons” ban. Of course, antigun groups seek, ultimately to forbid civilian ownership and possession of any firearm, but they would seek to do so incrementally, and in a linear fashion. As the NFA (National Firearms Act of 1934) operates, essentially, as a practical matter, as a general ban on civilian ownership and possession of fully automatic and selective fire weapons, as well as operating essentially, and as a practical matter, as a ban on civilian ownership and possession of so-called, “sawed off shotguns,” the desire of antigun groups is, as is evident, to see enacted an NFA style set of federal laws applied to semiautomatic weapons, that is to say, “assault weapons”—meaning, an NFA style set of federal laws applied to every conceivable semiautomatic firearm. Once that goal has been accomplished—if it were accomplished—then the American public should make no mistake, as antigun groups would not stop there. They would then go after civilian ownership and possession of remaining firearms: including revolver handguns, shotguns, lever action rifles, black powder muzzleloaders, and any other type of fully functional firearm that  the average, law-abiding, rational American citizen, and civilian, may happen to own and possess.

HOW IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA DEALING WITH THE SANTA FE TEXAS SHOOTING IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE SHOOTER DID NOT USE A SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPON TO WREAK HAVOC IN A PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL?

With this latest mass shooting in Santa Fe, Texas, will antigun zealots now call for stringent curbs on civilian ownership and possession of all manner of weaponry? Consider how this is beginning to play out.A contact reporter for the Chicago Tribune, in an article, caustically titled, “No matter what type of gun is used in school shootings, innocent people end up dead,” Dahleen Glanton, writes,“This time, the school shooter did not use an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle to slaughter his classmates. That must be quite a relief to gun lovers.This killer’s weapons of choice were a shotgun and a .38-caliber handgun — two of the most common firearms available. What more proof do we need, gun lovers will ask, that the problem isn’t with guns but rather with people? . . .With so many mass shootings in schools and other public places, there is no question that gun lovers have been feeling as though they are under attack. They have tried their best to fend off arguments by the rest of the country that every gun is not protected under the Second Amendment. With so many people dying, we desperately need them to wake up and join us in the struggle to keep our children safe. Only then will politicians feel secure enough to take action.We cannot let them off the hook. Guns in general, and semi-automatic rifles in particular, remain the greatest threat to safety in America.Pagourtzis might not have been armed with a high-powered weapon when he allegedly entered that classroom Friday, but gun laws are so lax in Texas that he certainly could easily have gotten his hands on one. In fact, he could have walked down the street with an AR-15 strapped to his shoulder and likely no one would have thought it was odd.If anything, the shooting exemplifies what anti-gun advocates in cities like Chicago have been saying too. It is far too easy for a legal gun to turn into an illegal gun.”We make a couple observations here. Firstly, the reporter for this mainstream Press newspaper is acting in typical lockstep with previous mainstream reports of mass shootings, maintaining a consistent antigun narrative. But, she acknowledges, as she must, that the Santa Fe, Texas high school shooter did not use a semiautomatic long gun. But she then moves to propounding bald counterfactuals, apparently to maintain the consistent antigun movement narrative, blasting the presence of semiautomatic long guns in the civilian population, asserting that the shooter could have gotten his hands on an “AR-15,” given, what the reporter refers to as lax gun laws in Texas—a point the reporter doesn’t bother to clarify and expound upon; nor does this reporter explain how the shooter could have gotten his hands on a semiautomatic rifle, but didn’t. Actually the shooter quite effectively murdered and injured innocent young people at Santa Fe High School with a pump action shotgun and a revolver handgun. He need not have bothered to get his hands on an AR-15 if he had thought about the matter at all. Secondly, the shooter gained access to his father’s firearms because his father failed to properly secure them. Note: This is the same, virtually identical and disturbing scenario, by the way, that played out, tragically, in Newtown, Connecticut, at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in 2012.A mother, Nancy Lanza, failed properly to secure her firearms from her psychotic son, Adam Lanza. Now, no one would seriously suggest that Connecticut has had lax gun laws, either prior to the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy, or at any time since the tragedy. In both the Newtown, Connecticut mass shooting incident and in the recent Santa Fe, Texas mass shooting incident, the primary cause for the tragedy can and should be laid at the feet of irresponsible adults and heads of families who knew or should have known of, and certainly better than anyone else, the dangers posed by failing to properly secure firearms from children or from disturbed family members who happen to be residing in the household, and by failing to properly secure any other object that could be feasibly used as a deadly weapon by children or by severely mentally disturbed family members. What we see instead is that neither the irresponsible adult family member, nor the psychotic son is cast as the principal culprit and villain. Rather, the firearm that an obviously psychotic young man acquired and used to murder, maim, and injure innocent individuals—be it a semiautomatic rifle in one instance, or a shotgun and revolver handgun in the other—is cast as the primary cause for the ensuing tragedies and cast, too, as the basic and principal villain and "fall guy." The antigun proponent's narrative can take one of two forms.Consider: one of two narratives must play out when we see antigun proponents and commentators placing blame squarely on an object, rather than on the sentient entity who wields it, that is to say, when we see antigun proponents and commentators placing blame on an object rather than upon the agent who wields the object. Antigun proponents and antigun commentators tend either to fall back on the same, ever recurring narrative, namely  that the primary cause for gun violence rests upon the so-called assault weapon, even if a semiautomatic weapon was never in use by a killer or antigun proponents and antigun commentators must construct a new narrative. If antigun commentators wish to stay with the typical narrative, namely that semiautomatic weapons must be banned even if semiautomatic weapons were never used in the shooting incident, as was the case in the recent Santa Fe, Texas incident, then an argument calling for a general ban on civilian ownership and possession of semiautomatic weapons and mass confiscation of semiautomatic weapons is nonsensical in the extreme, as a narrative that does not fit the factual situation must invariably devolve into a recitation of senseless, hypothetical "what if" scenarios as we see in the Chicago Tribune article, and as we also see in the New Yorker article, infra. The narrative becomes decidedly discordant if predictable; for the proverbial deadly object qua "assault weapon" doesn't factor into the fact pattern. It cannot. If, on the other hand, antigun proponents and commentators wish to construct a new narrative, admitting to the public what antigun proponents most assuredly discuss among themselves, namely, that firearms of all types must eventually be banned, not just so-called, “assault weapons”--aka “weapons of war, then the antigun proponent and commentator isn't compelled to resort to spurious and specious hypotheticals, which has not place in a news account anyway; and the narrative is internally consistent. But the true intent of the antigun movement would be laid bare for all to see. The true aims of the antigun movement would be clear and irrefutable. In that case, the "cat" would definitely be "out of the bag,"  as the antigun proponent or antigun commentator  would be clearly and categorically articulating the antigun movement's ultimate goal: the disarming of the American citizenry en masse. Neither narrative would sit well with American gun owners; nor should it. For, any attempt to arbitrarily ban civilian possession of firearms--whether a gun ban and gun confiscation scheme embraces one type of firearm or all types--would, in either case, be true folly and wholly unacceptable to the American gun owning public because gun bans and gun confiscation schemes are altogether incompatible with the import and purport of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Semiautomatic weapons, revolvers, and shotguns are all in common use by millions of average, honest, law-abiding, and rational American citizens. These weapons all fall within the core protection of the Second Amendment and cannot lawfully be taken away from Americans. The late, eminent U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the seminal Second Amendment Heller case made abundantly clear that, presumed State public safety concerns do not and cannot legally override fundamental, primordial Constitutional rights. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the Land; and basic, natural rights and liberties, as a critical component of the U.S. Constitution, are not and never shall be subordinate to State or Federal Statute, much less to public opinion polls or to orchestrated public demonstrations.As the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not and never has been a right bestowed on Government to the people but exists forever within the American people, that right cannot be legitimately, legally tampered with. To obliterate the natural and fundamental right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, by arrogantly attempting to turn a sacred right into a mere privilege, easily dispensed with, is an anathema to our history, traditions, values, ethical sensibilities, and legal, social, economic, and moral foundational understanding. Such an effort would, as well, illustrate the antigun movement's naked, and absolute, unbridled disdain for seminal Second Amendment, U.S. Supreme Court rulings.Another writer for a mainstream news publication, John Cassidy, a columnist for the New Yorker, in an article titled, “Everything About the Texas School Shooting Seems Horribly Familiar,” makes similar comments to those of Dahleen Glanton, writing for the Chicago Tribune. Cassidy, too, maintains the usual antigun proponent's narrative, attempting to shoehorn counterfactuals into a factual account of the mass shooting. So, despite the weapons that the Santa Fe, Texas gunman used during his murderous escapade, a shotgun, and .38 caliber revolver, which did not include semiautomatic weapons, Cassidy eschews keeping to the facts, contrary to what a reporter should be doing--recounting facts, not contemplating, "what ifs." Cassidy argues that the shooter could have used a semiautomatic weapon to seriously injure or kill innocent young people, even if the shooter, as we know, didn’t. The account comes across as weak, even silly. John Cassidy exclaims:“About the only atypical aspect of the shooting was that Pagourtzis reportedly used a Remington Model 870 shotgun and a .38-calibre revolver, rather than a semi-automatic rifle, to kill his ten victims and wound ten others. This was probably because his father didn’t own an AR-15 or any other weapon of war. (Pagourtzis told police he used his father’s guns. It wasn’t immediately clear whether his father knew that they were in his possession.) Enthusiasts of semi-automatic weapons will presumably use this detail to fortify their case against banning such weapons—the argument being that there are firearms of all kinds (more than three hundred million in private hands across the U.S., according to some estimates) and banning one particular type of gun won’t prevent a dedicated shooter from carrying out a massacre.In the world of Second Amendment devotees, this qualifies as a legitimate case to make. So does the argument, which Donald Trump and the N.R.A. have made, that the real issue with school shootings isn’t the fact that disturbed adolescents have such ready access to deadly weapons but that schools don’t have enough armed teachers to stop gun-wielding intruders, or enough ready escape routes for students and staff to take as they flee the gunfire. ‘We have to look at the design of our schools moving forward and retrofitting schools that are already built,’ Dan Patrick, the Republican lieutenant governor of Texas, said on Friday. ‘And what I mean by that is there are too many entrances and too many exits to our over eight thousand campuses in Texas . . . Had there been one single entrance, possibly, for every student, maybe he’—Pagourtzis—'would have been stopped.’ Rather than descending further into the world of deliberate denial, it is perhaps worth stating a few facts: this was the second school massacre in three months, and the second gun massacre in six months in Texas.”“Descending further into the world of deliberate denial?” How does fortifying schools against shooters translate into denial. Clearly, John Cassidy is, himself, in denial. It isn’t the millions of law-abiding, rational Americans who happen to own firearms and who strongly support our Bill of Rights—all Ten of them—who are in denial. In fact, in those States that have implemented truly effective school safety plans against shooters, utilizing armed teachers and other armed personnel, there has been not one incident of a school shooting. But, antigun proponents, like John Cassidy choose, apparently, to ignore that fact, assuming he bothered to investigate the matter at all. He presents, as self-evident, true the false and absurd notion that the answer to school safety rests, simply and solely on banning civilian ownership and possession of firearms en masse.Cassidy’s argument boils down essentially to this: killers murdered young people with guns; so, once Congress bans firearms from the American citizenry, commencing with a ban on semiautomatic rifles, the problem of mass murders in schools will be resolved. Cassidy is wrong. The problem of mass murders in schools or in other public venues won’t end, not by a long shot! Because violence exists in the minds of people, not in objects. That simple truth seems forever to elude antigun proponents who are obsessed with eliminating “The Gun” from society, irrespective of the root causes of violence.John Cassidy, as with Dahleen Ganlon, seems fixated on the notion that the Santa Fe shooter would, of course, have taken up an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle if the shooter’s father happened to have one. Antigun proponents, like John Cassidy, love to slither here and there—perhaps unaware that they are doing so—from reporting on events taking place in the world to reflecting on possible circumstances that might have, or could have, or conceivably would have, occurred, but didn’t; and they conclude their polemics with express or tacit normative remarks about the way the world ought to be. Since, the antigun movement is hell-bent on removing from civilian possession all semiautomatic weapons, first and foremost, commencing with a broad ban on all semiautomatic weapons that this or that antigun proponent wishes to call an "assault weapon," the movement's proponents and the commentators and reporters of the mainstream media who echo the movement's tactics and strategies, do not wish to muddy the waters by talking about the weapons that a particular killer happened to use, rather than the ones that the antigun proponents' would have wished for the gunman to have used in order to keep with the "game plan." Time would come, when, after semiautomatic weapons have been confiscated, remaining categories of firearms can be confiscated and banned as well.As with all or most antigun zealots, John Cassidy knows little if anything concrete about firearms, and likely cares not one whit to educate himself. As for so-called weapons of war, a little history lesson is in order here. Revolver handguns as well as shotguns have seen use in war. Both weapons are used by many police departments and they have use in sport and for self-defense, as are semiautomatic weapons. And, as the Arbalest Quarrel has pointed out in the previously posted article, any weapon can be used for good or ill, dependent on the wielder of the weapon. The Santa Fe School shooting, the Parkland, Florida school shooting, and the Newtown, Connecticut school shooting were easily preventable. Failures by governmental authorities and/or by parents of shooters led to tragedy. Those who own and possess firearms have the responsibility to properly use and care for them and to properly secure them. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners. There is no sane reason to target their firearms for confiscation.In any event, the answer to curbing gun violence does not devolve to imposing debilitating, draconian gun restrictions on millions of responsible gun owners. That would destroy our free Republic and likely led to outright civil war, as the American citizenry would see first hand, an unlawful attempt by Government to wrest control of the Nation from the citizenry.There is a more direct and effective response to school safety. It is a twofold approach; and it is an approach that does not create havoc with our Constitution and with the natural rights of Americans. First, at the State, County and local Government levels, a clear and honest assessment of school safety must be made. Once that assessment is completed, a plan must be devised and then implemented with proper testing. The New Yorker columnist, John Cassidy, may see this as a trivial matter. We do not. Second, firearms must be removed from the hands of those who act irresponsibly, and there must be a concerted effort to remove firearms from the criminal elements in our society. Laws already on the books need to be enforced. The Nation does not need more firearms’ laws. Unfortunately, the antigun movement in this Country seeks to disarm the vast responsible American citizenry. School shootings serve merely as a pretext for broad-base gun bans and eventual mass gun confiscation. It is the vast responsible, law-abiding American armed citizenry that the antigun movement is truly targeting, for it is the vast law-abiding armed citizenry that those who seek to disarm Americans truly fear, as it is the vast, law-abiding armed citizenry that, as the Founders of our Republic intended, they cannot, ought not, and must not control. For, it is only in an armed citizenry that true Government encroachment on the rights and liberties of the American citizenry is effectively, categorically, constrained and contained. It is not the criminal element, then, and it is not the occasional lunatic that goes off on a shooting spree that the antigun movement and their silent, secretive, ruthless Globalist benefactors truly fear.It is the average, law-abiding American citizen and gun owner that these anti-American elements fear and therefore seek to control. The banshee shriek and wail calling for a ban, eventually, on civilian ownership and possession of guns generally and a ban on civilian ownership and possession of semiautomatic firearms—pejoratively and idiotically referred to by antigun proponents as “assault weapons” and as “weapons of war”—particularly, at this juncture, and the claim made that only through mass gun control and eventual mass gun confiscation will this Nation, its people, and its children be safe from violence are, on close inspection specious, even ludicrous, pronouncements even if, superficially, these boisterous, obstreperous pronouncements happen to sound palatable and convincing, as, of course, they are meant to. This propaganda—for propaganda it is—is directed to the weak-willed and the uniformed among us—individuals who are looking for a panacea to violence in society, as violence is claimed to be endemic in society, and they are told it need not be, if only the public accedes to giving up their firearms.Through it all, the American public is being fed a false narrative. It is a narrative carefully crafted and then directed to the American public through mass media organizations, controlled by transnationalist billionaires who seek to alter, forever, the framework of the Nation, a free Republic that the Founders of our Nation, the framers of our Constitution and of our sacred Bill of Rights, bequeathed to us. The transnationalist billionaires seek to destroy our Nation for their own benefit, for their own selfish  ends. The goal, of these extraordinarily powerful, insanely wealthy, highly secretive, and absolutely ruthless individuals, is not suppression of gun violence, despite the claims of antigun groups, their willing tools. To the contrary; it is repression of the American citizenry. That, unfortunately, is the sad, but irrefutable truth. The American public should not be deluded to think it not so._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

I AM A GUN AND THIS IS WHAT I HAVE TO SAY

I am a Gun. I am not a person. I, myself, am incapable of harming anyone. Only a person is capable of harming another person. I cannot, myself, harm a person. And I cannot force a person to use me for an evil purpose. In the hands of a rational, competent, law-abiding person, I serve a greater good. In the hands of an irrational, incompetent, lawless individual, I serve a dark end. But, I, myself, must be held blameless because I am not a person.Many ill-informed individuals are quick to cast aspersions on me. They will say or suggest that I am evil incarnate. I am not. I do not have the power of choice. I do not have “free will.” Only a human being has the power of choice; only a human being has free will. I do not. Only a human being can choose to do good or ill, in accordance with that person’s “will.” I cannot. Still, there are those who believe, falsely, that I am evil, and strenuously make that claim. That truly puzzles me; for, only a person who misuses me can be deemed evil.Those who denigrate and demean me fail to realize the enormous positive benefit that I have brought and continue to bring to this Nation. The United States could not exist but for me. The founders of this free Republic used my great great grandfather, the flintlock, to forge a mighty Nation. During the Second World War, my cousins—including, among others, the M1 Garand Rifle, the Thompson submachine gun, and the Browning Automatic Rifle—in the competent hands of our Nation’s troops, helped to defeat two of our most powerful and intractable foes: Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan. I have also assisted and continue to assist our police officers in helping protect our communities from lawless elements.AND, I AM, TO THE COUNTLESS AVERAGE, LAW-ABIDING, RATIONAL, RESPONSIBLE AMERICAN CITIZENS--AS THE FRAMERS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION INTENDED--THE MOST EFFECTIVE MEANS AVAILABLE THROUGH WHICH THESE CITIZENS ARE ABLE TO PRESERVE AND DEFEND THEIR LIFE, SAFETY, AND WELL-BEING AND THE LIFE, SAFETY, AND WELL-BEING OF THEIR FAMILIES—FROM THOSE RUTHLESS, TERRIBLE, EVIL ELEMENTS IN SOCIETY WHO SEEK TO DO HARM.Going back far earlier in time, my ancestors, the matchlock and wheel lock firearms, gave to the common man the ability to grapple effectively with powerful nobility, who wore formidable suits of armor, wielding massive lances and swords, sitting atop powerful steeds.There is much to commend me. Unfortunately, history’s revisionists dismiss me out-of-hand, selectively  focusing only on those who have misused me. In recent months, young men who gained access to me, and who should never have gained access to me, have committed monstrous acts. Those monstrous acts have been wrongly ascribed principally to me, rather than to the individuals who have misused me. I am well aware of the horrific acts that deranged young people have done. Their monstrous acts should not have occurred and would not have occurred but for crucial missteps by irresponsible people who failed to properly secure me.In 2012, a severely mentally unstable young man, Adam Lanza, gained access to his mother’s firearms. Had I been able, I would have warned Nancy Lanza, Adam’s mother, to properly secure me so that her mentally disturbed son could not gain access to me. She failed to do so. Her irresponsible act in failing to properly secure me led directly to her death at her son’s hands. This sad, deranged young man, Adam Lanza, then carried me to a public school, Sandy Hook Elementary School, located in Newtown, Connecticut. In his hands, Adam Lanza used me to kill innocent children and teachers. But for Nancy Lanza’s irresponsible actions, this horrific incident would never have happened and could never have happened. Major media organizations wrongly blamed me for the tragedy.A similar horrific event occurred, in February of 2018. Another deranged young man, Nikolas Cruz, wrongfully gained access to me, and used me to murder or seriously injure many innocent students and teachers—this time at another public school, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, located in Parkland, Florida. Once again media people, reporting on this event, at the urging of those individuals who profess a pathological hatred toward me, blame me for the senseless tragedy, claiming that it is I, rather than this young man, Nikolas Cruz, who is the principal cause of the tragedy.Legislators, members of the mass media, and members of groups who call for my eradication, fail to realize that it is not I that cause violence. To cause violence I must have the desire to do violence, and once having the desire to do violence, I must then act on that desire. But, I am incapable of desire, and I am incapable of action. People, alone, are capable of desire and people alone are capable of acting on their desires. People are causal agents of harm. I am not a causal agent, but merely an object, a tool. Yet, I am blamed for the evil actions of those who misuse me. On careful reflection, though, it is clear that it is the killer, Nikolas Cruz, 19 years old, and it is those agents of Government who knew or should have known of the danger Nikolas Cruz posed to the community, who are the principal causes for harm done to others.There were multiple warnings and warning signs of the danger Nikolas Cruz posed to the community, but Governmental authorities failed to heed those warnings and those signs. Had I been able to, I would have spoken up, alerting the School Board, alerting the FBI, and alerting the County Sheriff’s Office, of the imminent danger posed by Nikolas Cruz. The tragedy that occurred was easily preventable. Yet, local, County, State, and Federal authorities are not held to account. I, however, am held to account. I, the Gun, am deemed responsible for the myriad failings of people.Irresponsible, lawless acts, uncorrected, tend to repeat themselves—an endless loop of tragedy occurring ever again. So it is that yet another severely disturbed young man, Dimitrios Pagourtzis, went on a shooting rampage at a high school, in Santa Fe, Texas. That tragedy unfolded recently. How did this happen? Quite simply, the young man’s father failed to properly secure me. The father breached a duty of care owed to the community to prevent his son from gaining access to me. That failure led to horrific tragedy.The pattern is disturbingly familiar, replaying itself over and over again, and each time, the tragedy was preventable, and would have been prevented but for the failure of adults residing in the community, and but for the failure of Governmental authorities to act to thwart the tragedy. And, once again, the blame for the tragedy is laid at my feet. I, who cannot do any act, good or ill, but for an agent who wields me, is ever the scapegoat.Of course, the vast majority of gun owners are responsible. They treat me with respect. They handle me competently; and they properly secure me, preventing those who must not gain access to me, from doing so. Yet, there are individuals in Government, in industry, and even foreigners who bear a personal grudge against me and who hold me in contempt. And there are groups, comprising individuals whose sole purpose for existence is to eradicate me. These individuals think that by dispossessing millions of average, law-abiding, rational, responsible American citizens of me, the Gun, that violence will stop. It will not stop.A person need merely consider that, in many Western nations where Government has essentially banned me, violence continues unabated. Sociopathic and criminal elements in society still obtain possession of me and use me to seriously injure or kill innocent people. And, even if horrible, evil people do not have immediate access to me, that does not prevent them from causing horrific violence just the same. Those people who desire to harm others will always find a way and means to do so. And, they have done so, repeatedly, constantly, using knives, and bombs, and even cars and trucks to murder and maim innocent people.Still, the drumbeat continues for my banishment from so-called “civilized” society. Those individuals who detest me argue that violence can be stemmed simply by outlawing me. But, arbitrarily denying the average responsible citizen from owning and possessing me will do nothing to prevent lawless and deranged individuals from doing harm, whether by wielding me, or by wielding or utilizing another object. And, when all is said and done, I am just that—an object, a tool, nothing more. Those who seek to blame me, profane me, debase me, denigrate me, castigate me, would do well to recall a quotation from the classic 1953 Western film, “Shane,” where the protagonist offered this sage advice concerning me, as he addressed the wife of a rancher:“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.”Those who desire to ban me outright would do well to remember that banning me will do nothing to prevent the occurrence of and recurrence of evil acts. Evil cannot be legislated away, even as some people seem to believe that it can be legislated away or would like to believe that evil can be legislated away through the simplistic, implausible, unconscionable, and constitutionally impermissible, unlawful expedient of denying to the average, rational, responsible, law-abiding American citizen the fundamental right to own and possess me. At the end of the day, evil remains, and monstrous acts of violence will, unfortunately, continue to occur because evil exists in the heart of those people who seek to do evil, and there are, lamentably, all too many of those in the world. Evil does not and never did exist in me, “The Gun.”_________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE GREAT DIVIDE: THE POLITICAL LEFT AND POLITICAL RIGHT WAGE A MODERN-DAY CIVIL WAR FOR THE AMERICAN SOUL.

During the American Civil War, there were no fence sitters. Every American chose a side. In the border States, especially, brother fought against brother and father fought against son. Foreign nations stayed out of the fray, perceiving the war as an internal matter between two sides—each with its own needs, its own perspective, its own interpretation of the relation between the Federal Government to the States.“It was therefore much to the chagrin of United States President Abraham Lincoln when, in 1861, near the outset of the American Civil War, the British government recognized the belligerency of the Confederate States that had unilaterally seceded from the Union. This recognition caused the British to be neutral in the domestic American conflict and to aid neither the rebels nor the government.” “The Concept of Belligerency in International Law,” 166 Mil. L. Rev. 109, 114, December 2000, by  Lieutenant Colonel Yair M. Lootsteen, Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Arguably, Americans are headed toward outright civil war today. Granted, this present state of civil unrest has not devolved into actual armed conflict—at least not yet. But, in an important respect the situation existent in our Nation today bespeaks civil unrest as pronounced as that which led to the American Civil War. The outcome of this present day civil unrest will shape the future contours of our Nation as assuredly as the outcome of the American Civil War had shaped the contours of our Nation once Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to Ulysses S. Grant, in 1865.As use of the words ‘Yankee’ and ‘Rebel’ served, effectively, as colloquial expressions and shorthand descriptors for the opposing sides of the American Civil War, we see, today, as well, use of expressions, such as ‘Liberal Left’ and ‘Conservative Right’ bandied about in the media as shorthand descriptors for the two opposing sides in the modern American conflict. The terminology in use today, simplistic as it is, does underscore a clear, explicit, categorical, demarcation between two sides, in clear and perpetual opposition. As with the American Civil War, there are no fence sitters in this modern day civil war, even as many Americans proclaim themselves, ostensibly, to be independent, taking no side in this period of civil unrest.Through time, each side’s political, social, and economic philosophies have solidified. There is no debate. There can be none. Any attempt at compromise is impossible. Each side holds resolutely to one of two irreconcilable, mutually incompatible positions, representing two polar opposite ideological strains within the American polity. And, every American has a stake in the outcome of this present day state of nascent civil war.Transpiring today is more than mere “Culture War.” Americans are locked in mortal, internecine combat. The differences are stark and are readily perceived on multiple fronts. The outcome will change the very structure of the United States, as an independent sovereign Nation, forever.Each side views the Nation’s institutions from a different ideological perspective. Each side views the relationship of individual to Government and the relationship of one individual to another in a different light, even attaching a different meaning to the notion of ‘citizen.’ One major point of contention—an incipient and inevitable flashpoint that defines and clarifies the two sides—concerns how each side perceives the U.S. Constitution and, especially, how each side perceives the rights and liberties codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights.Liberals view the Bill of Rights as a set of man-made rules—constructs, contrivances, subject to modification and de facto repeal, as time and circumstance dictate, not unlike any Congressional Statute. Conservatives, though, view the Bill of Rights as natural law, intrinsic to each American citizen, fundamental and inalienable, therefore immutable; not man-made, and, so, superior to Congressional Statute, never subject to modification, much less perfunctory rejection.Liberals view the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as subject to constraint and modification on the basis of emotional impact to particular groups. Censorship is condoned if the purpose is to spare the feelings of groups. Conservatives view the freedom of speech clause as demanding full expression, consistent with high Court rulings. Censorship is to be avoided. Liberals play the game of “Identity Politics.” Conservatives do not.Liberals view the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment, as  archaic—to be ignored or to be statutorily constrained. Conservatives view the right of the people to keep and bear arms as pertinent today as at the founding of the Republic. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is absolutely fundamental to the autonomy of the American citizen and essential to the preservation of a free Republic, as the framers of the U.S. Constitution envisioned.There are other marked differences between The Liberal Left and the Conservative Right. The Liberal Left views moral acts from the standpoint of the impact of behavior on society as a whole. Personal intent and motivation behind one’s actions is considered irrelevant. The Liberal Left defines the moral good as maximizing utility for the greatest number of people. That ethical perspective detrimentally affects the rights and liberties of the individual. The Conservative Right, on the other hand, views morally good acts and morally wrong acts from the standpoint of a person’s intent. Maximizing utility for the multitude never outweighs the needs and interests of the individual.Liberals espouse a policy of open and porous borders, reflecting the idea that the notion of ‘citizen of the United States’ is essentially redundant in an increasingly globalized world. And they see the expression, ‘citizen of the United States,’ in the near future, as becoming essentially meaningless. For liberals, the people of any Country are deemed merely “citizens of the world,” and therefore free to emigrate to any nation at will. Liberals wish to see naturalization laws changed to recognize, exemplify, and reflect the idea that anyone who wishes to reside in the United States ought to be permitted to do so. Conservatives argue that a Sovereign Nation State—to be worthy of the name—must maintain the integrity of its borders. For Conservatives, no citizen or subject of a foreign power can legitimately stake claim to residing in the United States as a matter of legal or moral right. Conservatives maintain that Congress has sole authority, as the Constitution mandates, to determine who may emigrate to the U.S. and who may not, and to place restrictions on the number of those emigrating to this Country.The Political Left accepts--consistent with its view of the ‘Nation State’ as an archaic concept--the eventual dismantling of the United States as an independent Sovereign Nation. The Political Left sees this process as inevitable, inexorable, and irreversible. The Political Right views the dismantling of the United States as an anathema—a process, neither inevitable nor irreversible, and one to be prevented at all costs.Liberals believe in the utility and propriety of propaganda and psychological conditioning to effectuate their goals. Those who espouse Democratic liberalism, as that concept is understood and glorified, and placed into practice by the governing "elites" of the EU, do not believe in the autonomy and inviolability of the individual, and therefore do not profess concern over using the tools of propaganda to manipulate the American psyche to promote the Left’s policy goals. Americans are witnessing, in recent years, the explosive use of mind-control techniques, permitted and propagated through the Bureaucratic Deep State within the federal Government, and through the mainstream Press, and by billionaire CEOs of left-wing technological Companies, intent on promoting a socialist agenda, notwithstanding that such an agenda is inconsistent with the core values of our Nation and of our Nation’s history; inconsistent with our Constitution and system of laws; and inconsistent with the preservation of our Nation as a free Republic.Conservatives do not countenance use of propaganda or psychological conditioning to alter the mindset of the American citizenry under any circumstance. For the use of such techniques damage the individual psyche and spirit. Conservatives hold the use of such techniques to be intolerable. They view the use of such techniques as incompatible with the exercise of one’s free will. Moreover, for Conservatives, the idea that the United States can and ought to be relegated eventually to the status of a subordinate cog in a world-wide socialist federation of Western States is horrific in the very contemplation.The election of Donald Trump to the Office of President of the United States is illustrative of the battle for the soul of this Nation. Conservatives voted for Donald Trump as an act of defiance against a deviant Liberal tidal wave--a tidal wave that seeks to obliterate our Nation's core values, to shred our Nation's sacred traditions, to erase our Nation's unique and lasting history, and to reduce the population of our Country to abject servitude in docile service to an international ruling "elite." Curiously, the Political Left talks incessantly about a Constitutional crisis impacting this Nation and about the failure of Trump and the Political Right to adhere to “the rule of law.” Yet, it is abundantly clear that, although a Constitutional crisis does exist, it is one of the Political Left’s own making, starkly evidenced by, and through, the illegal appointment of a Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, whose sole purpose is to manufacture a reason to indict a duly elected, sitting President of the United States.Whether for good cause or no—and no cause whatsoever exists here for removing the U.S. President, Donald Trump, in any event—criminal indictment of a sitting President has never before occurred in our Nation, and no provision for indictment of a sitting President exists in the U.S. Constitution, and that is so for good reason: to preclude the subversion of the will of the American People by a hidden, powerful, inordinately wealthy upper class that seeks to create a Country amenable to their special, and exclusive interests. Robert Mueller’s audacious attempt to even consider compelling the U.S. President to appear before a Grand Jury is indicative of a dangerous coup d’état playing out before the American electorate by a secretive "elite."Liberals constantly maintain that the American people are a Nation governed by the rule of law. That means our Nation is to be governed by law, not by men. What the very existence of the Bureaucratic Deep State, entrenched with hundreds if not thousands of holdovers from the Obama Administration, demonstrates, though, is that We, the People, are a Nation that is consistently ruled not by law, but by men, contrary to the platitudes voiced by politicians of the Liberal Left.Americans are indeed in the midst of major civil unrest, headed toward outright civil war. How this plays out will be seen through President Trump’s ability to weather all underhanded attempts to destroy his Presidency and by the strength of those Americans who have not been deluded and are fully capable of perceiving the presence of and understanding the inherent danger presented by a ruthless, cunning and intractable foe lurking ominously in their midst.If the Political Left prevails--and as its failure to seat the devious, duplicitous, anti-American Globalist Hillary Clinton in the White House has not prevented the Political Left's efforts to dismantle a Country situated as a sovereign Nation State, but, rather, has caused the Political Left merely to redouble its  treacherous efforts to defeat the Will of a Conservative populist surge desirous of preserving a Nation founded on the sacred principles of the founding fathers, as those principles have been set in stone in the U.S. Constitution and in the Constitution's sacred Bill of Rights--socialism will rear its ugly head, and a sovereign Nation State, a free Republic, and a free people, will be well-nigh forever lost._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

AFTER THE PARKLAND FLORIDA HIGH SCHOOL SHOOTING, ANTIGUN FORCES LAUNCH VIRULENT MULTIPRONGED ATTACK AGAINST CIVILIAN POSSESSION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS.

ANTIGUN GROUPS LAUNCH MASSIVE ANTIGUN CAMPAIGN TO RESTRICT AND CONSTRICT THE AMERICAN CITZENS' EXERCISE OF THEIR NATURAL AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, UTILIZING SEVERAL VENUES: MAINSTREAM MEDIA PROPAGANDA; CONGRESS, STATE LEGISLATURES; LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL BODIES; AND THROUGHN THE COURTS.

INTRODUCTION

Coming on the heels of the tragic incident at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, Florida, this past February, the American people have witnessed an incessant barrage of virulent antigun messaging, along with an extensive vicious campaign, on multiple fronts: through the Press, through local, State and Federal Government, and through the Courts. And, all of it aimed toward denying the average law-abiding, rational, responsible firearm owner of his or her natural and fundamental right to keep and bear arms, codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Antigun activists, including advocacy groups, legislators, and mainstream media organizations and the secretive wealthy, powerful Globalist interests financing their efforts, see an opening. They are reinvigorated. They believe they can convince the public to accept further constraints on the Second Amendment. Antigun groups and like-minded individuals, in the media, in entertainment, in government, and in the Courts are all pushing once again, and more forcefully, to constrain Americans’ access to firearms, commencing with attacks on civilian ownership and possession of semiautomatic firearms. These antigun elements are clearly pressing for federal firearms’ legislation, modeled on the National Firearms Act of 1934, that, given the NFA’s onerous licensing requirements and monetary expense, has, for most Americans, effectively operated as a ban on civilian ownership of fully automatic and selective fire weapons. In a series of articles, commencing with a look at a draconian local ordinance, we will analyze and comment on recent legislative and judicial actions and efforts, in various jurisdictions, to restrict, or further restrict, or to ban outright public possession of semiautomatic firearms, misidentified and pejoratively referred to as “assault weapons” or “weapons of war.” We begin this series with an analysis and commentary on an amendment to a local community’s restrictive firearms’ ordinances.

PART ONE

THE VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD, LOCATED IN LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS, 25 MILES NORTH OF CHICAGO, AMENDS A FIREARMS’ ORDINANCE, BANNING, ALTOGETHER, WITHIN ITS JURIDICTIONAL BORDERS, CIVILIAN POSSESSION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS, DEFINED AS ‘ASSAULT WEAPONS.’

IN THE VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD, ILLINOIS, RESIDENTS HAVE 60 DAYS TO GET RID OF THEIR PERSONAL PROPERTY—SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS DEFINED AS “ASSAULT WEAPONS”—OR FACE ONE THOUSAND DOLLAR FINE PER DAY FINE.

On April 6, 2018, the Village of Deerfield amended a firearms ordinance, to take effect, June 13, 2018, that bans, outright, the ownership and possession of firearms, defined, in Illinois Statute, as ‘assault weapons.’ The impetus for this action, set forth in the ordinance reads, in part: “the corporate authorities of the Village of Deerfield find that, since the enactment of Village of Deerfield Ordinance No. 0-13-24 (July 1, 2013), assault weapons have been  increasingly  used  in an  alarming  number  of  notorious  mass  shooting  incidents  at public schools, public venues, places of worship and places of public accommodation including but not limited to, the recent mass shooting incidents in Parkland, Florida (Margery Stoneman  Douglas High School; 17 people killed), Sutherland Springs, Texas (First Baptist Church; 26 people killed), Las Vegas, Nevada (Music Festival; 58 people killed), and Orlando, Florida (Pulse Nightclub; 49 people killed). . . .” The Ordinance No. 0-18-06, amends Chapter 15 (morals and conduct), article 11 (assault weapons), section 15-87 (safe storage of assault weapons) and section 15-88 (transportation of assault weapons) of the municipal code of the village of Deerfield to regulate the possession, manufacture and sale of assault weapons in the village of Deerfield. There is a notable carve-out to the outright ban on possession of firearms, defined as ‘assault weapons.’ Village officials have exempted, inter alia, law enforcement officers, agents or employees of the Village; of the State of Illinois; of any other State, or federal law enforcement officers. Retired law enforcement officers are also exempted from the outright ban but must comply with storage requirements related to such weapons.

SHOULD AMERICANS, OTHER THAN THOSE WHO RESIDE IN DEERFIELD, ILLINOIS BE CONCERNED?

Granted, the Village of Deerfield is a small community in a State not known for supporting the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but, even, by the severely restrictive firearms standards of Illinois law, and the severely restrictive nature of the Deerfield Ordinance, as originally enacted, the present incarnation of the Village of Deerfield Ordinance is even more extreme. To get a handle on just how extreme this Ordinance is, consider a couple of passages.As originally enacted, the Ordinance sets forth, in paragraph “(a)”, titled, “Safe Storage,” that: “It shall be unlawful to possess, bear, manufacture, sell, transfer, transport, store or keep any assault weapon on the village unless such weapons is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper resistant mechanical lock or other safety devise, properly engaged. . . .” The redraft of the Ordinance strikes out the entirety of the paragraph except for this sentence: “It shall be unlawful to store or keep any assault weapon in the Village.” The Ordinance, as amended, explains further how an individual who had previously lawfully acquired an “assault weapon,” and who had lawfully acquired a large capacity magazine (LCM), defined in Illinois law as a magazine capable of holding 10 rounds of ammunition or more, may legally dispose of both. An individual may either:“Remove, sell or transfer the Assault Weapon or Large Capacity Magazine from within the limits of the Village; Modify the Assault Weapon or Large Capacity Magazine either to render it permanently inoperable or to permanently make it a device no longer defined as an Assault Weapon  or Large Capacity Magazine; or Surrender the Assault Weapon or Large Capacity Magazine to the Chief of Police or his or her designee for disposal as provided in Section 15-91 of this Article.”Suppose a person wishes to retain his or her “assault weapon” and LCM. That person, who does not fall within a stated exemption, cannot do so she cannot do so. Moreover, the penalties for failure to abide by the Ordinance are as harsh as the Ordinance that denies one the right to maintain control over his or her own personal property. The Ordinance sets forth that:“Any person who is found to have violated this Article shall be fined not less than $250 and not more than $1,000 for each offense. and a separate offense shall be deemed committed on each day during or on which a violation occurs or continues. Every person convicted of any violation under this Article shall, in addition to any penalty provided in this Code, forfeit to the Village any assault weapon.”An individual has “60 days” from the effective date of the Ordinance, April 2, 2018, to comply with the Ordinance or be penalized. “The Chief of Police or his or her designee shall have the power to confiscate any assault weapon of any person charged with a violation under this Article. The Chief of Police shall cause to be destroyed each Assault Weapon or Large Capacity Magazine  surrendered or confiscated  pursuant to this Article. . . .”The Ordinance hasn’t gone unchallenged. On its website, the Village of Deerfield points to a lawsuit filed by the Illinois State Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation. The Arbalest Quarrel hasn’t had, as of the posting of this article, an opportunity to review the lawsuit, but the Village of Deerfield says: “the sole legal issue . . . is whether the Village lawfully ‘amended’ its prior assault weapons ordinance under Illinois law . . . [and, inter alia, that] the lawsuit effectively concedes the lawfulness of the Village’s assault weapons ban under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”The short answer to the question whether Illinois precludes County and local governments within the State to enact rules, codes, regulations, or ordinances contrary to State firearms laws is this: “partially.” The Illinois Preemption Statute, pertaining to Firearms, 430 ILCS 65/13.1, titled, “Preemption,” sets forth, in respect to firearms, designated, ‘assault weapons,’ the following:“Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this Section, the regulation of the possession or ownership of assault weapons are exclusive powers and functions of this State. Any ordinance or regulation, or portion of that ordinance or regulation, that purports to regulate the possession or ownership of assault weapons in a manner that is inconsistent with this Act, shall be invalid unless the ordinance or regulation is enacted on, before, or within 10 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly. Any ordinance or regulation described in this subsection (c) enacted more than 10 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly is invalid. An ordinance enacted on, before, or within 10 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly may be amended. The enactment or amendment of ordinances under this subsection (c) are subject to the submission requirements of Section 13.3 [430 ILCS 65/13.3]. For the purposes of this subsection, ‘assault weapons’ means firearms designated by either make or model or by a test or list of cosmetic features that cumulatively would place the firearm into a definition of ‘assault weapon’ under the ordinance.” Presumably, the Village of Deerfield Ordinance, as originally enacted, is consistent with Illinois Statute. The question here is whether the recent amendment to the Deerfield Ordinance coheres with Illinois Statute.

A FEW OBSERVATIONS:

I. THE VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD ORDINANCE OPERATES IN BLATANT DEFIANCE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

The Village of Deerfield Ordinance goes much further than the New York Safe Act and the laws of similar jurisdictions that ban possession of firearms, defined as ‘assault weapons,’ insofar as individuals who lawfully acquired the weapons prior to enactment of the "assault weapons" ban timely register the weapons in accordance with State law and abide by other restrictions, pertaining to the weapons. Thus, the NY Safe Act has a so-called “grandfather” provision, as do the laws of various other States, albeit the provision in the NY Safe Act, for example, does not,  allow the owner of such “grandfathered” firearm to transfer that weapon to another person. Be that as it may, the Village of Deerfield provision goes one step further as there is no “grandfather” provision in the amended Ordinance. Hence, even those weapons that a person lawfully acquired before adoption of the amended Ordinance, cannot lawfully retain those weapons in the Village of Deerfield. The gun owner must get rid of them or render them inoperable if that gun owner chooses to retain custody over them.

II. CAN THE VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD ORDINANCE WITHSTAND A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDINANCE VIOLATES THE CORE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT?

The Second Amendment issue goes to whether semiautomatic weapons defined in law, as ‘assault weapons’ fall within the core protection of the Second Amendment. Two cases on whether so-called “assault weapons” fall within the core protection of the Second Amendment went up to the U.S. Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari. One of them, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2930 (4th Cir. 2017), en banc, cert. den., 138 S. Ct. 469, 199 L. Ed. 2d 374, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 7002, 86 U.S.L.W. 3264, was denied a hearing and review by the U.S. Supreme Court, without comment. An earlier case involving the issue, Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6902 (7th Cir. Ill., 2015), cert. den., 136 S. Ct. 447, 193 L. Ed. 2d 483, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 7681, was denied a high Court hearing but over a vigorous dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas, with the late Justice Antonin Scalia joining Thomas in his angry comment. It is likely, given the remarks of Justice Thomas, referencing the seminal Second Amendment case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570; 128 S. Ct. 2783; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), that, had the high Court taken up the issue in either the Friedman case or Kolbe, the conservative wing Majority of the Court would find that so-called “assault weapons” do fall within the core of the Second Amendment, consistent with the rulings and reasoning of the Majority Opinion in Heller. But, it was the possibility of just such a ruling that obviously precluded the garnering of four votes necessary to obtain a high Court hearing on that salient issue, at the heart of the case. And, so, the American public is, once again, facing a continuing whittling away of Second Amendment protections, as forewarned by Justice Thomas, who observed that the Second Amendment has been reduced to a second-class right.

III. CAN THE VILLAGE OF DEERFIELD ORDINANCE WITHSTAND A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDINANCE AMOUNTS TO AN ILLEGAL EX POST FACTO LAW?

An ex post facto law is a law that criminalizes an action that had previously been lawful. The framers of the Constitution absolutely abhorred the enactment of such laws, referred to as ex post facto laws. Ex post facto laws are facially illegal. This means not only that our Constitution is the supreme law of the Land, but that legislation must always be appraised for lawfulness within the context of the U.S. Constitution. Restrictive gun legislation—all gun legislation that negatively impacts the Second Amendment—is immediately suspect.Many legislators, be they members of Congress or assembly people in State or local Government, seem to forget the fact that the Constitution is supreme. Legislative enactments are not supreme and often abut dangerously against the sacred rights and liberties codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. But this failure to respect the U.S. Constitution has had a decidedly unfortunate multiplier effect. For, as Federal and State Statutes, and local codes, regulations, and ordinances chisel away at our fundamental rights and liberties, the populace accedes to the incremental slow destruction of their rights and liberties.The action of the Deerfield Village government may be seen as a microcosm of disastrous actions of Congress, ostensibly operating—so Congressional members say—for the benefit of the public, when they are benefitting themselves or secretive parties who have no interest in securing the rights and liberties of Americans.  So, firearms, designated as “assault weapons,” are banned simply on the “say-so” of those in charge, and the possession of such weapons constitutes a criminal act that heretofore had fallen within lawful bounds of local or State law.Justice Thomas and the late eminent Justice Scalia expressed constant consternation at the arrogance of legislators who denigrate the sacred rights of the citizenry under the guise of protecting the public order. Redress is required._________________________________________________ Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE ANTIGUN MESSAGE OF TEACHERS’ UNIONS MISSES THE MARK ON GUN VIOLENCE.

Antigun activists must take Americans for fools. When a terrorist, gangbanger, lunatic, or your garden variety criminal seriously injures or murders innocent citizens, be it with a knife, a bomb, a car or truck, a baseball bat, or a firearm—no matter the object—the answer to stemming violence of all kinds is ever the same: “Get rid of the Guns!” That’s the long and short of it. Many members of the American public feed on such misguided, imperious and impertinent anti-Second Amendment slogans, manufactured by and pressed into service by the destroyers of our sacred rights and liberties, taking them to heart. The mainstream Press obliges, churning these slogans out regularly, incessantly. The verbiage may change a bit, but the message does not.Members of the public, who succumb to the antigun rhetoric and propaganda, espouse enactment of ever more restrictive firearms legislation—firearms legislation targeting the law-abiding American civilian population. Individuals who buy into the rhetoric and propaganda believe strongly, although wrongly, that the solution to societal violence is as simple to understand and to effectuate as recitation of the antigun slogans themselves. It isn’t. Contrary to the implication behind these anti-American slogans, no simple cause exists for today’s endemic violence. Accordingly, no simple solution exists for curbing it.But, one point is poignantly clear if a person would just stop to consider it. It is a point antigun advocates won’t mention. It is one antigun advocates would never countenance; and it is a point the mainstream Press—the willing bullhorn of the antigun establishment—would not so much as intimate. Societal violence is a manifestation of human conduct, not inanimate, non-sentient objects.Guns do not go on shooting sprees on their own volition. Knives do not stab individuals on a personal whim. Cars and trucks do not, themselves, ponder jumping curbs to run down bystanders. Yet antigun advocates convey the impression that inanimate objects, firearms, especially, are the innate causal agents of violence—that they “work” a sort of sorcery on individuals who, themselves, become merely the vessels for carrying out acts of violence. So, it is guns—those in the hands of law-abiding, rational American citizens and civilians—that are targeted for unceremonious eradication.“Get rid of guns!” That is the battle cry. And, the antigun advocates count on the public’s wholesale acceptance of their agenda, shaping and molding opinion to their cause; playing on emotion; stoking fear and anger. There is no reflection; no consideration; no debate. Antigun propagandists, activists, and zealots want none of it, believing that serious reflection, consideration, debate to be unnecessary, irrelevant or, more to the point, dangerous, as even a modicum of thoughtful reflection would bring immediately to light, the legal and logical weaknesses of their position.Americans who fall prey to and buy into simplistic antigun messaging and proselytizing operate unthinkingly, mindlessly, reflexively, like a village mob, brandishing pitchforks and torches, hell-bent on destroying Dr. Frankenstein’s monster—believing that ridding the Nation of firearms will in fact stem gun violence and curb most societal violence. They fail to realize that the “monster” they seek to destroy will not be destroyed—cannot be destroyed—because it is no more than a creation of the antigun propagandists. It is a shadowy figment, existing not in the “gun” at all, but in themselves. The monster manifests in and takes on form and substance, and life, as they wish it to—in their own weak, benighted natures.Of course, some Americans, certainly the antigun perpetrator activists who seek public acceptance of their antigun agenda, would like to see civilian gun ownership and possession substantially curtailed and eventually eliminated from American society, even though realization of their goal wouldn’t reduce societal violence one iota. They know this. Indeed, if pressed, they would likely acknowledge this. Antigun activists’ abhorrence of guns rests as much on aesthetic grounds as on social and political ones. They simply do not like guns; see no benefit to having them in “civilized society;” and, so, do not accept that American people have a fundamental, natural right to keep and bear arms. For antigun activists, zealots and those members of the public that fall prey to the messaging, the idea that Americans have a natural fundamental right to keep and bear arms is repugnant; an anathema; not simply arguably wrong, but heretical, even nonsensical.Yet, many more Americans—most Americans—believe fervently in the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as did the founders of our free Republic, the framers of our Constitution, who sensibly realized the importance of codifying that sacred right in the Second Amendment. This is an article of faith. The antithesis of which—that no American has an unalienable right to keep and bear arms—is truly heretical. So long as the concept of natural rights remains a bedrock principle of our Nation, all the chanting, ranting, and prattling, for yet more restrictive gun laws, will be rendered moot, as well such sanctimonious posturing should.On April 5, 2018, the United Federation of Teachers (“UFT”)—a teacher’s union that represents New York City Schools—posted two articles in its publication, in support of the antigun “March for our Lives” demonstration that took place in Washington, D.C. Similar antigun protest marches took place in New York City, and elsewhere around the Country, drawing hundreds of thousands of high school and middle school students, as well as public school educators and administrators. The mass shooting incident at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14, served as the impetus and pretext for the marches. Michael Bloomberg’s antigun advocacy group, “Everytown for Gun Safety,” and other groups, sympathetic to the goals of Bloomberg’s group, provided funding, organization, and logistical support for the students.UFT President Michael Mulgrew, who authored one of the articles appearing in the Union’s publication, titled, “Time for common sense on guns,” says that the protestors “demand sensible gun laws to keep weapons out of our communities,” and that students “don’t want to live with fear and [that] they are tired of waiting for Washington, D.C. to stand up to the National Rifle Association.” To emphasize his own abhorrence of firearms, the UFT President added this weak attempt at a play on words: “teachers should be marking papers, not being trained in marksmanship.” Rachel Nobel, UFT Staff Reporter, who authored a second article, that appeared in the same April 15 publication, titled, “Taking a stand against gun violence,” reiterated the UFT President’s comment that arming teachers was a bad idea. She asserted: “Many teachers had come to protest President Donald Trump’s proposal for licensing teachers to carry weapons in schools.” In her article Rachel Nobel quotes Larry Sachs, a teacher at PS 57, who asserted, “If taking one gun off the street saves your child from being shot, then it’s worth it.” As can be seen, a cascade of antigun slogans tumbles through these UFT articles.The overuse of slogans, in support of the position for further gun restrictions against the civilian populace of this Country, is aptly and abundantly illustrated in the titles of the two UFT articles and in the articles’ content. Slogans invariably fill mainstream news and opinion articles as well. Slogans serve, at best, as a feeble substitute for vigorous, sustained argument. At worse, they are inane, doing the American citizenry a disservice, playing simply to one's emotion, rather than to one's intellect. Use of slogans rather than cogent argument promotes intellectual laziness--both in the author of an article and in the reader. Author and reader are encouraged--nay, expected--to suspend critical judgment.The principal, albeit tacit, point of the two UFT articles is that popular support exists for yet further gun restrictions. Apparently, the UFT President and UFT Staff Reporter, and, evidently, many teachers and school administrators across the Country, believe that, although this Nation suffers from hundreds of Federal, State, and local restrictive firearms’ statutes, codes, regulations, and rules, many more are needed. Obviously, those who espouse further restrictive gun measures won't be satisfied until civilian possession of firearms in this Country is ended.Of course, tens of millions of American citizens do not support further gun restrictions. But, even if we assume, for purpose of argument, that more Americans than not, do support ever more gun control, does popular support, in and of itself, constitute a sound argument for it? No, it doesn’t!Among the informal fallacies known to antiquity, argumentum ad populum, is a common one. The argument, “appeal to popularity,”—also referred to in common parlance as “appeal to the people”—rests on the fallacious claim that, because a significant number of people believe a proposition to be true, the proposition is true.In the present case, the idea conveyed is that, because hundreds of thousands of people, taking part in the recent antigun protest demonstrations, believe that further restrictive firearms’ measures will reduce gun violence, it follows that further restrictive firearms’ measures will, in fact, reduce gun violence, and that further restrictions on civilian ownership and possession of firearms will reduce all forms of societal violence. These notions are false, blatantly so. No matter. Yet, the mainstream media insists on presenting these false notions as fact; as self-evident truth.This is a prime example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy. The fallacy proceeds from the idea that popular opinion constitutes good and sufficient evidence to support a claim. Consensus, among the masses, though, does not, in and of itself, provide evidence in support of the truth of a proposition. Shouting loud and long does not make a claim true, or “truer,” contrary to what many Americans —including all too many young people, who are particularly sensitive to emotional messaging—may happen to think.Apparently, many young Americans, as well as all too many older ones, feel that whoever shouts the longest and the loudest is one whose judgment is correct, and who, therefore, is to be believed over someone—anyone—who operates through calm reflection, who articulates a point clearly, cogently, softly, rather than through bombast.The American public should not, in any event, be subsidizing, with its tax dollars, student protests during school days and hours. Better it would be if high school students debated the issue of societal violence, calmly and intelligently, in the classroom, not in the public forum. Doing so would allow for more sensible and productive use of time.Yet, rather than seeing teachers and school administrators beseeching students to operate through restraint, we see all too many of them taking part in group excesses, along with these students. We see teachers and administrators, at the behest of the leadership of antigun groups, indulging students’ baser instincts; unconscionably encouraging, abetting, and exploiting raw emotion in young people, rather than encouraging restraint on emotions.Teachers should be cultivating each student’s critical faculties, cautioning each of them of the dangers in allowing emotions to hold sway over rational intellect, especially in moments when the rational mind is overwhelmed by senseless tragedy. But, that is where personal strength, fortitude, and indomitability of spirit come into play—where a person checks his or her emotions at the door, preventing those who hide an ulterior motive from making use of a student’s understandable anger and fear, to promote an insidious and deceptive agenda—one detrimental to the preservation of our Nation’s sacred rights and liberties. Oh, but wouldn’t that be a shame!_________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.   

MARJORY STONEMAN DOUGLAS STUDENTS CHAFF AT, RATHER THAN APPLAUD, SCHOOL SECURITY MEASURES IN THE WAKE OF TRAGEDY.

PART SEVEN

THE DEAFENING, MIND-NUMBING CALL, SHOUTING OUT ALL REASON: GET RID OF CIVILIAN OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF GUNS; AND THEN SCHOOLS WILL BE SAFE!

Students who attend Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, site of the tragic incident last February, who took part in the recent “March for Life,” organized and orchestrated by Michael Bloomberg’s antigun advocacy Group, “Everytown for Gun Safety,” fervently believe, albeit erroneously, that gun violence in schools can be traced, in this Country, directly, indisputably, and solely to the existence of millions of semiautomatic long guns, dubbed, ‘assault weapons.’ The answer to gun violence in schools, as these students have concluded, is simple: just outlaw civilian ownership and possession of guns in this Country, commencing with "assault weapons," and, once accomplished, schools across the Country will be safe from gun violence and from any other deadly violence. Ergo, no other security in schools is needed.How is it that young people—students in our Nation’s schools—have inculcated a virulent abhorrence of firearms? The answer may seem, at first blush, to be simple. After all, many students have witnessed deadly violence firsthand. They have seen lunatics misuse firearms, causing catastrophic, horrific violence. So, it would seem reasonable to conclude that young people have linked violence inextricably to guns and to guns alone. Thus, many young people now fear firearms. There is a name for this fear it is called, 'hoplophobia.' But, why has this fear of guns blossomed among so many young people. After all, schools across the Country, once had gun clubs. They once did, but no longer. Now there is fear of guns. That phobia is seen now as the "new normal." 

ANTIGUN ACTIVISTS, ANTIGUN POLITICIANS, AND THE ECHO CHAMBER OF ANTIGUN ADVOCATES--THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA--DO NOT ATTEMPT TO ASSUAGE THE IRRATIONAL FEAR OF GUNS; INSTEAD THEY STOKE THE FEAR, FEEDING THE FEAR, LIKE ADDING WOOD OR COAL TO A FIRE.

Clearly, antigun advocacy groups that lurk behind the scenes have fostered, in the minds of young people, the notion that societal violence is to be equated unequivocally and solely to the existence of large numbers of firearms in society—especially those semiautomatic long guns given the appellation, ‘assault weapons’—and that such violence is intractable so long as civilian ownership of firearms continues. This, obviously, is a false notion. But once a person accepts this notion as a self-evident truth, no further explanation for the existence of rampant violence in society is necessary. And the answer to stamping out rampant violence in society becomes clear: simply abolish civilian ownership and possession of firearms, commencing with those modeled on the original AR-15 Armalite prototype; and that, once this is accomplished, society will be safe and secure from violent acts. That is the simple and straightforward answer. The boogeyman, the bugbear, is "the gun." Abolish "the gun" and society will be safe and secure--so it is said. And, that is the clarion call of antigun advocates.It is difficult to believe that sentient, rational beings would truly believe such a simplistic notion to a complex matter, as violence is endemic not only in our society but, indeed, endemic  across the nations of Europe where guns in the hands of the civilian population is virtually unheard of.* Yet, severe restrictions on civilian access to firearms is the singular the message antigun activists have delivered constantly, unceasingly, and disingenuously to young people, in recent days and weeks, and many youth of our Nation have internalized this false notion and now hold to it with indefatigable conviction as the simple and certain answer to the horror that befell some of them. The answer invariably presented--just preclude civilian possession of guns, commencing with the confiscation of assault weapons--sounds plausible enough, on the surface at least, as many wrong theories often do.Truthfully, those students suffering from the trauma of the horrific tragedy that unfolded in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School can be forgiven a failure to pierce the veil of deceptive messaging. But, as for these antigun activists, they are not to be forgiven. For, they are deliberately filling the minds of young people with nonsense about firearms, insidiously taking advantage of and shaping the minds of young people whose clarity of reason has been severely weakened through the horrific violence witnessed. The students of MSD, and in other schools that have faced similar tragedy, are looking for answers, for some common, sensible thread that may explain a horrific act that defies simple explanation; and they will grasp at anything that may seem reasonable, even if that explanation is superficial--even nonsensical upon close examination and reflection. Antigun activists arrive to fill the void, taking advantage of a monstrous happenstance to further their goal of a disarming the citizenry of this Nation.Obviously, antigun advocacy groups have exploited the young of our Nation in pursuit of a personal agenda, one immediately detrimental to the safeguarding of our sacred heritage, detrimental to the continued security and well-being of our Nation and its people, and incompatible with the preservation of our sacred rights and liberties. Antigun advocacy groups—certainly those in the upper echelons of these organizations know full well that ever further restrictive gun laws—laws aimed at the average, rational, law-abiding citizen—will not stem gun violence. But the raison d’étre of these antigun activists--those at the highest levels of their respective organizations--are directed not at stemming gun violence but at population control. They realized the “plum” dropped in their laps after the tragedy struck a high school in Florida. These young people serve a useful purpose for what the antigun activists ultimately seek: the de facto or de jure destruction of the Second Amendment and, thus, the end of the individual right of the American citizen to keep and bear arms. But, even that goal is not the end they seek in and of itself. No! They seek a general ban on civilian ownership and possession of firearms to accomplish something more: namely, to exert control over the masses: the American citizenry. That goal will be realized, first and foremost, through suppression of the fundamental, sacred right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. These antigun activists have conscripted many young people to fill their ranks as budding antigun activists. But, it is not population control that is stressed: rather, it is public safety--suppressing civilian ownership and possession of firearms would be a positive thing because, as they argue, it would promote public safety by protecting the public from itself; it would protect the public from the rapaciousness of guns, just as the Eighteenth Amendment--later repealed by the Twenty-first--was meant to protect the public from the danger of alcohol consumption. What the antigun activists really have in mind is population control; not public safety, as the firearms restrictions they seek to impose would not control, and are not designed to exert control, over the criminal population embedded in the Country. Antigun activists do not see psychopathic criminals, or even lunatics, as the real scourge. No! For the hard-core antigun group leaders, and for the billionaire internationalists who fund those organizations, it is the average, law-abiding, rational citizen who is perceived as the real threat to security. But, that concern is not addressed to public. It is only conveyed to those in the upper echelons of the organizations.

AN ILLUSION CAREFULLY CULTIVATED

The illusion, or delusion of guns as the personification of evil in society, has gripped many Americans, young and old, in our Nation. Reporters and editors, commentators and contributors of the mainstream media, have, at the behest of their billionaire internationalist, trans-nationalist Globalist benefactors, vigorously, passionately, methodically, and unceasingly cultivated, and stoked, and pushed on the American public misperceptions about an inanimate object: the “gun.” Many individuals have bought into that paradigm, blind to the fact that subtle and not so subtle factors contribute to or serve as the true causal agents of violence in society: broken homes; the destruction of the nuclear family; moral relativism overriding traditional values; the rewriting of a Nation’s history; the presence of criminal gangs and drug cartels running amok in our Nation; waves of unassimilable people coming to our shores, holding odd, alien beliefs, and harboring secret resentment toward our Nation and toward its core values; the easy availability of and access to illegal drugs and, concomitantly, rampant drug addiction affecting masses of citizenry young and old alike; unchecked illegal immigration, permeating and percolating throughout our Country; and the crass fostering, by Hollywood moguls, and computer game programmers, of themes of unimaginable violence, targeting, mainly, the young people of our Nation. These are a few of the causal agents of violence in our Nation. But, for antigun activists, there is only one supernal cause of violence in society, and one abiding concern as they relate to the public: the availability of firearms to the American citizenry, as a threat to societal order. This illusion—delusion really—is the takeaway for many young people, understandably very seriously impacted by the horrific violence that took place in their school.It should surprise no one, then, that young people, who took part in the antigun rally in Washington, D.C., and in Cities across the Nation, should exhibit passion for and toward the antigun cause. For, as they observe a lunatic murdering their friends with a firearm—a sight difficult to fathom—they matter-of-factly equate violence solely with firearms. That is understandable; for that is what they saw. Antigun advocates, for their part, far from dissuading these young people from overgeneralizing about guns, and from drawing false connections and conclusions, are encouraging remonstration against guns, and guns alone, as the root cause of violence in the Nation’s schools and in the greater society. So it is that antigun groups have indoctrinated the young people into fervently accepting the truth of patently false beliefs about both guns and about public safety—this, notwithstanding that lunatics and psychopathic terrorists have, in recent years, murdered and seriously injured innocent people—and on a massive scale—through a variety of means, including: bombs, knives, and even vehicles. No guns were involved in any of those horrific events. Yet, as for the people murdered or maimed by a bomb, or a knife, or a vehicle, the American public is to conclude what, exactly, from this? That it is still the existence of the firearm that remains the singular problem in our society? So, argues one antigun activist, Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York, even as terrorists did indeed foment deadly violence on innocent people in the City, in recent months, but through means—a rented truck in one instance, and a bomb in another instance—that did not involve use of “the gun” at all.

THE SAD TRUTH: PASSION ALL TOO OFTEN CLOUDS JUDGMENT

A local Floridian newspaper, the Sun Sentinel, reports: Broward County School officials have instituted new security measures at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, and across the School District, in the wake of the tragedy. They include the use of student identification lanyards, and transparent backpacks for students.You would think that students would applaud these new security measures, minimal ones at that. Not so. Many students have been taken aback by them. Here’s a sampling of their statements that appear on Twitter or as recited to the Press:

_____________________________________

In a Fox news account, one student, Shanon Li, a senior at Stoneman Douglas High School, remarks: “It’s a little insane, because we need our privacy.” Another student activist, Delaney Tarr, who attends a school in Parkland, Florida, echoes the sentiment, asserting, erroneously, albeit indignantly with the conviction of young people, convinced of the truth of their beliefs that: his having to wear a clear backpack at school is a “violation of privacy.”Yet, another student, Chris Christianson, posts, on Twitter, the words of the Fourth Amendment to make crystal clear--evidently as clear as the transparent backpacks that students must, henceforth, use in Parkland, Florida schools--his consternation over perceived violations of the Fourth Amendment. This student is wrong, of course, even as he obviously views the School Board’s new requirement that students use transparent backpacks to constitute a gross infringement of the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment. And, what of the Second Amendment? Apparently, that Amendment can be dispensed with.Isabelle Robinson, a student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School told CNN as picked up by the website, infowars, “It feels like being punished,” “It feels like jail, being checked every time we go to school.” David Hogg, and MSD student and the new face and darling child of the student antigun movement, sporting the hashtag, “#NeverAgain activist,” makes clear his disdain for the new security measures, telling “Axios’ Mike Allen on Friday that his high school is ‘like a prison’ since the shooting last month, with increased security and safety measures."Another MSD Student asserts (news.com.au) with all the conviction of a child, deaf to the voice of reason: “Clear backpacks are an invasion of privacy.” New security measure forces kids to carry personal items & school supplies in a school-issued clear bookbag but many students feel as if they’re being punished.” That same student adds, sarcastically: “This backpack is probably worth more than my life.”Lauren Hoggs, David Hoggs’ sister, asserts in one “tweet”, so as not to be outdone by her brother:“Today when I walk into school I will be greeted with armed police, wand detectors and clear backpacks. Is this what my high school experience is going to be like? 3 more years of this. . . Someday when my kids ask me about my high school experience what am I going to tell them?”And, in another “tweet,” Lauren Hoggs retorts, sarcastically:“My new backpack is almost as transparent as the NRA’s agenda. I feel sooo safe now. As much as I appreciate the effort we as a country need to focus on the real issue instead of turning our schools into prisons.”Yet another student exclaims (news.com.au), acidly: "Can I just ask, where in these #clearbackpacks are females supposed to put their tampons/sanitary towels? Are they supposed to wedge it between books? Well if you could do that then surely you could put a gun in a folder or between textbooks, no?”Even adults get into the act. The mother of one student, focusing on firearms, rather than on school security, and showing her obvious disdain for firearms, asserts, acerbically (mobile.twitter.com) “If we're not going to do anything about our lax gun laws, then my son needs a bullet proof backpack, not a clear one.”

______________________________________

 What is going on here? The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School students--viciously attacking the sanctity of the Second Amendment--are suddenly expressing concern over ridiculous accusations of violations of the unreasonable searches and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment.

IN THE FACE OF CONSTANT MEDIA ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND IN THE FACE OF LEGIONS OF ILL-INFORMED AMERICANS WHO HAVE FALLEN FOR THE PROPAGANDA SPOUTED INCESSANTLY THROUGH THE ECHO CHAMBER OF THE NEWSPAPERS AND THROUGH CABLE NEWS, THOSE AMERICANS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN IN BY THE FALSE PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THOSE WHO SEEK TO UNDERMINE THE NATION'S BILL OF RIGHTS, MUST REMAIN CALM AND VIGILANT; BUT MUST ALSO STAND FIRM AGAINST THOSE FORCES THAT WOULD DARE  DESTROY THE NATION'S SACRED RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES, UNDER THE SPECIOUS, NONSENSICAL GUISE OF PROMOTING PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY. AMERICANS MUST NOT BE TAKEN IN BY THE RUSE.

The real danger for Americans—certainly if Democrats attain majorities in the House and Senate—is that Congressional Democrats will use their power to undermine, yet further, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The bizarre and absurd remarks that come out of the mouths of young people, of late, are, to great extent, the result of encouragement from, and reinforcement of ideas emanating from, antigun groups and from other liberal elements in our Nation that audaciously claim the moral high ground even as they undercut our sacred rights and liberties.Instead of encouraging young people to exercise their critical judgment, these antigun groups and leftist elements in our Nation, including the liberal mainstream Press, as well as antigun politicians, are encouraging uncritical thinking, in furtherance of an agenda that is directed to undercutting the rights and liberties of the American people, undermining the Constitution, and reshaping the Country into a form that is completely at odds with, and alien to, that form envisioned by the founders of our Nation as manifested in our core values, our history, our traditions, as once conveyed to our young people in our Schools--but core values, history, and traditions conveyed to our young people no longer. It is abundantly clear that the cultivation of logical, thoughtful thinking is considered anathema today. Emotional rhetoric, devoid of substance, is now the substitute for critical thinking and judgment. A philosophy predicated on anarchistic principles, detrimental to the safeguarding of our heritage and detrimental to the continued security and well-being of our Nation is the end goal of the destroyers of our Nation. Nihilism is portrayed as necessary for our Country: wipe the slate clean, and begin anew. Children are taught to perceive our Country as less an independent sovereign Nation and more a cog in a greater federation of member nations; a Country without borders, subject to a multitude of multicultural influences, where the notion of citizenship is amorphous and everyone from the four corners of the planet is welcome--bringing with them bizarre, alien ideas, incompatible with our heritage. In their seditious and pathological desire to tear down those sacred principles upon which our Nation was founded, upon which our founders gave their blood--the disruptors and destructors of our Nation intend to shred our sacred rights and liberties upon which a free Republic rests and upon which the autonomy and inviolability of each citizen depends. If successful, the unique, glorious Nation, forged by our forefathers, will be torn asunder, forever.The youth of our Nation should think well before they speak ill about a sacred right. Today they perceive the Second Amendment through a narrow lens, magnifying what they see as its costs through a series of recent tragic events and forsaking consideration of the magnitude and majesty of the right existent in a truly free people that has survived for over two hundred years even as ruthless, cunning, and jealous forces, detrimental to the continuation of a powerful citizenry, chisel away at that right, desiring to hold such power manifested in that right, for itself. As these young people denigrate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, they should keep well in mind what it is they are forsaking. And, at the end of the day, if they think it just as well that the Second Amendment should fall, they ought to consider the ramifications of that decision. For, if the Second Amendment falls, the entirety of the Bill of Rights will fall with it. That is inevitable. Where will these young people look to secure their safety, autonomy, and well-being—and, “Oh, Yes,” their privacy—then?________________________________________*Violence continues notwithstanding the elimination of guns. Consider: After a rash of violence in London, the "London Mayor Sadiq Khan announced a crackdown on knives Sunday in response to the rising levels of violence in London, which recently surpassed New York City's homicide rate for the first time. 'No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife,' Khan tweeted. 'Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law.'" Once guns are confiscated from the civilian population, the government will go after knives. But, the problem does not exist in the prevalence of guns or knives, but, rather, in those individuals who misuse a gun or knife or any other object, to harm an innocent person. Misuse of implements is to be linked to terrorists, lunatics, criminal gang members, and to the common criminal, and not to the average, rational, law-abiding citizen (or, in the case of Great Britain, let us say, the average, rational, law-abiding subject). And, what, then, is one to make of the loss of a tenable means of self-defense? Apparently, self-defense is of no consequence to government officials, either in this Country or across the seas._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

RETIRED JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS PROPOSES A SIMPLE ANSWER TO THE ANTIGUN ADVOCATE’S VEXING SECOND AMENDMENT PROBLEM: JUST GET RID OF IT!

PART SIX

RETIRED JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS CALLS FOR A RADICAL CURB ON THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS: REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

“O 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. . . . Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation . . . inflicted by those who had no power at all?” Patrick Henry, Virginia Constitutional Ratifying Convention, 1788, quoted in The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 51 (Jonathon Elliot ed., 1907), as quoted from the Case Note, "Do Federal Firearms Laws Violate the Second Amendment by Disarming the Militia?”10 Tex. Rev. Law & Pol. 469, 470-471 (Spring, 2006) by John-Peter Lund. Jurists, whether retired from the Bench or not, should not be engaged in simplistic, bombastic Op-Ed newspaper rhetoric about the law. Failing to forbear undermines a jurist’s credibility. For, after the fact, an astute reader will not but wonder that the jurist’s visceral feeling about a legal matter has inevitably and irreparably intruded upon the jurist’s principled judgment, reducing what otherwise might seem a profound, erudite, nuanced argument, for or against a legal issue as set down in case law, to mere sophistry—a mask behind which a jurist hides his naked, raw abhorrence, even rage. In an Op-Ed that ran in the paper edition of The New York Times on March 27, 2018, and that appeared in the digital version of the Times, one day earlier, titled, simply and clearly and coldly, and uninspiringly, “Repeal the Second Amendment,” retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens says that it is time for the Nation to rid itself of the vestiges of its history involving an armed citizenry.The reader should note that retired Justice Stevens is not talking, here, about mere de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. De facto repeal of the Second Amendment has been going on for some time: accomplished through State and Federal legislative enactment of restrictive gun laws—laws that slowly and inexorably erode the force and efficacy of the Second Amendment—eventually reducing a fundamental right, codified in the Constitution, to a nullity. No! The retired high Court Justice, John Paul Stevens, calls resolutely, for absolute de jure repeal of the Second Amendment. What does that mean? It means, literally striking the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights. If the Second Amendment were repealed, de jure—that is to say, repealed outright—it would be as if the words, “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, had never existed, for the Second Amendment would be stricken henceforth from the U.S. Constitution.

AMENDING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS NOT AN EASY PROCESS AND IS NEVER TO BE TAKEN LIGHTLY.

Amending the U.S. Constitution outright is no small matter and should never be taken lightly. The framers of the Constitution obviously frowned on it. Consistent with their concern, the process of amending the Constitution is difficult, deliberately so; as the framers of the Constitution intended.Article V of the U.S. Constitution lays out the procedure for adding to or repealing a Constitutional Amendment. Additions to the U.S. Constitution are rare. Since ratification of the Constitution in 1788, there have been only 27 Amendments to the Constitution—17 Amendments, if one concludes that the core of an American citizen’s rights and liberties, the Bill of Rights, constitutes one discrete, critical event. See, “The (myth of un) amendability of the US Constitution and the democratic component of constitutionalism, Int J Constitutional Law,” (2015) 13 (3): 575, by Vicki C. Jackson, Thurgood Marshall Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard Law School.Repealing a Constitutional Amendment—that is to say, annulling an Amendment—is itself an action to amend the Constitution, but such action is virtually unheard of. To date, only one Amendment—the 18^th—the Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages—was repealed; and it was repealed through enactment of another Amendment—the 21^st.There is also the question whether the first ten Amendments comprising the Bill of Rights are even theoretically capable of elimination. For, if the rights and liberties codified in the first ten Amendments, as forged in stone, are fundamental rights—natural and inalienable, intrinsic to the individual, as the framers of the Constitution firmly believed and accepted as axiomatic truths, then those rights are not subject to dissolution. Since these core rights and liberties were never created by man, through government, but bestowed upon man by the Divine Creator, they are not subject to de facto or de jure repeal, ever. As they were not created by law enacted by men, they cannot be annulled by men. They are immutable, indelible, eternal—inherent in the soul of each citizen—necessitating, from those who serve in Government, recognition and obeisance.No less a distinguished scholar of social justice and professor of philosophy at Harvard University, John Rawls—whose specialty was political philosophy and who wrote the seminal work, “A Theory of Justice,”—steadfastly opposed tinkering with our Nation’s core fundamental rights. Although Rawls held in particular high esteem the import of the sacred rights and liberties codified in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—and it should be noted that proponents of and advocates of “political correctness” have consistently, audaciously encroached on the sanctity of the freedom of speech clause in the First Amendment as well as on the sacred right codified in Second—all ten of the core fundamental, natural rights are deserving of respect, recognition, and adoration, as the framers of the Constitution considered each of them to be sufficiently important to codify and etch in stone in the Bill of Rights.As one legal scholar, discussing John Rawls, wrote: “From diverse perspectives, Rawls’s opposition to constitutional amendments that repeal core constitutional freedoms is cogent. His critique of comprehensive doctrines and his defense of a political conception of justice offer powerful reasons to oppose repeal of the First Amendment. . . . Such a repeal by means of a valid constitutional amendment would also be in violation of core human rights and deny the basis of equality that Rawls saw as the foundation of the equal liberties.” “Panel I: The Constitutional Essentials Of Political Liberalism: Are There Limits to Constitutional Change? Rawls On Comprehensive Doctrines, Unconstitutional Amendments, and the Basis Of Equality, 72 Fordham L. Rev. 1487, 1535, by Charles A. Kelbley, Department of Philosophy, Fordham University.Make no mistake: to erase any one of the ten core Amendments, comprising the Bill of Rights, would undermine this Nation more effectively and emphatically than would a successful, physical invasion by a foreign aggressor. For, no foreign aggressor can truly destroy the core rights and liberties of Americans. Those rights and liberties would continue undiminished in the American soul and psyche. But, if elements in our Nation could effectively erase any one or more of our fundamental rights and liberties—the cornerstone of a free Republic—is at an end. Unfortunately, there exists, today, in our Nation a concerted effort by anti-American elements to do just that—to break down and to reshape the American soul and psyche. That effort has been gaining traction. The American public bears witness to an insidious, invidious attempt to rewrite our Nation’s history, to redefine our culture, to replace this Nation’s traditional values with a bizarre, alien belief structure. If successful, the Nation is undone.Several Commentators note that the Second Amendment can never, as a matter of practicability be repealed—as much as they may wish for it to be repealed outright—and so, shrug off Stevens’ Op-Ed. But, those commentators miss the point. The fact that a retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice would even dare suggest de jure repeal of the Second Amendment is, in the very assertion, itself an incredibly audacious and irreverent act. One may be willing to shrug off a claim for de jure repeal of the sacred right embodied in the Second Amendment if the idea came from a less eminent individual, and non-scholar, such as New York Times Columnist, Bret Stephens, who has twice called for repeal of the Second Amendment in his own New York Time opinion articles. But, when a claim for de jure repeal of a core component of the Bill of Rights comes from any jurist—least of all one who sat on the Bench of the highest Court in the Land, that should give every American citizen pause.

WHY WOULD RETIRED JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS MAKE SUCH AN OUTRAGEOUS CALL FOR ELIMINATION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT?

Some may point to the recent Parkland, Florida tragedy and the massive “March for Our Lives,” that billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s antigun advocacy group, Everytown for Gun Safety, organized and orchestrated for young people across the Nation in pursuit of a personal antigun agenda, trusting that a mammoth undertaking, utilizing and exploiting hundreds of thousands students, operating through raw emotion, rather than calm contemplation, would soften public resistance to the concerted, irreverent attack on the Second Amendment, thereby paving the way for its  eventual collapse and demise. The student-led “March” was, then, the overt impetus for and Stevens’ contribution to the anti-Second Amendment effort, as he so states in his Op-Ed. But, the fact remains that Stevens has been, for decades, an outspoken critic of the Second Amendment—well before the recent Parkland, Florida tragedy.When he served on the high Court as an Associate Justice, John Paul Stevens wrote a lengthy dissent in the seminal Second Amendment case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570; 128 S. Ct. 2783; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), opining, in contradistinction to the opinion of the Majority, that the antecedent “militia” clause is critical to an exposition of a right to keep and bear arms, claimed. And, in his book, titled, “Six Amendments,” subtitled, “How and Why We Should Change the Constitution,” published in 2014, four years after Stevens retired from the Court as an Associate Justice, Stevens proposed rewriting the Second Amendment to clarify and solidify his position as reflected in his Heller Dissent. Stevens evidently did this, in part, as a post-opinion rejoinder to the late eminent Justice, Antonin Scalia, who penned the majority opinion in Heller and who shredded Stevens’ remarks that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is conditioned on an individual’s membership in a militia.Stevens’ proposed redraft of the Second Amendment reads: “a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.”* Stevens may have felt that such tortured, bizarre reconstruction of the Second Amendment if adopted would make clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is categorically limited to a person’s connection with a militia and does not rest unqualified in the independent, operative clause. Still, contrary to Stevens’ supposition, this would not obviate the logical flaw in his argument, a flaw that would continue to persist. For if militias--as the expression, 'militia,' was understood by the framers of the Constitution, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, no longer exist—how, then, is the right of the people to keep and bear arms to be vindicated? But, suppose militias have continued to exist up to the present time, in the specific sense as understood by the framers, could the right still be vindicated if the right were tied exclusively to a person’s connection to a militia? Well, if the expression 'militia'  means no more than that the right of the people to keep and bear arms accrues to every able-bodied man, then it is not necessary to draw upon a connection between the expression, 'militia,' and the expression, 'people,' as there is no tenable distinction to be made. The attempt to do so simply admits of a redundancy. And the individual can, of course, continue to vindicate the right to keep and bear arms. But, Stevens apparently had something else in mind, when thinking about the meaning of the expression, 'militia.' Yet, in any other sense, the right is incapable of vindication. And, if a right is incapable of vindication, then, by logical implication, that is tantamount to no right at all. The Second Amendment, under Steven’s argument, as presented in his dissenting Opinion in Heller, is reduced to a legal nullity. Stevens must have realized the fatal flaw in his argument, and his ultimate response is simply to adopt the position that he previously sought secretly to hide. To avoid the legal and logical problems that beset any argument that ties the right of the people to keep and bear arms to one’s connection with a militia, just annul the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment would, then, have to be repealed outright.But, is repeal of the Second Amendment even theoretically possible, notwithstanding the practical impossibility of de jure repeal? No, it isn’t. De jure repeal of the Second Amendment through Article V of the U.S. Constitution, is not merely impracticable, it is legally impermissible because the right codified in the Second Amendment is a natural, fundamental right that accrues to one’s being. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a man-made construct. Since no man, nor government of men, created the right, neither man nor government of men can lawfully abolish it.

JOHN PAUL STEVENS DOES NOT ACCEPT THE NOTION OF A RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AS A NATURAL AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, PREEXISTENT IN MAN, AND EXISTING ETERNALLY IN MAN; AND THEREFORE INCAPABLE OF DISSOLUTION BY GOVERNMENT.

To retired Justice John Paul Stevens--who sat among the liberal wing of the high Court among others sympathetic to Stevens' disdain for the Second Amendment, and who share Stevens’ jurisprudential philosophy--core rights and liberties are not perceived as preexistent extensions of an individual that accrue to one’s very being, existing and persisting in man, but, rather, are perceived and accepted as man-made conventions or constructs, not unlike any lesser right created by man through statute, namely, as enacted by Congress. This is essentially a denial of the notion of such a thing as core, fundamental rights. The retired Associate Justice John Paul Stevens and other liberal wing high Court Justices do not accept the notion of the preeminence of natural law and of the existence of fundamental rights that are endowed in man by the Divine Creator.Justice Stevens sees the entire body of laws, and rights, and liberties, as, together, nothing more than artificial forms, created by man. Thus, at a basic jurisprudential and philosophical level, Stevens and the entire liberal-wing of the high Court approach Bill of Rights’ issues from a completely different perspective than that perspective shared by Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and by the late eminent Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. So, it is not surprising that the legal inferences each Justice draws would follow from and be predicated on a completely different set of philosophical axioms.It is, then, unremarkable given Stevens’ disdain for the right codified in the Second Amendment—although, for all that, still disconcerting—that Stevens doesn’t even deign to talk of the Second Amendment as a codification of a fundamental right, intrinsic in the individual American citizen at all. He refers to the Second Amendment, in his Op-Ed article, as something substantially less than that—a mere “legal rule.” That is telling. And he goes further, He contemptuously refers to the right codified in the Second Amendment as a “relic” of the 18^th century.In the final analysis, it should not surprise one that retired Associate Justice Stevens would suggest outright repeal of the Second Amendment as a sure-fire means to remove the impediment of a right of the people to keep and bear arms. Antigun advocates may express consternation with Stevens for asserting categorically what it is these advocates for gun confiscation want but would never say openly to anyone but their cohorts. They would only intimate their disdain for the Second Amendment, discretely, when talking to the American public, always prefacing remarks with the obligatory, “but of course we support the Second Amendment,” when, clearly, they do not, as they sound the clarion call for ever more “sensible” gun restrictions. Antigun advocates intend to strangle the life out of the Second Amendment. That Stevens has made the grand design of antigun advocacy groups clear, the proverbial “cat is, now, definitely out of the bag.” For, once the Second Amendment is done away with, antigun advocates would then be able to preclude with the pretension that such a thing as a right of the individual American to keep and bear arms exists—a right that rests inherent in one’s soul, beyond the power of government to dislodge, beyond the power of government to erase.Those Americans who sincerely cherish their Bill of Rights—all ten of them—should take heed what is at stake for the future of our Country in the upcoming mid-term elections._________________________________________________________*The expression, ‘militia,’ as originally conceived, existed in two forms: the organized militia, as an adjunct to federal forces, and the ‘unorganized’ militia, consisting of every able-bodied man. As a hedge against tyranny, the unorganized militia, is as important today, as it was in the early days of the Nation—perhaps even more importantly given the depth and breadth of the Administrative, “Deep State,” and the size of and secrecy of the Shadow Government that, together, quietly and insidiously embrace  ever more power, and threaten the preservation of a free Republic and personal autonomy. One would think that, if Stevens seeks to emphasize the import of the expression, ‘militia,’ as it appears in the preamble to the Second Amendment, he would clarify its meaning. That he fails to do so suggests either deliberate sloppiness in his exposition or an infertile, stodgy, and stubborn mind, incapable of perceiving the nuances of legal claims, nor the legal and logical implications of those claims. As one academician asserts, “[t]he militia system existing at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification has disappeared. Instead, the United States now has an organized militia system, the National Guard; a federal unorganized militia as well as an unorganized militia in most states; and various police and law enforcement agencies.” The Minutemen, The National Guard and The Private Militia Movement: Will The Real Militia Please Stand Up? 28 J. Marshall L. Rev. 959, 960 (Summer, 1995), by Chuck Dougherty.” Another academic scholar writes, “Federal law currently divides the militia into two groups—the ‘organized militia,’ which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia, and the ‘unorganized militia,’ which consists of all able-bodied male citizens (or those who have declared their intent to become citizens) between the ages of seventeen and forty-five who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. While certain arguments might be raised for broadening the definition of the unorganized militia, it is clear that the unorganized militia is the modern successor to the class of individuals whose rights were primarily intended to be protected by the Second Amendment.” Do Federal Firearms Laws Violate the Second Amendment by Disarming the Militia?” 10 Tex. Rev. Law & Pol. 469, 470-471 (Spring, 2006) by John-Peter Lund. The writer continues, “[i]n recent years, through the work of several noted constitutional scholars, the conclusion that the Amendment's Framers intended to protect an individual right to possess and carry firearms, as opposed to an amorphous ‘states' right’ to arm state militias or the National Guard, has been widely accepted by legal academics of all stripes.  Although the courts have been slow to adopt this interpretation, it seems inevitable that they will. The Department of Justice has promulgated a memorandum endorsing the individual-rights interpretation, sometimes called the ‘standard model,’ and the Fifth Circuit is the first federal appellate court to have adopted it. Even Congress has enacted statutory language that acknowledges the individual right to keep and bear arms. Several other circuits have rejected this plain-language interpretation in favor of one that reads the Amendment as guaranteeing a collective or states' right, relying largely on a probable misreading of the Militia Clause of the Amendment, or on erroneous extension of prior decisions. Under this reading, the Militia Clause would indicate that unlike the balance of the first eight amendments to the Constitution, all of which protect individual rights from governmental encroachment, the Second Amendment protects only the rights of states to arm their militias. The purpose of this Note is not to detail the reasons why this position is untenable. They have been amply explored elsewhere. It seems all but inevitable that the rest of the courts will be forced to concede this point, if not by force of reason, then by an eventual U.S. Supreme Court opinion on the matter. . . .” 10 Tex. Rev. Law & Pol. at 470-471. The author concludes with these poignant remarks:"Without recognition of the importance of preserving a well-regulated militia, the other rights guaranteed by the Amendment are in as great a danger as those protected by the rest of the Bill of Rights. In the spirit, and as the ultimate line of defense, of the entire Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment was ratified to preserve the right of the people to possess arms for the purpose of organizing themselves, as needed, into a fighting force which could preserve order or stave off tyranny and oppression, whether from enemies foreign or domestic.  Originalists and conservatives cannot in good conscience simply wish away this fundamental premise behind the foremost of liberties that the Framers saw fit to preserve. Federal regulations of the firearms necessary to the very existence of the militia the Second Amendment seeks to preserve have increased to such an extent, and the penalties for violating them are so draconian, that few individuals dare hold themselves out as licensed federal firearms dealers. Few more will dare navigate the required morass of red tape in order to simply possess the weapon which ought to be not only their right, but their duty, to keep and bear. As a result, the well-regulated militia is in danger of extinction. Is this a silent death in which we wish to acquiesce, whether it has been accomplished by stealth, or by apathy, but in any case, by unconstitutional means? In the words of Judge Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit:My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."  10 Tex. Rev. Law & Pol. at 506-507 To go further into a detailed analysis of the meaning of ‘militia’ at the time of the ratification of the Constitution and the ways in which the expression has been warped through time is beyond the scope of this article. Suffice it to say that the retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens, either has no understanding of the various connotations and denotations of the expression, ‘militia,’ or he simply doesn’t care, as his aim is—as is clear from his most recent Op-Ed—to dispense with the Second Amendment altogether._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE ISSUE OF CURBING VIOLENCE IN OUR SCHOOLS DOES NOT DEVOLVE TO SIMPLY BANNING GUNS. IT IS MORE COMPLEX, ELUSIVE, NUANCED.

PART FIVE

STUDENTS MUST BECOME CRITICAL THINKERS, NOT “PARROTS” OF THOSE WHO HARBOR ULTERIOR MOTIVES.

Peaceful protest isn’t a bad thing. The youth of our Nation, as citizens of the United States, have a Constitutional right to do so as the right of the people to peaceably assemble is a fundamental right, specifically codified in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, along with freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the right to the free exercise of religion. These rights are broad in scope and critical to the maintenance of a free Republic. The danger of protest rests when there exists a hidden agenda behind the protest, unbeknownst to those that take to protest.On March 24, 2018, hundreds of thousands of young people, including adults, turned out to protest violence in our Nation’s schools. The horror that took place in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School served as the impetus for the protest. Last February 2018, a deranged young man, Nikolas Cruz, whom School Officials had expelled for multiple serious disciplinary violations, walked unimpeded into the School, and proceeded to murder 17 students, including teachers, using a semiautomatic long gun, modeled on the “AR-15” platform.Organizers of the March 24 protest on our Nation’s Capital on Saturday, March 24, 2018 called it, “March for Our Lives.” The New York Times banner headline on Sunday, March 25, 2018, says something different however: "With Passion and Fury, Students March on Guns."Students across the Country are furious—and rightfully so—at the failure of Government, to protect them, as students are vulnerable to violence when in school. How it is that a seriously disturbed individual, Nikolas Cruz, who was on the radar of both the FBI and the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, and who, on several occasions, had openly expressed a desire to kill, could gain access to a firearm and ammunition, and who then could act on that desire, speaks of gross incompetence and glaring ineptitude, on multiple Governmental levels? Then there is the failure of an armed Broward County Deputy Sheriff—a Resource Officer, assigned to the School, and of other Broward County Deputy Sheriffs, who shortly arrived on the scene—whose actions or, rather, inactions, must be   singled out. Broward County Deputy Sheriff, Scott Peterson, and other Broward County Deputy County Sheriffs failed to confront and stop Nikolas Cruz. They all consciously, intentionally, refrained from entering the School building to confront Nikolas Cruz, even though they heard gunshots in the School, and knew or had every reason to conclude that, every time they heard a gunshot, an innocent person had died. Bald-faced cowardice, cannot be ruled out.Students have a right to ask of Government, that is charged to protect them, why Government failed them. This failure must be addressed and then redressed. Action must be taken to protect our schools with appropriate security. Competent, armed individuals, both physically capable of action and psychologically predisposed to act in a life-threatening situation, must be a component of an effective school security program.

FIREARMS, OF THEMSELVES, DO NOT CAUSE VIOLENCE BECAUSE THEY ARE OBJECTS, NOT AGENTS.

As for the root cause(s) why more violence occurs in our schools, this is a complex issue, with no simple answer or remedy. Unfortunately, in the face of overwhelming horror and tragedy, there is a normal tendency to look for a “quick fix,” and there are those who jump at the chance to funnel through the mainstream media, to the public, a  simple answer—more stringent gun laws, commencing with an outright ban on civilian ownership and possession of all semiautomatic long guns, defined as ‘assault weapons,’ including a ban on large capacity ammunition magazines.Antigun advocacy groups have argued, for decades, for further restrictions on civilian access to semiautomatic firearms, defined as ‘assault weapons.’ Of course, the definition of ‘assault weapon,’ is amorphous, as the phrase is a political invention, not an industry or military term of art. Those jurisdictions that generally ban possession of “assault weapons” in the hands of the American civilian citizenry, have defined the expression, ‘assault weapon,’ in different ways. In fact, under New York law at least one category of weapon, the revolving cylinder shotgun, is defined in law, an ‘assault weapon,’ even though, given the revolving cylinder shotgun’s method of operation, as the name makes plain, the revolving cylinder shotgun isn’t a semiautomatic weapon at all.Antigun advocacy groups have an agenda and that agenda does not necessarily equate with ensuring a safe school environment. In pursuit of that agenda, these groups have successfully harnessed the anger, hurt, frustration, and legitimate concern of students. The “March for Our Lives” didn’t just happen. It happened for a reason: Antigun advocacy groups and other liberal advocacy groups quietly, behind the scenes, harnessed student anger and redirected it. They redirected student anger, hurt, and frustration away from an attack on the failure of some State and local governmental authorities to provide students with a safe and secure environment, where student anger, frustration and hurt should have been focused, or should rightfully have remained, to an attack on "the gun" qua "assault weapon." Thus, instead of encouraging young people to take part in an open, frank, and intelligent discussion on the root causes of violence in our society and how it is and why it is some people erupt into an orgy of horrific violence and how State and local governments, in the interim, may implement reasonable security measures in schools, to protect students, we see antigun advocacy groups, and other advocacy groups in agreement with them, ratcheting up student anger to the point where that anger explodes into a paroxysm of rage launched specifically and solely against an inanimate object.An undertaking of this magnitude requires, money, organization, and coordination well beyond the capacity of young people to engineer. The billionaire Michael Bloomberg, through his antigun advocacy group, “Everytown for Gun Safety,” organized, funded, and coordinated the rally. This isn’t supposition, it is fact, as reported by CNN, and as Bloomberg’s group itself readily admits.

WOULD A WHOLESALE BAN ON SEMIAUTOMATIC LONG GUNS, MODELED ON THE ORIGINAL AR-15 ARMALITE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE, PREVENT A RECURRENCE OF GUN VIOLENCE IN OUR NATION’S SCHOOLS?

An outright ban on an entire category of weapons in common use would not prevent further gun violence. A federal ban on so-called ‘assault weapons,’ implemented in 1994, was tried. That ban failed to prevent many mass shootings. The ban expired in 2004 through a sunset provision, and Congress did not reauthorize it. We have seen, since, violent acts committed, not only with so-called “assault weapons,” but with other objects, including, knives, bombs, and even trucks.“Everytown for Gun Safety,” and like-minded antigun advocacy groups argue that violence in our schools, and in public spaces generally, can be prevented or significantly reduced if Government, local, State, and Federal, would simply prohibit civilian access to firearms. Whether these antigun activist groups truly believe that, is unlikely. Their goal, if achieved, would not eliminate or even reduce violence in schools or in the greater society. They must know this. Their goal, if achieved, would have the negative effect of leaving the civilian population of this Country essentially defenseless. The tacit but obvious impetus of these antigun advocacy groups is to effectuate Government control over the citizenry. The goal of these groups is not to promote public safety, express claims to the contrary, notwithstanding.The fact of the matter is that, even if antigun advocates were successful in removing every firearm presently in the possession of honest, law-abiding, average, rational American citizens who desire to exercise their fundamental, inalienable, natural right to keep and bear arms who comprise the vast civilian citizenry of firearms’ owners in this County, that would do nothing to curb violent acts. A simplistic fix that happens, not unsurprisingly, to cohere with the personal agenda of antigun advocacy groups—destruction of the Second Amendment—isn’t the panacea for effectively dealing with a culture of violence endemic in our Nation, contrary to the supposition of antigun activists and contrary to their rhetoric. It is a recipe for disaster. First, the antigun activists’ simplistic fix leaves the American citizenry defenseless. Second, the abridgement of the American citizenry’s fundamental rights and liberties—reflected, first and foremost in an armed citizenry—is inconsistent with the continued conservation and preservation of a free Republic, rooted in our Nation’s history. Third, such abridgement of our fundamental rights and liberties is inconsistent with the basic principle upon which those sacred rights and liberties rests: the sanctity, autonomy, and inviolability of the American citizen.Until Americans, including the youth of our Nation, are willing to look deeply and seriously at the true root causes of violence that infects and infests our Country, rather than excoriating guns as the salient cause of violence and mischief in our Nation in accordance with the dictate of antigun advocacy groups, violence will not appreciably be forestalled or constrained; for violence, ultimately, exists in the heart of individuals, not in such inanimate objects they happen to wield. Any object—a gun, a knife, a vehicle, a chainsaw, or any other tool—can be used by a sentient being for good or ill.Young people, especially, must learn to think through an issue calmly, not rashly. Unfortunately, those individuals and groups that have a personal agenda to serve, have irresponsibly coopted the rightful anger and hurt of young people to assist them in pursuit of a singular goal: divesting the civilian population of this Country of their firearms. The young people must resist the urge to serve antigun groups as their servants or proxies. Antigun groups are very good at coaxing young people to join them in service to a personal agenda: gun control, culminating in gun confiscation. Instead, the young people of our Nation might more effectively use intellectual rigor to explore the root causes of violence in our society. In the interim Government at the federal, State, and local levels, can and must design and implement plans to secure our schools from threats of harm. Violence is, unfortunately, persistent in our Nation. But, violence is endemic in many other Western nations, too, even as those other Western nations have rigidly suppressed individual ownership and possession of firearms.A viable security plan to protect students from harm never existed in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. But other Schools across the Nation that have implemented effective security, have been free from deadly threats to students and to teachers. That means all schools must embrace a proactive, not reactive, stance to threats of violence of any kind. A sound plan to protect students is doable and helpful. Going after guns is not._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

ANTIGUN ACTIVISTS’ RELENTLESS ASSAULT ON LONG-GUNS

PART FOUR

MARJORY STONEMAN DOUGLAS HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH THE ACTIVE ASSISTANCE OF ANTIGUN AND OTHER RADICAL GROUPS PURSUE ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT AGENDA THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ENHANCING SCHOOL SAFETY AND SECURITY.

ANTIGUN ACTIVISTS TARGET SEMIAUTOMATIC LONG-GUNS FOR ELIMINATION THROUGH SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN: THE PROXIES FOR ANTIGUN GROUPS.

Make no mistake: the relentless assault on semiautomatic long-guns that antigun activists call “assault weapons” is itself an assault on civilian ownership of all semiautomatic weapons, not merely some of them. This relentless assault on so-called “assault weapons” is an attack on the natural and sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms, codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.American citizens should not believe for a moment that antigun activists and their cohorts in State legislators and in Congress, and those who echo their sentiments in Hollywood and in the mainstream media, and the billionaire benefactors behind the scenes who fund the effort to destroy our sacred rights and liberties do not—all of them— seek to end civilian gun ownership in this Country. They say they merely support “common-sense” gun laws and “sensible” constraints on gun ownership. But their principal goal is confiscation and eventual elimination of all firearms in the hands of civilians.Through enactment of the National Firearms Act of 1934, civilian access to selective-fire and fully automatic firearms has been effectively eliminated. Since that time antigun activists have attempted, with varying degrees of success, to ban semiautomatic guns defined as ‘assault weapons.’ But, the distinction between semiautomatic handguns and semiautomatic long guns construed as ‘assault weapons,’ that antigun activists and legislators feel American civilians should not be permitted to own and possess, is fuzzy. Each State has its own legal standards.Against the backdrop of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School tragedy, many jurisdictions are enacting or are attempting to enact increasingly more onerous firearms laws. The distinction between semiautomatic weapons defined as banned ‘assault weapons’ and those that aren’t is becoming increasingly tenuous. Antigun activists and antigun legislators strive to cast ever more semiautomatic handguns and long guns into the ‘assault weapon’ banned category.

ANTIGUN ACTIVISTS SEEK TO END CIVILIAN OWNERSHIP OF ALL SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS IN THE UNITED STATES, NOT MERELY SOME OF THEM.

In a recent March 2, 2018 article, titled, “With AR-15s, Mass Shooter Attack with the Killing Power of Many U.S. Troops,” posted in the National Section of the paper edition of The New York Times newspaper, and published digitally, on February 28, 2018, under the title, "With AR-15-s, Mass Shooters Attack With the Rifle Firepower Typically Used by Infantry Troops," Times’ reporters wrote a lengthy article on semiautomatic long guns that was uncharacteristically discerning. In hundreds of earlier articles, NY Times reporters, Op-Ed columnists and NY Times contributors--and those writing for other mainstream newspapers--carelessly, and clumsily, refer to the semiautomatic long gun, modeled on the original Armalite AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, as an ‘assault weapon.’ The expression, ‘assault weapon,’ was invented by antigun proponents as a political device to pursue a gun confiscation agenda, attacking an entire category of firearms in common use among the law-abiding American citizens that comprise the civilian population. But the expression, 'assault weapon,' isn't a technically accurate one; and it is not to be confused with the expression, ‘assault rifle,’ which is a technically precise military term of art.Often, in the same newspaper articles, writers will use ‘assault weapon’ and ‘assault rifle’ interchangeably, likely not knowing the difference, and not caring if they did know as the distinction isn’t crucial to the running narrative, which is that both categories of firearms are, as antigun proponents perceive them, "weapons of war"--which is another political phrase, and one also tinged with emotion. "Weapons of war," so the narrative goes, have no place in “civilized” Countries.But, the March 2, NY Times article is decidedly different from previous antigun articles. The reporters here appear intent on demonstrating that semiautomatic long guns, modeled on the progenitor, Armalite AR-15, presently marketed to the civilian population, truly are military weapons and, so, must be banned. In that article, the expression, ‘assault weapon,’ doesn’t even appear.The article is presented as a seeming technical exposition on “AR-15” rifles. The Times reporters, who wrote the article, compare the civilian “AR-15” rifle to various military models. They assert:“The main functional difference between the military’s M16 and M4 rifles and a civilian AR-15 is the ‘burst’ mode on the many military models. . . . But in actual American combat these technical differences are less significant than they seem. For decades the American military has trained its conventional troops to fire their M4s and M16s in the semiautomatic mode—one bullet per trigger pull—instead of on ‘burst’ or automatic in almost all shooting situations. The weapons are more accurate this way and thus more lethal.” Consider these remarks for a moment. The NY Times reporters are using quasi technical exposition here in an attempt to make the case that no appreciable difference exists between “AR-15” rifles and their military counterparts. The reporters argue, tacitly, that  the politically charged expression, ‘assault weapon,’ and the military expression, ‘assault rifle,’ do accurately refer to the same kind of rifle, after all. But, do they? The NY Times reporters remark that many troops are issued military rifles without selective-fire capability at all. They do this in an obvious attempt to dispel the criticism constantly and accurately leveled against mainstream news reporters which is that some semiautomatic rifles marketed to the civilian population may exhibit superficial, cosmetic similarities to military rifles, but these rifles are functionally different from military rifles. Yet, in the recent NY Times article, the reporters categorically state that AR-15 semiautomatic rifles are functionally equivalent to military M4 and M16 assault rifles. But are they? The reporters assert:“The NRA and other pro-gun groups highlight the fully automatic feature in military M4s and M16s. But the American military, after a long experience with fully automatic M16s reaching back to Vietnam, decided by the 1980s to issue M16s and later M4s to most conventional troops without the fully automatic function,* and to train them to fire in a more controlled fashion. What all this means is that the Parkland gunman, in practical terms, had the same rifle firepower as an American grunt using a standard infantry rifle in the standard way.”It is abundantly clear that the Times’ reporters—clearly speaking for antigun proponents generally—are targeting all semiautomatic weapons for elimination, not merely some of them. They attempt to get across the idea that since any semiautomatic weapon is capable of rapid, controlled fire, all semiautomatic weapons represent a threat to public safety and must be eliminated—long guns and handguns.

THE STATE OF THE LAW ON SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES MODELED ON THE ORIGINAL ARMALITE (“AR-15”) SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE

The federal ban on “AR-15” rifles expired in 1994 when the 10-year sunset provision kicked in. But many States have enacted their own laws, banning these rifles. Two cases on whether so-called “assault weapons” fall within the core protection of the Second Amendment went up to the U.S. Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari. One of them, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2930 (4th Cir. 2017), en banc, cert. den., 138 S. Ct. 469, 199 L. Ed. 2d 374, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 7002, 86 U.S.L.W. 3264, was denied a hearing and review by the U.S. Supreme Court, without comment. An earlier case involving the issue, Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6902 (7th Cir. Ill., 2015), cert. den., 136 S. Ct. 447, 193 L. Ed. 2d 483, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 7681, was denied but over a vigorous dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas, with the late Justice Antonin Scalia joining Thomas in the dissent.Justice Thomas stated in pertinent part:“The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767-768, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3036-3037, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894, 914-915; Heller, supra, at 628-629, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2817-2818, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 679-680.The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411-412. The court conceded that handguns — not ‘assault weapons’ — ‘are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.’ Id., at 409. Still, the court concluded, the ordinance ‘may increase the public’s sense of safety,’ which alone is ‘a substantial benefit.’ Id., at 412. Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s ‘core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach.’ Heller, supra, at 634, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2821, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 683. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing."The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions. . . . There is no basis for a different result when our Second Amendment precedents are at stake. I would grant certiorari to prevent the Seventh Circuit from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right."Despite the opinion of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, antigun proponents, including those occupying the lower appellate and district courts, evidently don’t give a damn either for high Court precedent or for our sacred, natural right, codified in the Second Amendment.And, this brings us to critical Second Amendment Soto vs. Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC., 2016 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2626; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P19,932, which the Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively about and will continue to do so. See, e.g., the AQ article, Soto vs. Bushmaster: Antigunners Take Aim at Gun Manufacturers.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.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 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, and the trial Court found for the Defendants’ on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs appealed the adverse decision directly to the Connecticut Supreme Court, and the State high Court agreed to hear the case.Soon, the State Supreme Court of Connecticut will decide whether to affirm the trial Court’s decision dismissing Plaintiffs suit or remand the Soto case to the Superior Court of Connecticut. The State Supreme Court should affirm the trial Court and not remand the case. In fact, the State Supreme Court shouldn’t have agreed to hear the case in the first place since the PLCAA makes clear that plaintiffs in the Sandy Hook Elementary School cannot overcome Defendants’ qualified immunity. If, though, the case is remanded to the trial Court and if the trial Court reverses its previous stance, that can have dire consequences for manufacturers of semiautomatic rifles modeled on the Armalite AR-15. We shall wait and see. The Wall Street Journal, in an article, titled, “Key Gun Case Awaits Ruling in Connecticut,” published on March 17, 2018, discussing the Soto case, and posted online under the title, "The Court Case Making Gun Manufacturers Anxious," hints that the Connecticut Supreme Court may soon issue a ruling.The question is whether the Connecticut Supreme Court will be swayed by political considerations in light of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting incident. It shouldn’t, but, as the matter of semiautomatic long guns is now front and center in the public’s psyche due to massive negative coverage by the mainstream media, and, as we know that liberal Courts that have a dim view concerning the Second Amendment, it is anyone’s guess how the Connecticut Supreme Court will proceed. We must wait and see.This much, we do know, despite the opinion of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, antigun proponents, including lower Appellate and District Court antigun judges, don’t give a damn either for high Court precedent or for our sacred, natural right, codified in the Second Amendment. Lest there be any doubt about this, consider the words of the antigun New York Times Op-Ed Columnist, Bret Stephens, who made the following remark in an NY Times OP-Ed, posted, on February 16, 2018, titled: "To Repeat: Repeal the Second Amendment."“We need to repeal the Second Amendment because most gun-control legislation is ineffective when most Americans have a guaranteed constitutional right to purchase deadly weaponry in nearly unlimited quantities.” Hey, Bret—Any firearm is potentially deadly. The question is whether the person wielding it is responsible. And, Bret, how much ammunition is too much? Our guess is that for you, Bret, and for other like-minded sanctimonious antigun activists, even one round is too much.____________________________________*The Arbalest Quarrel contacted an expert on small arms weaponry. The Times' reporters' assertion is absolutely false. "Assault rifles" marketed to the military have two main configurations. One configuration has a three-way selector for the following three modes: safe, semiauto, and full auto. The second configuration has a four-way selector for four modes: safe, semiauto, full auto, and burst. Consider, if a military configuration were limited to semiauto mode only, there would be no reason for any rifle to have anything other than the "AR-15" designation as semiautomatic rifles issued to military troops would in fact be identical to the semiautomatic rifles presently marketed to the civilian population. It is true that Army troops and Marines are trained to use semiautomatic fire or burst fire in many instances in order to conserve ammunition and for accuracy. But, for extraction and when charging an enemy position head-0n, full auto is tactically necessary: hence, the need for a selector switch on military models, to serve varying combat needs. The NY Times reporters deviously mix pertinent facts with critical omissions, including an out-and-out lie. Deceptive "fake news" reporting is, unfortunately, to be expected from the mainstream Press as the Press promotes an agenda, and we see deceptiveness in abundance in this "news" article. The mainstream Press is in the business of propagandizing, of psychologically conditioning the American public to perceive the world in a false light. The Press is no longer in the business of informing and enlightening the public, if it ever were in the business of presenting factually accurate news accounts._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

ANTIGUN GROUPS PROMOTE GUN CONTROL, NOT SCHOOL SAFETY

PART THREE

THE INCESSANT ATTACK ON GUNS AND GUN OWNERSHIP HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AND WILL DO NOTHING TO MAKE OUR SCHOOLS SAFE.

With the latest shooting tragedy—this one at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida—antigun groups wasted little time in singling out a culprit—the AR-15 5.56 NATO / 223 semiautomatic rifle. The mainstream media quickly echoed the sentiment of antigun groups and their fellow travelers in Congress: if Government would just confiscate guns from the civilian population, commencing with “assault weapons,” society would be better off for it and all would be right with the world.In the hysteria of the moment, it is considered anathema to counter this sentiment or to question the underlying assumption. Banning civilian ownership and possession of firearms is proclaimed a panacea to preventing gun violence. It is the mantra of anti-Second Amendment proponents, activists, and legislators; and it is the drumbeat of a compliant, duplicitous Press. It is accepted by many as a categorical imperative; an irrefutable truth. But is it?Do we not see, rather, the naked desire and effort of those who seek to destroy every vestige of responsible gun ownership in our Country? They would do so under the guise of promoting public safety. But, this is a false promise; an outright lie. Those who seek to end gun ownership and gun possession in this Country attempt to shoehorn international norms and United Nations’ mandates involving firearms, into our Nation’s norms and values. It doesn’t work. Our Nation, unlike all others, is structured on natural and unalienable rights and liberties of the American people, as codified in our Nation’s Bill of Rights—a Bill of Rights that is the very backbone of our Nation.Americans would do well to note that the oppressive restrictions on firearms’ possession seen in the laws of other nations exemplify a basic and malevolent mistrust the governing bodies of those nations extend toward their own people.

WHY DID THE PARKLAND, FLORIDA TRAGEDY OCCUR?

Lost in discussion about gun violence is any mention of one obvious and incontrovertible fact: the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School would not have happened—could not have occurred—if a multilayered set of strategies were utilized to harden the school against security breaches. The School didn’t do this. The result, while horrific, cannot and should not be construed as altogether unexpected and inexplicable in the peculiar age we live in and the tragedy should not be blamed on guns.We live in an age marked by broken homes and social alienation. It is an age beset by the rupture of core values and the seeding of a new ethos consisting of a hodgepodge of multicultural influences, multilingualism, and moral relativism; a hollowing out of sacred traditions, the denigration of basic Judeo-Christian values and virtues and of the traditional nuclear family. It is an age seeking instant gratification; immersed in perverse multivarious sexual experimentation. It is one extolling anomalous gender diversity; and, it is an age of rampant exploitation of human weakness.We see an endless parade of new, ever more violent, hyper-realistic video games, along with a continuous procession of cinematic “treats” of gratuitous violence marched out by Hollywood studio heads to encourage, and exploit, and reinforce the public appetite for depictions of violence and carnage. And we see the blatant hypocrisy of Hollywood actors—those who take evident pride in their onscreen portrayals of psychotic, psychopathic killers, engaged in over-the-top murderous sprees, pretending to be knowledgeable about the firearm props they use on-screen, while off-screen, sanctimoniously, denouncing those very guns, and denouncing the law-abiding citizens who choose to exercise their unalienable and natural right of self-defense with defense of arms, as codified in the U.S. Constitution, and who do so in a proper, safe, and lawful manner.

ANTIGUN GROUPS SHAMELESSLY MANIPULATE CHILDREN AND TEENAGERS.

A new tactic of antigun groups and one that is most reprehensible involves the recruitment of and exploitation of teenagers and young children as message boards in the continuing effort to destroy our sacred rights and liberties. We find, of late, young, articulate, students carrying messages for antigun groups. They know that no one would dare directly challenge a youth’s apparent preconceptions about guns and gun violence, however simplistic and flawed those preconceptions happen to be. These students have not, however, voiced outrage at gun violence spontaneously. They have been carefully coached. How do we know this? Consider what they are saying. They are using the typical phraseology and sloganeering of the antigun groups. They refer to AR-15 semiautomatic rifles as “weapons of war.” They call for “universal background checks.” They tell the American public to vote pro-Second Amendment legislators out of Office. They attack the NRA, the oldest civil rights organization in the Country, labeling it, pejoratively, the “Gun Lobby.” They aren’t speaking solely for themselves. They are the puppets of antigun political activists and legislators and of the ruthless, secretive internationalist benefactors that bankroll them. These antigun groups and their internationalist benefactors have an agenda to pursue; and the children and teenagers, who operate from emotion, and who are easy to manipulate, present a useful tool for these groups.Doubtless, many of these students speak from the heart. They would not be compelling were that untrue. But the messages come from activist sponsors, who are using these innocent young adults as their “stand-ins.” The words sound new, and fresh and heartfelt, and emphatic even if they aren’t. The speed to which these young people have been mobilized and organized reflects, substantial funding and professional antigun operatives, well-schooled in psychological warfare, behind the scene.Teenagers—even preteens and young children—have been shamelessly recruited to assist in the work of those who seek to destroy this Nation’s Second Amendment. Many of these children and young adults are caught up in the heat of the moment, as impressionable young people generally are—as child psychologists and activists and propagandists in the antigun movement certainly know. Young people often act through the compulsion of social pressure. They are unusually susceptible to the forces that urge conformity to the dictates of the many and of those who shout the loudest or who appear to be the stronger willed. Those who wish to interject a contrary quiet, albeit reasoned, viewpoint, know full they will face the wrath and castigation of and suffer ignominious ostracizing from their fellow classmates if they do.

ANTIGUN GROUPS ARE THE UNSEEN “HAND” BEHIND THESE STUDENT “WALKOUTS”

"School walkouts" occurred on March 14, 2018. An operation of this magnitude, involving schools across the Country, obviously requires money, and organization, and coordination well beyond the ability and monetary capacity of students to orchestrate. The organizers made certain that the event would zero in on the singular topics of “guns” and “gun violence.” This effort had nothing to do with ensuring school safety, and it had nothing to do with curbing violence in schools. ABC News reports:“Women’s March Youth Coordinator Tabitha St. Bernard Jacobs, one of the few adults helping with the youth-led movement, told ABC News that while today's walkout is in reaction to the Parkland shooting, the event is about calling out gun violence.This isn't a protest against schools but a way to encourage school administrators to help students ‘amplify their voices,’ she said.She added, ‘Some schools are looking to this as an opportunity to really educate their young people about what it means in this moment to be engaged.’”In other words, this walkout is teaching children to become agents’ provocateur and agitators for anarchist and communist groups. Even elementary grade school students have been recruited. That is particularly reprehensible. Very young children have no comprehension of the import and purpose of this grand charade. They are shamelessly being used as pawns. Does this orchestrated drama have anything to do with school safety? No! It has everything to do with forcing an antigun agenda down the throats of the American public.Some schools have permitted a walkout; but others have not. Contrary to Tabitha St. Bernard Jacobs’ remarks, many school administrators made clear their displeasure of students’ insolence. One school board president said, “those who went outside to protest despite warnings of penalties would get suspensions.” Wall Street Journal, March 15, 2018, at A7.   The American public is witnessing a ramping up of disobedience to the rule of law on a massive scale. Anarchist groups and other ruthless internationalist socialist/communist influences are actively encouraging our youth to take an active role in the tearing down of our Nation. They make no pretense of this. They attack the very core of our laws, our culture, our morality, our Judeo-Christian heritage, our sacred rights and liberties—the very fabric of our Nation.We see the intentions of these disruptors played out in the recent and blatant actions of California Governor Jerry Brown; Oakland, California Mayor Libby Schaaf; New York Governor Andrew Cuomo; House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi; Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer; and declared Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders.It is time for Americans to take a stand against deceitful influences and deceitful individuals.______________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

MARJORY STONEMAN DOUGLAS HIGH SCHOOL’S SECURITY SYSTEM WAS INEFFECTIVE AND INADEQUATE, BUT WHAT DOES AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL SECURITY LOOK LIKE?

PART TWO

A TIPPING POINT IS REACHED: SUBSEQUENT TO THE MASS SHOOTING INCIDENT AT MARJORY STONEMAN DOUGLAS HIGH SCHOOL, IN PARKLAND, FLORIDA, THE PUBLIC CLAMORS FOR AND DEMANDS ANSWERS, AN ACCOUNTING, AND A CALL FOR CORRECTIVE MEASURES ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

Parkland, Florida is a wealthy enclave abutting prominent Florida Cities—Coral Springs, Boca Raton, and Palm Beach. The public learned about Parkland after tragedy struck the City’s public high school: Marjory Stoneman Douglas. A deranged young man, 19-year old Nikolas Cruz, entered the School on February 14, 2018, armed with a semiautomatic rifle and several rounds of ammunition. During the ensuing shooting spree, Cruz murdered 17 people, including both students and teachers. He wounded several more students, many seriously.Why Nikolas Cruz went on a shooting rampage is open to speculation. How it is he succeeded in killing and injuring innocent people, isn’t. Unlike many schools across the Country, both public and private—including preschools, elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools, as well as colleges and universities—it is abundantly clear that one School, Marjory Stoneman Douglas, had woefully inadequate security. The lack of adequate security gave the killer an open invitation to visit harm on the School, and he took full advantage of security deficiencies to wreak havoc--with immediacy and ferocity--on innocent students and teachers alike.

THREE CRITICAL FAILURES LED TO HORRIFIC TRAGEDY

THE FIRST FAILURE

The Board of Education of Marjory Stoneman Douglas employed one Broward County Sheriff’s Deputy at the School, dubbed the “School Resource Officer.” Apparently, that was the only security provided. Once Nikolas Cruz began his rampage through the School, murdering both students and teachers, Deputy Sheriff Scott Peterson, hunkered down behind a barrier, outside the School, his handgun drawn. But, he never ventured inside the School to confront the shooter. A few more Broward County Sheriff’s Deputies arrived soon after. They, too, never ventured inside the School even though Peterson repeatedly said gunshots were coming from inside the School building.Once the Coral Springs Police SWAT team arrived, the members were aghast to find Broward County Sheriffs’ Deputies huddled together outside the School—none had entered the School, to stop the shooter. And where was he? Unlike many mass shooting incidents, the killer in the Parkland, Florida incident, Nikolas Cruz, obviously didn’t have a personal death wish even as he dealt death on others. He left the School Building, blending in with other students. He was later apprehended by an Officer from the Coconut Creek Police Department.

THE SECOND FAILURE

Both the Broward County Sheriff (‘BSO’) Scott Israel and the Miami Office of the FBI received a substantial number of tips, warning of the erratic behavior of Nikolas Cruz through the months, weeks, and even days leading up to the tragedy, but neither the FBI nor the Sheriff acted on the tips. In fact, the BSO Scott Israel received 45 tips involving the danger Nikolas Cruz posed to the community, but did nothing. Ever the politician, Scott Israel blames others under his command for his own failures to protect his community and not surprisingly has rebuffed calls for his resignation. The FBI doesn’t escape unscathed from the failure to act, either. The Miami Herald reports the FBI delivered an official apology. An official apology from the FBI may be extraordinary, but it hardly suffices and comes across as lame. Governor Rick Scott called for FBI Director Christopher Wray to step down. He won’t.

THE THIRD FAILURE

The High School did not inform the police about dangerous students. This undoubtedly speaks to President Barack Obama's legacy policy.The City Journal reports:“In an effort to combat the “school to prison pipeline,” schools across the country have come under pressure from the federal government and civil rights activists to reduce suspensions, expulsions, and in-school arrests. The unintended consequences of pressuring schools to produce ever-lower discipline statistics deserve much more examination.  Florida’s Broward County, home to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High, was among the leaders in this nationwide policy shift. According to Washington Post reporting, Broward County schools once recorded more in-school arrests than any other Florida district.”  President Trump and his Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, must change a previous Administration's nonsensical policy.

WHAT IS BEING DONE TO ADDRESS WOEFULLY  INEFFECTIVE AND INADEQUATE SECURITY SYSTEMS IN MANY OF OUR NATION’S SCHOOLS?

In the aftermath of the Parkland, Florida tragedy, the Florida State Legislature drafted legislation in the hope of preventing future tragedies. The bill, titled the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Public Safety Act (2018 Bill Text FL S.B. 7026), was signed into law by Governor Rick Scott on Friday, March 9, 2018. Other States are in the process of drafting and enacting their own bills. In all instances, the question that must be asked is this: Does legislation to prevent future school tragedies truly address the issue of school safety or is school safety merely the pretext to further restrict legitimate firearms’ rights of the average, rational, law-abiding citizen? A quick look at the Florida Act leads one to conclude that at least a couple of features of the Act have nothing to do with School safety and everything to do with gun control.Evidence of the insertion of antigun agenda policies exists in the Florida Act: the imposition of a three-day waiting period between the date of purchase and receipt of any firearm; and age constraints as no person under the age of 21 may purchase any firearm. If legislation is truly designed to prevent future tragedy in schools, then legislation should be directed to and limited to that effort.

WHAT DOES A RESPONSIBLE, RESPONSIVE, CREDIBLE SECURITY SCHOOL PLAN CONSIST OF?

Two important points must be addressed before discussing corrective actions for Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School or for that matter, any other school in this Country. First, no security system, regardless of sophistication and refinement, is worth the cost of its design and implementation if those charged with its operation provide half-hearted efforts to see to it that the system functions at optimum efficiency, reliability, and effectiveness. Second, where systemic failures exist, lives will always be at risk.The School Resource Officer, Deputy Sheriff Scott Peterson, who did not confront the shooter, is a coward; no question about it; and the other Deputy Sheriffs who arrived soon after the shooting began, did not confront the shooter either. Their inaction or inappropriate action amounts to ineptitude and gross incompetence at least; and abject cowardice at worst. Our takeaway: even the inclusion of armed security personnel in the design of a security system—which ought to be considered a critical aspect of an effective security system—is of no value if security personnel lack both the requisite training and ability to counter a threat or, otherwise, are physically or psychologically unsuited to the task of confronting a deadly threat quickly, stalwartly, and forcefully.

WHAT SHOULD AN EFFECTIVE SCHOOL SECURITY SYSTEM CONSIST OF?

The expression, ‘hardening,’ of security defenses of a school often comes up in discussion. What does this mean? As we use the expression, it means that an effective security system—a truly effective security system—must be multilayered and multifaceted. Such a security system should consist of three primary layers or facets. The first layer consists of an array of “passive” technological and non-technological features, implemented throughout the school or incorporated into the structure of the school. See the Arbalest Quarrel article, Part One on School Safety. A second layer consists of both armed and unarmed personnel, monitoring and patrolling the school building and school grounds. A third layer requires involvement of students, faculty, and administrators and requires, too, the active involvement of the community at large. If erratic dangerous behavior is perceived in a student, that behavior should be reported to the appropriate senior school official or officials who must assess the level of risk and notify police officials if necessary or provide counseling for that individual. And, if, or when, an active threat occurs, students, teachers, school administrators, and security personnel must have a plan of action and must be prepared to execute that plan of action immediately.In our next article we will look at each of these facets of security in more depth._______________________________________________________

GET INVOLVED! CALL YOUR STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT!

Find out what your State and local government officials have done to make all the schools in your community—preschool; elementary, middle and high schools; technical schools, and colleges and universities—safe.This, ultimately, is your responsibility. If your government officials have taken no action or minimal action or are reluctant to discuss the issue with you at all, then you must join with other members of your community to make sure your government officials are responsive to and do listen to your concerns and that they address the issue of school security. After all, these Government officials work for you. not for themselves, and they owe it to you to make sure that the life and well-being of your children are safe. There is no excuse for delay. Don’t wait for your child to become another statistic!________________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

FRONTLINE SOLUTIONS FOR SCHOOL SAFETY: MARJORY STONEMAN DOUGLAS HIGH SCHOOL HAD NONE; WHY WAS THAT?

PART ONE

WORKABLE FRONTLINE SOLUTIONS FOR SCHOOL SAFETY ARE ULTIMATELY A STATE AND LOCAL ISSUE AND RESPONSIBILITY.

What are we doing to secure school safety for our communities? Kids are being seriously injured or killed in our schools. Doing something is better than doing nothing and there is, of course no excuse for doing nothing, but we must do the right thing. Innocent lives rest in the balance. All we hear about in the news, though, is accusation and denunciation, all laid at the feet of the usual convenient scapegoats through whom the public is encouraged to vent its frustration and outrage. We see displays of raw anger and antipathy, emotional outbursts, and sanctimonious posturing. And we are proffered feel-good single solution answers that, on careful examination, do nothing at all to protect the lives and well-being of our children, and scarcely mask their true import: to promote a social and political agenda.Those of us who have young children or grandchildren should not have to send them to school where they are not safe. If reasonable safeguards are put into effect in our schools, children will be safe. Think about it. Substantial security already exists at airports, in hospitals, in shopping malls, in corporate and governmental office buildings, in courthouses and banks, and in police stations. You get the idea. And yet, there are schools in America that have no security or, at best, minimal and inadequate security for our children.

THERE WAS VIRTUALLY NO SECURITY AT MARJORY STONEMAN DOUGLAS HIGH SCHOOL ON THE DAY OF THE SHOOTING. WHY IS THAT?

There was virtually no security at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School; and what minimal security did exist at the School that the public did hear about—namely the assignment of one Broward County Deputy Sheriff to the School—proved useless in preventing or, for that matter, in even attempting to prevent the tragedy that ensued. In an updated article, titled, “As Gunman Rampaged Through Florida School, Armed Deputy ‘Never Went In’”, The New York Times reports: “The only armed sheriff’s deputy at a Florida high school where 17 people were killed took cover outside rather than charging into the building when the massacre began, the Broward County sheriff said on Thursday. The sheriff also acknowledged that his office received 23 calls related to the suspect going back a decade, including one last year that said he was collecting knives and guns, but may not have adequately followed up. The deputy, Scot Peterson, resigned on Thursday after being suspended without pay after Sheriff Scott Israel reviewed surveillance video.”Matters didn’t improve once other Broward Sheriff’s Deputies arrived, for they, too, did nothing to confront an active shooter. The New York Post reported, in their article, titled, “Four sheriff’s deputies hid during Florida shooting,” “Not one but four sheriff’s deputies hid behind cars instead of storming Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS in Parkland, Fla., during Wednesday’s school shooting, police claimed Friday — as newly released records revealed the Broward County Sheriff’s Office had received at least 18 calls about the troubled teen over the past decade. Sources from Coral Springs, Fla., Police Department tell CNN that when its officers arrived on the scene Wednesday, they were shocked to find three Broward County Sheriff’s deputies behind their cars with weapons drawn.” Broward County Sheriff, Scott Israel, has, for his part, much to answer for as he bears full responsibility for the action, or inaction, of individuals under his command, as well as for his own actions before, during, and after the tragedy. The parents of all the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School—not only the parents of those students who were injured, some seriously, or parents of students whose lives were lost—should ask for a full accounting of Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel’s actions. Parents of these High School students should also ask Broward County Public Schools Superintendent Robert W. Runcie why the school system had failed to institute even rudimentary security measures to forestall just such a tragedy that had occurred. It could not have been merely a matter of Broward County Public Schools having insufficient funds to pay for premier security for its schools--as if the cost of a child's life should ever devolve into a cost-benefit analysis. After all, Parkland, Florida, where Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School is situated--nestled close to Boca Raton and Coral Springs, wealthy communities--is itself a wealthy City.

MANY STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS, ACROSS THE COUNTRY, HAVE IMPLEMENTED SECURITY MEASURES FOR THEIR SCHOOL SYSTEMS. UNFORTUNATELY, OTHERS, LIKE MARJORY STONEMAN DOUGLAS HIGH SCHOOL HAD NOT AND, TO DATE, HAVE NOT.

The public must ask: why are so many State and local governmental officials providing no security in and for their schools or are providing their schools with minimal and inadequate security? What are these public officials waiting for? To do nothing only invites another tragedy to occur in schools that have failed to implement even rudimentary security measures.All too many Americans, it seems, are waiting for the Federal Government to legislate a solution. They look for a quick fix. The Federal Government can recommend guidelines, to be sure, and can provide State grants and encourage other types of funding. But, school safety is, ultimately, a State and local matter. This is hard work, but it is doable. Several States and local communities across the Country have acted to institute multilayered security measures in their schools to protect the lives and well-being of their children. Those communities that have not taken action must do so now. They must be proactive, not reactive.

A CONCENSUS FOR CONCERTED ACTION TO MAKE ALL SCHOOLS IN OUR COUNTRY SAFE FROM LIFE-THREATENING VIOLENCE IS POSSIBLE.

We seek to get a consensus on measures that can be immediately implemented in all our schools to provide an initial layer of passive protection. At this juncture, we do not need to get bogged-down in detail.Video surveillance, both internal and external; secured entrances and exits; use of metal detectors; photo identification and written passes with appointment confirmations; and monitored alarm systems that are connected to police departments are all examples of neutral, passive security measures implemented for both business and government and, which, too, have been implemented in schools across the Country. These passive security measures have been shown to work well in real world situations. Had even a few of these security measures been implemented in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, injury and loss of innocent life would doubtless have been prevented or certainly reduced.Again, many communities across the Country have already employed many of these measures and other passive as well as active measures, in their schools. Those communities that haven’t done so should seriously consider doing so if they are truly serious about protecting the lives and well-being of their children._________________________________________

ACTION ALERT: CALL YOUR STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT!

Find out what your State and local government officials have done to make all the schools in your community—preschool, elementary, middle or junior high school, and high school—safe.This, ultimately, is your responsibility. If your government officials have taken no action or minimal action or are reluctant to discuss the issue with you at all, then you must join with other members of your community to make sure that your government officials are responsive to and do listen to your concerns and that they take immediate action to address the issue of school security if they haven’t already done so. These Government officials owe it to you to make sure that the life and well-being of your child is safe. There is no excuse for delay. Don’t wait for your child to become another statistic!______________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE POLITICAL BOYCOTT: AN ASSAULT ON THE NRA AND ON NRA MEMBERS’ FIRST AND SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS

Antigun activists seek to dispossess the civilian population of this Country of their firearms. That is the reason for their existence. That is the reason for their being. They will deny this of course. They will tell you they don’t want to take all your firearms away, just some of them. They will also tell you they don’t want to prevent every American citizen from owning and possessing firearms, just some of them. But, when pressed, they will admit they abhor firearms and they will tell you that, in a civilized society, no one needs firearms anymore, anyway. They will also tell you that law-abiding, rational citizens today may become lawless, rabidly insane tomorrow. That is highly improbable, ridiculously so, even if only logically possible in a philosophical sense. But mere possibility is enough, for antigun proponents and activists, to support the elimination of civilian firearms’ ownership and firearms’ possession.Those who espouse the elimination of firearms would like to see civilian ownership and possession of firearms relegated to the dustbin of history. They hope that guns, as with buggy whips and corsets, will become merely a distant memory. But, there is one hitch to the antigun activists’ goal and that hitch is the presence of the right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as categorically affirmed by the high Court in the landmark Heller and McDonald cases.The Bill of Rights and U.S. Supreme Court rulings prevent antigun legislators from instituting wholesale confiscation of guns in the vein of the Australian scheme. So, antigun proponents in this Nation employ an incremental approach. Instead of banning firearms en mass, they attempt to ban categories of guns.The National Firearms Act of 1934 made possession of machine guns and “sawed-off” shotguns illegal. In fits and starts, many semiautomatic weapons, called “assault weapons” by antigun proponents, have become illegal for the average American citizen to own in several States. Antigun legislators also expanded and wish to continue to expand the domain of individuals who cannot lawfully own any firearm.With the murder of students and teachers at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, Florida by a deranged gunman, antigun activists immediately began to harness public outrage at the senseless deaths. Antigun activists directed public anger toward the activists’ perennial favorite targets: guns, gun owners, gun manufacturers and dealers; and toward their arch-enemy, the NRA.Antigun groups might have reasonably directed public anger at Hollywood for producing movies filled with gratuitous, horrific violence and carnage. They didn’t. And, they could have directed the public’s wrath toward manufacturers of violent video games. They didn’t. Nor did antigun groups look at the cultural milieu in which we live as the true root cause of violence in our Nation: broken homes; illicit drugs; criminal gangs running amok; moral relativism; multiculturalism; historical revisionism; bizarre social constructs; gender dysphoria, a mental disorder, masquerading as mere “life choice;” and the rise of atheistic and socialistic tendencies in this Country, belief systems that are incompatible with natural law and incompatible with the idea of a Divine creator in whom an effective normative ethical system derives.No! It is far easier, although absurd in the contemplation, to direct public anger at an inanimate object, the firearm, and toward the NRA, and toward any person or business entity that espouses support for the right of the American citizen to keep and bear arms.One tactic antigun activists employ recently to achieve their ends is the “political boycott.” The way it works, is this: antigun groups attack companies that have partnership arrangements with NRA. Some companies, for example, offer discounts to NRA members. Antigun activists have coerced companies into ending programs offering discounts to NRA members under threat of economic ruin and public shame and condemnation. The purpose of these political boycotts is expressive and coercive, not economic. Antigun activists seek social and political change here, not economic benefit.The use of the political boycott invariably has a First Amendment free speech component, but even those who support the use of political boycotts recognize its danger. “Boycotts are indeed powerful. They do, in fact, have the ability to exact real-world, human costs from those businesses and individuals targeted. The concern over boycotts exists because they have consequences that might have the potential to extend outward from their target to impact a boycotted business's employees or community.” Democratizing The Economic Sphere: A Case For The Political Boycott, 115 W. Va. L. Rev. 531, 534 (Winter 2012), by Teresa J. Lee.Scrutiny of both motives and effects of using political boycotts to achieve political and social ends is warranted, lest our rights and liberties be destroyed.Use of the political boycott by antigun activists against the NRA is legally and morally suspect and, from a historical perspective, incongruous. The reason is that the NRA, as a Civil Rights organization—the original Civil Rights organization—has, as its first stated purpose and objective the strengthening and sanctifying of our sacred heritage:“To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially with reference to the inalienable right of the individual American citizen guaranteed by such Constitution to acquire, possess, collect, exhibit, transport, carry, transfer ownership of, and enjoy the right to use arms, in order that the people may always be in a position to exercise their legitimate individual rights of self-preservation and defense of family, person, and property, as well as to serve effectively in the appropriate militia for the common defense of the Republic and the individual liberty of its citizens.”NRA is the only Civil Rights Group that has, as its salient raison d’être, the defense of a sacred right and liberty as codified in the U.S. Constitution. And the NRA is attacked for this! There is something both odd and deeply disturbing in antigun activists’ reliance on the exercise of one sacred right, free speech, to attack an organization whose stated objective is simply to defend a second sacred right: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. See the Arbalest Quarrel article, "NRA Freedom, Join It!"Keep in mind, too, that the political boycott is not merely utilized by antigun activists to harm the NRA; it is an attack on the NRA members, American citizens. Basically, NRA members have their own First Amendment right of free speech, as expressed in their support of the Second Amendment. The political boycott is used by antigun activists, and is meant to be used by antigun activists, to squelch free speech. This is an impermissible coercive use of the political boycott.“To be protected under the first amendment, the boycott advocates' appeal to their listeners must be persuasive rather than coercive. The distinction is crucial. Persuasive speech has always been accorded the highest first amendment protection on the theory that the free flow of ideas is central to our democratic system of government: ‘the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.’ By contrast, speech that deprives its listeners of freedom of choice, i.e., coercive speech, distorts the marketplace of ideas by causing listeners to accept an idea not for its ‘truth’ but to avoid some sanction. Coercive speech also undermines the political process, since a democratic society depends upon the autonomy of those who publicly espouse a point of view and of those who listen.” Secondary Boycotts and the First Amendment, 51 U. Chi. L. Rev. 811, 825 (Summer 1984), by Barbara J. Anderson.There is, though, no autonomy between those who publicly espouse the elimination of civilian gun ownership, ergo de facto repeal of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, comprising antigun activists, antigun legislators, antigun billionaire Globalists, and members of the mainstream media who shriek at and attempt to cajole into submission, the American public and businesses, the listeners, who may happen to harbor contrary views.These antigun influences, some domestic and some foreign, intend to speak to and for the American public and for the business community. For companies that do not willingly accede to the antigun agenda, the political boycott operates as a club to coerce compliance with that agenda. The political boycott is not used here as a mechanism meant merely to persuade.The political boycott is as well, a club wielded against NRA members. Antigun proponents ostracize Americans who are NRA members. But, NRA membership is a legitimate First Amendment expression of one’s Second Amendment right. By attacking a citizen’s membership in NRA, antigun forces seek to control speech, crushing dissent. In a free Republic this cannot be countenanced. NRA members should challenge these boycotts.

 ALERT: CONTACT YOUR REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS NOW!

Tell Congress to enact laws to prevent antigun groups from coercing and threatening retaliatory action against companies that do not adopt the groups’ political views.PHONE: U.S. Senate: (202) 224-3121;PHONE: U.S. House of Representatives: (202) 225-3121______________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.