OVERCOMING BRUEN TO SAVE THE SULLIVAN ACT: NEW YORK GOVERNOR HOCHUL’S GAMBIT

POST-BRUEN—WHAT IT ALL MEANS AND WHAT ITS IMPACT IS BOTH FOR THOSE WHO SUPPORT AND CHERISH THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND THOSE WHO DO NOT; THOSE WHO SEEK TO UNDERMINE AND EVENTUALLY DESTROY THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT AND THOSE WHO SEEK TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN THE RIGHT BOTH FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS

MULTI SERIES

SUBPART ONE OF PART TWENTY-EIGHT

REPLACING THE “PROPER CAUSE” REQUIREMENT WITH “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER”

Once Oral Argument had concluded in the  New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2155 (2022), the New York Government under Governor Kathy Hochul likely didn’t wait for an adverse ruling it knew was coming.

The Government scrambled to overhaul the State’s Handgun Law (the Sullivan Act) in anticipation of a major ruling striking at the heart of the State’s concealed handgun carry licensing regime: the “Proper Cause” requirement.

The Hochul Government intended to be ready for that. And, in fact, the U.S. Supreme Court did just that.

The Court held that Proper Cause, the mainstay of New York’s Handgun Law (the Sullivan Act), violates the Fourteenth Amendment because it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. The Court thereupon struck “Proper Cause” down. New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2155.

The High Court knew that application of the “Proper Cause” requirement is not only useful to New York’s Handgun Licensing Regime but essential to its functioning in constraining civilian citizen access to handguns for the purpose of self-defense.

But why is “Proper Cause” essential to the Sullivan Act?

To understand why “Proper Cause” was essential to the Sullivan Act and why it so worried Hochul and the Anti-Second Amendment Democrat Party Controlled Legislature in Albany when the High Court, having found the application of it to infringe the core of the Second Amendment, had thereupon struck it down—and to understand the problems attendant to the Hochul Government’s attempt to find a suitable replacement for it—it helps to know what this concept “Proper Cause” is, and how it has functioned in the Sullivan Act.

Justice Thomas, writing for the Majority in Bruen, offers by way of explanation, this:

“No New York statute defines ‘proper cause.’ But New York courts have held that an applicant shows proper cause only if he can “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.” E.g., In re Klenosky, 75 App. Div. 2d 793, 428 N. Y. S. 2d 256, 257 (1980). This ‘special need’ standard is demanding. For example, living or working in an area “‘noted for criminal activity’” does not suffice. In re Bernstein, 85 App. Div. 2d 574, 445 N. Y. S. 2d 716, 717 (1981). Rather, New York courts generally require evidence ‘of particular threats, attacks or other extraordinary danger to personal safety.’ In re Martinek, 294 App. Div. 2d 221, 222, 743 N. Y. S. 2d 80, 81 (2002); see also In re Kaplan, 249 App. Div. 2d 199, 201, 673 N. Y. S. 2d 66, 68 (1998) (approving the New York City Police Department’s requirement of “‘extraordinary personal danger, documented by proof of recurrent threats to life or safety’” (quoting 38 N. Y. C. R. R. §5-03(b))).

When a licensing officer denies an application, judicial review is limited. New York courts defer to an officer’s application of the proper-cause standard unless it is ‘arbitrary and capricious.’ In re Bando, 290 App. Div. 2d 691, 692, 735 N. Y. S. 2d 660, 661 (2002). In other words, the decision ‘must be upheld if the record shows a rational basis  for it.’ Kaplan, 249 App. Div. 2d, at 201, 673 N. Y. S. 2d, at 68. The rule leaves applicants little recourse if their local licensing officer denies a permit.”

The U.S. Supreme Court found “Proper Cause” unlawful and unconstitutional because it is incompatible with the concept of “Armed Self-Defense,” which rests at the heart of the fundamental, unalienable, immutable right codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

The Right to Armed Self-Defense isn’t subject to two “degrees” of threat: “extraordinary” versus “ordinary.” A threat to one’s physical safety is absolute. It doesn’t admit degrees. It either is or it is not. To create an arbitrary distinction is logically flawed and legally indefensible. The New York State Government created it for one purpose only: to unlawfully constrain an American’s lawful right to keep and bear arms. And the Government succeeded.

For years New Yorkers have fought the Government over the Government’s extraordinarily restrictive handgun measures. But only in recent years, beginning with District Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570; 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) has the U.S. Supreme Court, one Branch of Government, done anything about it.

The Executive Branch, for its part, has done nothing to strengthen the Second Amendment, and the Legislative Branch has, through the passing decades, done much more harm than good.

Thus, States, like New York, that have abhorred the Second Amendment, have not been reluctant to tread all over it, have found Heller, 554 U.S. at 570, 128 S. Ct. at 2783, and, subsequent to Heller, McDonald vs. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), annoying, but not insurmountable.

The State Government simply ignored the rulings in those cases and went its merry way, proceeding unimpeded with its agenda to continue to frustrate those Americans residing or working in New York, from exercising their fundamental, unalienable right to armed self-defense; devising and implementing even more outrageous assaults on the Second Amendment and toward those Americans who sought to exercise their fundamental right to armed self-defense.

In 2013, the New York Governor at the time, Andrew Cuomo, rammed through the Legislature in Albany, the New York Safe Act of 2013.

Since that date, both he and his predecessor signed into law further burdensome measures. This culminated in the first major challenge to New York’s Handgun Law that the High Court agreed to review in the 21st Century: New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs. New York City, 140 S. Ct. 1525 (2020). Although the High Court could have reviewed the constitutionality of a Handgun Law that patently infringed the right to armed self-defense outside the confines of one’s home, at that time, Chief Justice Roberts confined the issue on review to one specific challenge: the constitutionality of a New York City rule regarding the transportation of Petitioners’ handguns outside the City.

Petitioners, who held valid but highly restrictive New York City handgun licenses challenged the rule that prevented them from transporting their firearms to a second home or shooting range outside the City. Obviously realizing that the Chief Justice had provided the Governor (at the time, Governor Cuomo) with a way to avoid a discussion of the issue on the merits that would have likely brought into play the import of “armed self-defense” (for holders of restricted handgun licenses cannot have access to their handguns when transporting those handguns outside the home, even if an aggressor threatens their life, which is the point of rendering the handguns useless for self-defense), the Governor simply amended the State Law, and the NYPD License Division amended its Rules, to allow Petitioners to transport their handguns to a second home or to a shooting range outside the City. The Majority then dismissed the case, ruling it moot.

Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, was not pleased with this. In a vigorous Dissent, Justice Alito first made plain what the real issue in the case was. He said, “We granted review to consider the constitutionality of a New York City ordinance that burdened the right recognized in Heller.” 

So, the central issue to be dealt with goes to the import of the concept of armed self-defense and what, if any, are the parameters for exercising the right of armed self-defense inherent in the Second Amendment. Justice Alito also pointed out that the Majority had not applied the proper test for mootness.

Justice Alito wrote in pertinent part,

“Thus, in this case, we must apply the well-established standards for determining whether a case is moot, and under those standards, we still have a live case before us. It is certainly true that the new City ordinance and the new State law give petitioners most of what they sought, but that is not the test for mootness. Instead, ‘a case “‘becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.’” Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U. S. 165, 172, 133 S. Ct. 1017, 185, L. Ed. 2d 1 (2013) (emphasis added). “‘As long as the parties have a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of the litigation, the case is not moot.’” Ibid. (emphasis added).”

Although New York had, since its inception as a State, a blatant dismissive attitude toward the Common Man’s exercise of the right to armed self-defense, evidenced by the failure to recognize the right in the State’s Constitution—a matter never rectified up to the present day—the State’s negative attitude has not at all softened through the passing years decades and centuries, but has instead hardened to the point that the Government abhors the notion of the armed civilian citizen.

People carried handguns in New York for decades in New York without major Government interference, until 1911. In 1911, New York introduced licensing of handguns. This meant the State Government would henceforth insist on interposing itself between the people and exercise of the right embodied in the Second Amendment. At the time, the New York Government felt it was on firm ground as the Nation’s Bill of Rights was simply viewed as a limitation on Federal Government action directed against the people, not the States.

The Sullivan Act, rudimentary as first enacted, would become the vehicle through which, the State would slowly but inexorably erode operation of the Right to armed self-defense so that, at the time that the McDonald case ruled that the individual right to armed self-defense applies to the States as well as to the Federal Government, the machinery for frustrating a person’s exercise of the right to armed self-defense in New York had long since been in operation. The constraints on the average person’s exercise of the right to armed self-defense in New York had far exceeded anything the New York Government had first effectuated in 1911 and likely extended far beyond anything the Government at that time, over a century ago could have imagined, although the proponents of the Sullivan Act would certainly be gleeful at what the Sullivan Act had grown into.

Still, even in the early years of the Sullivan Act, the New York Government had intimations of the utility of handgun licensing as a device to constrain civilian citizen access to handguns.

Just two years after the enactment of Sullivan, in 1913, the Government amended the Sullivan Act, adding the “Proper Cause” requirement. And “Proper Cause” became a fixture of the Sullivan Act for 110 years.

The New York Government felt invincible. It felt that neither McDonald nor Heller could touch it. And with the Government’s ability to weather a crisis posed by NYSRPA vs. New York City (colloquially referred to as “the New York City Gun Transport case”), it had no reason to believe that any new case would come along to severely challenge the mighty handgun regime that the Government had created and that it had added to in 110 years since the enactment of Sullivan.

But, then Bruen came along.

Many Anti-Second Amendment forces knew that Bruen posed a potential problem—more urgent than that posed by the New York City Gun Transport Case. It would not be easy to frame the central issue of Bruen precluding a review of the core of the Sullivan Act—concealed handgun carry. Bruen directly impacted concealed handgun carry licensing, which meant impacting the “Proper Cause” standard that drastically reduced the number of concealed handgun carry licenses issued.

But the application of “Proper Cause” requires one to suspend rational thought. “Proper Cause” mandates that the average civilian citizen hoping to obtain a coveted unrestricted concealed handgun carry license prove, to the satisfaction of the Government licensing official, that his need to carry a handgun for self-defense transcends the basic need of most everyone else who might lay claim to a need to possess on his person the best means available by which he can best defend his life against a violent aggressor who threatens that life. In other words, an applicant for an unconcealed handgun carry license must somehow convey the idea that a threat to his life is greater and graver than that threat faced by essentially everyone else in New York.

But, for the New York Government to require a person to establish ‘extraordinary need’ to carry a handgun for self-defense to the satisfaction of a Government agent (the licensing authority) is ludicrous.

It either manifests in a jurisdiction such as New York City, where the License Division constructs a set of arbitrary standards that some people may be able to meet while most cannot. Most other jurisdictions in New York, perhaps realizing the futility in creating arbitrary standards and attempting to apply them fairly doesn’t bother to do this.

Instead, these license officials issue concealed handgun carry licenses piecemeal on the basis of one’s position in life: great wealth, fame, or power. But that creates equal protection problems as wealthy, powerful, influential, well-connected people become the principal beneficiaries of a system that leaves the “Common Man,” the vast majority of us, defenseless. This is ironic.

The Second Amendment was meant to make certain that the Common Man might exercise his God-given right to keep and bear arms to safeguard his life and that of his family and to maintain his sovereign authority over Government but that has not come to be—certainly not in New York. But Bruen meant to change that.

And the U.S. Supreme Court finally did something about this. The Court reset the balance of power by issuing a series of rulings, culminating in the Bruen decision, making clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, applicable to all Government, State as well as Federal, and that the right to armed self-defense extends beyond the perimeter of one’s home. Heller also makes clear that the Second Amendment’s salient function is to function as a failsafe—the final check on the power of a Government that tends toward tyranny.

The concept of armed self-defense is, then, multifaceted, and critically important to the maintenance of liberty and to the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic. While emphasizing the common man’s right to armed self-defense against predatory attacks in one’s community, the idea inherent in the U.S. Supreme Court’s three seminal Second Amendment case decisions is the common man’s right to thwart a graver threat—the predatory Government: State or Federal.

Kathy Hochul and the Democrat Party that controls the Legislature in Albany were forced to jettison “Proper Cause.” There is no question about it. If Hochul refused to do so, her Government’s disregard for the Article 3 authority of the U.S. Supreme Court would be too blatant. Kathy Hochul and her Government were not prepared to go that far. She could rant and rave about the Bruen rulings, but she wasn’t going to defy a Court holding directly, by refusing to strike “Proper Cause” from the New York Handgun Law and applying it as if the Court never held the standard unconstitutional. She would have to confront the Court circumspectly—at least give some suggestion of forbearance to the Court’s decision. So the Hochul Government did strike “Proper Cause” from the Handgun Law but the Government then needed to find a suitable replacement for it. And that would be no easy task.

The Hochul Government had no intention of acceding directly and categorically to the Court’s dictates, thereby overturning 120+ years of an agenda focused on subjugating the Common Man, who as a Free and Sovereign Man would suffer no predator, whether that predator be beast, man-beast, or beast-Government.

The Hochul Government intended to secure her State Government’s Tyranny and the vehicle for doing so was the Sullivan Act. As long as the Common Man could be kept in fear of man-beasts running amok, her predatory Government could keep the impulses of the Common Man’s desire for Liberty in check. But to secure and strengthen the Sullivan Act the Hochul Government had to devise an effective replacement for “Proper Cause.” Clearly, the Biden Administration would be curious to see how and to what extent the Hochul Government might tie up the U.S. Supreme Court.

Since the Biden Administration, and a weakened, ineffectual Congress that the Executive Branch could manipulate, might constrain the Common Man’s exercise of his salient Rights, the present composition of the Court—most of whom wish to preserve a free Republic that the Founders created—pose an obstacle to those forces, both here at home and abroad, who are slowly strangling the life out of the Nation, and that wish to destroy a free Constitutional Republic, and that intend to subjugate a free and sovereign people.

Could the Hochul Government successfully battle the U.S. Supreme Court? States like California along with the Federal Government wanted to know this and needed to know this in formulating their own policies.

A replacement for “Proper Cause” must, in the first instance, not only prevent damage to the heart of the Sullivan Act and remain true to the State’s long-standing agenda—one committed to further constraining the average citizen (the Founding Fathers’ “Common Man”) from exercising the right to armed self-defense—but it must also suggest, however implausibly, to the Press and to the Public, the appearance of compliance with the salient rulings and reasoning of the Court that would, hopefully, withstand any new challenges to the Sullivan Act that Hochul and the State Legislature in Albany knew were coming.

Hochul and Albany were hoping that the lower New York Federal District Courts, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which had heretofore demonstrated acquiescence to the Government’s unlawful, unconstitutional meddling with and intrusion upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms, would continue to side with the Government against the U.S. Supreme Court.

Hochul and Albany wanted and needed to buy time before the next case would wend its way to the High Court, hoping that, with a reconstituted Court (with more people like Ketnaji Brown Jackson on board), the Court would reverse course and strike down the central holdings of Heller, McDonald, and Bruen.

Such a reconstituted Court, no longer beholding to the Constitution, would cast aside a methodology for analyzing cases grounded on “textualism” and “originalism,” as championed by the late Justice, Antonin Scalia, and as adhered to by Justice Scalia’s contemporaries, Justice Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and replacing “textualism” and “originalism” with a completely different methodology antithetical to the preservation of the Constitution as constructed by the Framers of it. This replacement methodology is  called “pragmatism.”

The pragmatic approach to Constitutional case analysis involves redefining the Constitution to cohere with the radical transformation of society presently taking place, and to reframe decisions and reasoning to be consistent with “international norms” even if they are antithetical to this Nation’s. Application of this methodology entails the slow eradication of the import and purport of the Constitution as understood by the Framers of it.

TWO SALIENT HOLDINGS OF THE THREE SEMINAL SECOND AMENDMENT U.S. SUPREME COURT CASES

While Justice Thomas spends considerable time—actually an excruciatingly lengthy amount of time—expounding on the test a court of competent jurisdiction must employ to ascertain the constitutionality of Government action that impinges on the Second Amendment, the two salient points coming out of Bruen are straightforward and are found in two specific places. We quote them explicitly, below.

The First one is a reiteration of a central holding in Heller and McDonald:

It is this:

“In Heller and McDonald, we held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.”

The Second one is this:

“Although we remarked in Heller that the need for armed self-defense is perhaps ‘most acute’ in the home, id., at 628, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, we did not suggest that the need was insignificant elsewhere. Many Americans hazard greater danger outside the home than in it. See Moore v. Madigan, 702 F. 3d 933, 937 (CA7 2012) (‘[A] Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower’). The text of the Second Amendment reflects that reality.

The Second Amendment’s plain text thus presumptively guarantees petitioners Koch and Nash [Bruen Plaintiff Petitioners] a right to ‘bear’ arms in public for self-defense.”

To secure the Sullivan Act and, at one and the same time, to strengthen it the Hochul Government’s Gambit involved a two-prong process.

Kathy Hochul knew the New York Government would be processing many more applications for concealed handgun carry licenses and that it would be required to issue many more licenses because of Bruen.

The Government sought to constrain the issuance of a sizable chunk of applications even if the “Extraordinary Need” predicate of “Proper Cause” was no longer available to it.

The Hochul Government settled on a concept already existent in the Handgun Law: “Good Moral Character.” That was the first prong of a plan to revitalize the Sullivan Act in light of Bruen. It involved significantly strengthening “Good Moral Character” and making it the centerpiece of the Sullivan Act. But that would create a whole host of new problems for the Government.

The second prong, “Sensitive Place” (also referred to as “Sensitive Location”) applies only to those individuals whom the State licensing authority approves for issuance of a concealed handgun carry license under the New York Penal Code § 400.00 (2)(f). These two concepts are the foundational bases of a reformulated Sullivan Act.

We analyze this second prong of “Sensitive Place,” at a later date.

When reconfiguring, reconstructing, and embellishing “Good Moral Character,” the drafters of the amendments to the Handgun Law—that, as a package, are referred to as the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” or by the acronym, “CCIA”—must have paid significant attention to what the U.S. Supreme Court said about it before the Hochul Government would expend time on developing a scheme around it.

The Majority Opinion mentions “Good Moral Character” twice in Bruen.

First, the Court writes:

“A license applicant who wants to possess a firearm at home (or in his place of business) must convince a ‘licensing officer’—usually a judge or law enforcement officer—that, among other things, he is of good moral character, has no history of crime or mental illness, and that ‘no good cause exists for the denial of the license.’ §§400.00(1)(a)-(n) (West Cum. Supp. 2022). If he wants to carry a firearm outside his home or place of business for self-defense, the applicant must obtain an unrestricted license to ‘have and carry’ a concealed ‘pistol or revolver.’ §400.00(2)(f ). To secure that license, the applicant must prove that ‘proper cause exists’ to issue it. Ibid. If an applicant cannot make that showing, he can receive only a ‘restricted’ license for public carry, which allows him to carry a firearm for a limited purpose, such as hunting, target shooting, or employment.

The reader will note that the factors, “good moral character,” “no history of crime or mental illness,” and that “‘no good cause exists for the denial of the license’” are and continue to be, after Bruen, conditions precedent to obtaining a handgun license of any sort. For, without meeting these factors, a person cannot legally possess a handgun anywhere in New York. These requirements remain true Post-Bruen, as they do Pre-Bruen.

Second, the Court writes,

To obtain a concealed-carry license for a handgun, an applicant must satisfy certain eligibility criteria. Among other things, he must generally be at least 21 years old and of ‘good moral character.’ §400.00(1). And he cannot have been convicted of a felony, dishonorably discharged from the military, or involuntarily committed to a mental hygiene facility. Ibid. If these and other eligibility criteria are satisfied, New York law provides that a concealed-carry license ‘shall be issued’ to individuals working in certain professions, such as judges, corrections officers, or messengers of a ‘banking institution or express company.’ §400.00(2). Individuals who satisfy the eligibility criteria but do not work in one of these professions may still obtain a concealed-carry license, but they must additionally show that ‘proper cause exists for the issuance thereof.’ §400.00(2)(f ).”

The point here is that Pre-Bruen, satisfaction of all the requirements for possession of a handgun at one’s residence or place of business remains one of two conditions precedent to obtaining a concealed handgun carry license. “Proper Cause,” the second condition precedent, had to be proved to the satisfaction of the licensing authority before the Licensing official would issue the applicant a concealed handgun carry license under § 400.00 (2)(f ).”

Post-Bruen, in the absence of “Proper Cause,” and in the absence of a suitable substitute for “Proper Cause,” the satisfaction of requirements for possession of a handgun, restricted to the home or place of work would mean that one ALSO SATISFIES the requirements for carrying a handgun concealed outside the home or place of business.

So, then, why would an applicant for a New York State handgun license apply for a barebones highly restricted residence license when he would automatically qualify for a license to carry a handgun concealed outside the home or place of business? The answer is there would be no reason for doing so and there would be no reason for maintaining a litany of different kinds of licenses issued as there have been Pre-Bruen. That is what Bruen intended to accomplish—to simplify the process by which an individual might exercise his Second Amendment right, cutting through all the garbage inherent in the Sullivan Act that had become increasingly more elaborate and cumbersome in the century since its enactment.

The High Court ruled that the right to armed self-defense exists no less outside one’s home (or place of business) than inside it.

Implicit in this was an order by the U.S. Supreme Court, telling the Hochul Government to dismantle the Sullivan Act.

Hochul would do no such thing. And her remonstrations against the High Court and its ruling came fast and vociferously.

Obviously, such a thing as dismantling the Sullivan Act was anathema to a Government that had, since New York’s inception, as the eleventh State to become part of the United States, never recognized for the denizens of the State the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms even as the State did ratify the Bill of Rights for the Nation, which, of course, included the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.

Happy, then, the State Government was when it took as self-evidently true that the right to armed self-defense only applied to the Federal Government, not to the States. So the States could decide not to recognize an immutable, eternal right of man—the fundamental, eternal, illimitable right to preserve his own life and well-being against anyone, man or animal, or any Government that might desire to, and have the ability to, take his life from him.

Odd that, the right to armed self-defense—the central import of the language of the Second Amendment—as the best means, now, as then, to secure one’s life against predatory animal, man, or government, should have been a matter tacit but ignored and dismissed by several States since the founding of the Republic, until the U.S. Supreme Court, through the tenacity and courage of Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, would demand that matters regarding the most Basic of all Elemental Rights of Man be set aright.

The three Justices evidently knew that but for a strong Second Amendment, no other Right could exist. It was high time that the Court stated explicitly in the text of a U.S. Supreme Court case that an American does have the fundamental right to defend his life against unlawful aggression, with the best means available by which to preserve it, and this Basic Right of armed self-defense applies wherever a person happens to be, inside a home or outside it. Bruen was that case. But it would be wrong to read Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, as three distinct, discrete cases. They all work together and are inextricably tied to each other. Bruen doesn’t extend Heller. Bruen simply elucidates Heller.

And McDonald makes plain what is implicit in the notion of Natural Law Rights—Rights that preexist Government. Such Rights exist within Man. They are not Rights or Liberties created by the State. These Rights exist independently of States and Governments which are artificial constructs created by Man. Natural Law Rights are eternal, embodied within Man. Those politicians, many members of the Press, and many scholars don’t accept the truth of Natural Law Rights. They believe that all such Rights are man-made, no less than any other man-made construct. So, they infer that the Justices read into the Second Amendment what coheres with their particular belief systems. But, the rulings in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen are not creations of the Justices. They are no more nor less than the reaffirmations of the plain meaning of Natural Law. And the Second Amendment is simply a codification of that Natural Law, plainly stated. The sad state of affairs is that Heller, McDonald, and Bruen were needed at all. And, given the Hochul Government’s stubbornness, it must come to pass that the U.S. Supreme Court will be required yet again to respond to Government action that refuses to accept the import of Natural Law Rights.

Governor Kathy Hochul, her wealthy benefactors, and many deluded residents of New York hated Heller and McDonald. But they could dismiss those rulings—at least for a time and they did so, with Courts happy to oblige them. But, when Bruen came down the pike, they could not easily ignore the right of the people to keep and be armed.

The idea of the ‘Common Man’ as the ‘Armed Citizen,’ Sovereign over Government, any Government, is absolutely abhorrent to Hochul and to her benefactors and to many other elements both inside the Country and outside it who view the Second Amendment as a veritable abomination that must be dealt with accordingly so that they can achieve their goal: the dismantling of all Nation-States, with the remains of them to be merged into a monstrous, bloated Neo-Feudalistic world empire that serves the interests of the few and mercilessly oppresses the lives of the many. Achievement of that goal is not possible as long as America adheres to the tenets of Individualism upon which the U.S. Constitution is grounded. And the linchpin of a strong, vibrant America is, as history demonstrates, a strong, independent citizenry, whose independence and personal autonomy are secured through the right to dissent from conformist Government dictates and absurd dogmas thrust on a free sovereign citizen, and through the right to bear arms to secure that independence from a predatory Government that would rob the individual of his Selfhood. It is this the Hochul Government and the Biden Administration fear. But they don’t talk about their tyranny. They talk about “Public Safety” and the fact that, as they exclaim, an armed citizenry poses a danger to “Public Safety.” So, let’s talk, then, about “Public Safety.”

The right to armed self-defense is reason enough to carry a handgun for self-defense when out and about, and that right of armed self-defense is presumed. Hence, a person applying for a concealed handgun carry license need not state it and the Government cannot require him to do so, to explain a “reason” to carry for self-defense. It should be apparent that the problem here rests with the entire notion of State licensing. But, for that, the striking of “Proper Cause” from the Sullivan Act would have been the death knell for New York State Licensing of Handguns.

But the High Court DID NOT strike down handgun licensing as unconstitutional, and Hochul and company had no intention of conflating the entirety of the Sullivan Act to “Shall Issue” concealed handgun carry licenses—as they saw it—pell-mell, no matter what the High Court opined and insisted upon.

Still, the Hochul Government had to come up with something to replace “Proper Cause,” and “Good Moral Character” was something already in the Statute. So, it seemed like a good device to use. But how is this “Good Moral Character” now to be utilized?

Since the Court had not ruled against “Good Moral Character,” the Hochul Government machinated a scheme through which “Good Moral Character” would operate like “Proper Cause” had operated for decades: as a means to preclude the issuance of concealed handgun carry licenses to tens of thousands of New Yorkers who might wish to secure one.

But “Good Moral Character” cannot operate exactly like “Proper Cause” because the High Court made clear that, since the right to armed self-defense exists as much outside the home as in it, the Government could no longer require an applicant to demonstrate “extraordinary need.”

But could the Hochul Government transform “Good Moral Character” into a devastating force through which many applications could still be denied even if it were still not as effective as “Proper Cause” had been?

Although not as useful as “Proper Cause,” the newly reconfigured “Good Moral Character” requirement would have to suffice, and, when utilized in conjunction with another device—a novel device, “Sensitive Place” restrictions—the Hochul Government could still make life difficult for New Yorkers who wish to exercise their Second Amendment right to armed self-defense.

Worse, for many present holders of concealed carry licenses who had, through the years, adapted to the schemes that some New York jurisdictions had created to implement “Proper Cause”—the most elaborate scheme being that one devised by the NYPD License Division, tasked with governing handgun licensing in the City—might not these present holders who had “passed the test” for issuance of a concealed handgun carry license under § 400.00 (2)(f ), Pre-Bruen, fail to meet a new test devised by the Hochul Government for the entire State, utilizing “Good Moral Character,” Post-Bruen?

But, the preliminary question is this——

DOES “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” HAVE A PLACE WHERE A FUNDAMENTAL NATURAL LAW RIGHT IS INVOLVED, EVEN THOUGH NEW YORK’S “PROPER CAUSE” REQUIREMENT DID NOT?

After all, what does the nature of one’s character have to do with one’s exercise of the fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable, eternal right to self-defense of which armed self-defense":  ANYTHING? EVERYTHING? NOTHING? Does anyone ever question this? Apparently not, certainly, not in New York. And why is that?  

Both “Good Moral Character” and “Proper Cause” Requirements are Government constructs, nothing more. The Government designed them for one purpose: to constrain one’s exercise of the fundamental, unalienable right to armed self-defense.

“Proper Cause” has served the New York Government well for decades. It has taken over 100 years for the U.S. Supreme Court to strike “Proper Cause” down.

But what sort of argument can be made that use of “Good Moral Character” is as repugnant to exercise of the fundamental right to armed self-defense as “Proper Cause” before it? There are, to date, many challenges to it, along with challenges to “Sensitive Place” Restrictions.

Many of these cases are wending their way through the Federal District Courts of New York. Several presently reside in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. At some point, in the U.S. Supreme Court’s next term, the Court will have to deal one or more of these cases. The CCIA is a bald-faced attack on the High Court’s Bruen rulings and, more, a hardly subtle repudiation of the Article 3 authority of the High Court.

In the next Article, we drill down into this thing, “Good Moral Character.” We look at how the Hochul Government has rejiggered it to work like “Proper Cause” insofar as it is designed to salvage the multi-tiered handgun licensing structure and to maintain the “May Issue” paradigm that the Bruen decision intended to scrap when the Court made clear that “Proper Cause” as utilized by the New York Government unconstitutionally infringed the Second Amendment.

There is much to deal with here and we will get to it as quickly as possible and as much as practicable to demonstrate the illegality of it, discussing approaches that challengers of the CCIA may not have broached but are angles definitely worth considering.

______________________________________

MAY A PERSON CARRY A HANDGUN INTO A HOUSE OF WORSHIP, IN NEW YORK? HOCHUL GOVERNMENT KEEPS GUN OWNERS GUESSING.(article extensively updated on July 8, 2023)

INTRODUCTORY QUOTATION

“When Hitler came for the Jews. . . I was not a Jew; therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler came for the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions, and I was not concerned. Then, Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church — and there was nobody left to be concerned.” ~ Quote best ascribed to Martin Niemoller, German Theologian, and Lutheran Pastor. Also check out Stephen Halbrook’s book, “Gun Control in the Third Reich” that Robert Unger cites.

We wish to thank Robert Unger, Attorney at Law, for pointing this quotation out to us. He writes, “As documented by the cutting-edge book, ‘Gun Control in the Third Reich,’ the totalitarians are once again trying to prevent Jews from defending their lives. Every decent human being, whether Jew or Gentile needs to be concerned. As the Rev Martin Niemoller stated in this shortened paraphrase, ‘First they came for the handicapped, and I said nothing, and then they came for the Jews, and I said nothing. Then they came for me and nobody was left to say anything.’”

Special Note: Robert Unger hosts the podcast, “The Bob Unger Show” @thebobungershow1567 Check out Bob’s Podcast on Rumble.

Also check out Stephen Halbrook’s book, “Gun Control in the Third Reich” that Robert Unger cites.

The Goldstein vs. Hochul Case

With dozens of cases filed challenging New York’s reprehensible “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (CCIA), which the Democrat Party-controlled legislature passed on July 1, 2022, and that Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law the same day, coming on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, published just one week earlier, on June 23, 2022, one obscure case is worth mentioning. It is Goldstein vs. Hochul, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111124 (S.D.N.Y, June 23, 2023).

The facts of the Complaint as presented by the Court are as follows:

“Goldstein ‘is a U.S. citizen who resides in Kings County in the State of New York.’ Goldstein [and other similarly situated Plaintiffs] have carried handguns for self-defense at shul [Jewish Temple] prior to the enactment of the CCIA. They allege that after the enactment of the CCIA, they have (1) decreased their attendance at shul due to their inability to carry a firearm, ‘significantly curtail[ed]’ their religious practice, Plaintiffs further allege that the prohibition of concealed carry within places of worship and religious observation ‘acts as a deterrent for law-abiding people to enter’ and makes religious locations more dangerous. On the same day, Goldstein individually and on behalf of the Congregation, and Ornstein filed a motion for TRO and PI enjoining Defendants Governor Hochul, Attorney General James, Commissioner Sewell, Sheriff Falco, District Attorney Gonzalez, and District Attorney Walsh from enforcing the Sensitive Locations restriction, the provision in CCIA designating ‘any place of worship or religious observation’ as a Sensitive Location. Plaintiffs claim that the Sensitive Locations restriction of the CCIA violates their rights under the First, Second, and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Defendants from enforcing the places of worship and religious observation exclusion, alleging that they would suffer immediate and irreparable harm without immediate injunctive relief.” [document citations omitted]

The Goldstein lawsuit is directed to the unconstitutional “Sensitive Place” (also referred to as “Sensitive Location”) restriction/prohibition to otherwise lawful concealed handgun carry that the Hochul Government has imposed on all holders of valid New York State concealed handgun carry licenses who derive their licenses to carry through the operation of NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (2)(f) of the State’s Handgun Law.

Goldstein’s motivation for filing a lawsuit against the Hochul Government is not hypothetical.

In recent years Synagogues in the United States, have been selectively targeted in a spate of “hate crimes.” See, e.g., the NPR article, dated February 17, 2023; the ABC News report, dated, January 19, 2022; and an updated June 16, 2023, CBS News report.

The essence of the Plaintiffs’ claim is that the meaning of ‘House of Worship’ in the New York State Penal Code is vague and that the Government’s prohibition on the carrying of a handgun violates the First, Second, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Goldstein and other Plaintiffs have asked for immediate relief. But, the Court ruled that the Plaintiffs had not met the stringent standards required for a Preliminary Injunction and that the Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Arguments did not outweigh the Government’s solitary claim (coming solely from a Press Release) that the Governor has a duty to “‘protect New Yorkers,’ and that ‘keeping the people of New York State safe’ was their greatest priority.’”

Apparently, armed Congregants in a “House of Worship” setting are a present danger to “keeping the people of New York State safe.” This is simply a platitude and a trite, vacuous banality, and, worst of all, a bald-faced lie. The Hochul Government, under Governor Kathy Hochul, and the Mayor of New York City, Eric Adams have not protected the people of New York. Violent crime has skyrocketed in New York, especially in New York City. See, e.g., Arbalest Quarrel essay, dated, June 26, 2023.

But Hochul’s assertion that “keeping the people of New York Safe” is her Government’s “greatest priority” comes across not simply as empty political rhetoric—which is bad enough—but as sarcasm, in the face of horrific incidents of often random violent crime perpetrated on innocent people going about their daily life in New York.

In such a climate, it is incumbent on average, innocent, rational people to take responsibility for their own safety and well-being. And a responsible person carrying a handgun, concealed, in public for their own personal protection, and knowledgeable in the use of it and prepared to use it if or when the need arises, provides hands-down the best means of personal protection against violent, aggressive attack. It has always been so. But, IT IS the very effectiveness of a handgun for personal self-defense that the New York Government abhors. For the well-armed citizenry is the gravest threat to the Tyrant. It is THIS fact, more than anything else, that drives the Hochul Government’s antagonistic firearms policy—a fact left unremarked on. But why, after all, would Tyrants acknowledge their own Tyranny? The Tyrant need not assert a Tyrant’s fear of their own people. That fear is exhibited clearly enough in their self-righteous, deceitful rhetoric and in the subsequent actions taken to constrain dissent and to strenuously constrain if not curtail the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

It is the same dreaded fear of the armed common people that drove Kathy Hochul’s predecessor, Andrew Cuomo, to institute further firearms restrictions in the State, which he accomplished when he signed the New York Safe Act into law, in 2013.

And it is that same fear of the common people that drives the present Biden Administration to attack the fundamental, unalienable right to armed self-defense.

It is this fear of the armed citizenry that motivates the Administration to craft and implement a plethora of policies aimed at maximizing control over that citizenry—the common people of the United States.

The aim of the Government should be to provide “Public Safety,” not merely to recite it in a Press Release.

But, the Government act of providing for “Public Safety” need not be and ought not to be construed as antithetical to one’s right and responsibility to provide for his or her “Personal Safety.”

The two can coexist happily together. They are not logically inconsistent concepts. One is the aim and responsibility of the Government. The other rests with and is the responsibility of the individual.

But the Hochul Government treats the two as incompatible, adversarial concepts, or otherwise, presumes, albeit wrongly, that the one, “Personal Safety” is subsumed in the other, “Public Safety.”

Yet the Government’s duty to provide for the one doesn’t offset or replace the responsibility of the individual to adhere to and provide for the other. And the sad truth is that both fail in the reality of a failed State, which is what New York is becoming.

The Hochul Government gives lip service to “Public Safety” concerns, yet faults the U.S. Supreme Court for ordering the State to adhere to the plain meaning of the language of the Second Amendment that speaks incisively and decisively of the basic human right of “Personal Safety”—understood as the fundamental, unalienable, illimitable, immutable, and unmodifiable right to Armed “Self-Defense.” The two are co-extensive.

The Hochul Government pretends to provide for the one, that it must, and does not, and yet denies a person his right to secure the other, but cannot, given the constraints of Government, preventing him from doing so even though it be inextricably tied to his very Being. And, so, a person is left with neither. How can that be?

The concept of Armed Self-Defense is nothing new. Our Country, a free Constitutional Republic would not have existed without the application of it.

The fundamental right to Armed Self-Defense proceeds from the right to Self-Defense. It is not distinct from it. It is one with it, inextricably bound to it. ‘The Right to Self-Defense’ means ‘The Right to Protect one’s Life.’

The Right to Armed Self-Defense’ is not then, to be perceived as a thing different in kind from ‘The Right to Self-Defense.’ It is simply an aspect of it: Recognition that a firearm provides the best, most effective means of defense available to thwart an aggressive attack—whether such an attack emanates from a predatory beast, predatory man, or predatory government.

The Hochul Government and the Biden Administration must know this. Both are Tyrants. Both know they are Tyrants and both know that a free Constitutional Republic cannot and will not long suffer Tyrants. An armed citizen presents a tangible threat to the Tyrant. That troubles the Tyrant, as well as it should. And, so, an armed citizenry troubles the Tyrant.

For, if the armed citizen has the fundamental right to defend himself against an aggressive predator threatening his life, that armed citizen also has the fundamental right to defend himself against a tyrannical, predatory Government. And, in both instances, he has a duty to do so. The Tyrannical Government would rather not talk about the right of the people to keep and bear arms against that Tyrannical Government. So, instead, the Government talks about the armed citizen in connection with criminal violence.

The Government argues, deceptively, cunningly, that it is the job of the Government, not the citizen, to deal with the violent criminal (which the Government has done a very poor job doing), and that an armed citizen will eventually commit criminal violence by virtue simply of being armed, even though there are no statistics to support that conclusion.

Thus, the Government deflects conversation away from the subject of Tyranny, and of the predatory behavior of Government, and of the natural tendency of all Governments to eventually turn to Tyranny in the absence of substantial Checks and Balances on Government behavior and in the absence of a well-armed citizenry—the ultimate fail-safe to prevent, or curb or, at least, frustrate the onset of Tyranny.

But even as we see today strenuous attacks against the Divine Right to Armed Self-Defense to secure one’s life and safety and that of one’s family from a predator, we see scurrilous and bizarre attacks by the Government on the very notion of a right to ‘Self-Defense’ at all. This suggests clear intent on the part of the Government, today, to devalue human life. The Framers of the Constitution would be appalled. Such an idea is inconsistent with the basic tenets of the Constitution grounded on the sanctity and inviolability of human life.

The U.S. Constitution is grounded on the tenets, principles, and precepts of Individualism. Those tenets, principles, and precepts are anathema to those holding power in Government today who are attempting to foist an entirely new political philosophical system on the Country—one that is based on the tenets, principles, and precepts of Collectivism.

CCP China is a prime example of this. But, even in CCP China, the State does provide for “Public Safety,” if, for no other reason, than to promote stability within the State. Crime is not tolerated in China. Violent crime is dealt with quickly and harshly. Physical safety exists, but it comes at a cost. The sanctity of the individual counts for little if anything. There is no notion of individual autonomy. One might well wonder whether life under Tyranny is better than no life at all. The Founders of our Republic didn’t think so. And they fought a war to a successful conclusion to make their feelings known.

Had they failed, they would have been hanged. Some Patriots caught by the British were hanged.

In America today, the Government, under the Biden Administration, talks about favored and disfavored “Groups,” not “Individuals.”

One either belongs to a favored Group or one belongs to a “Group of Outcasts,” such as “MAGA” Republicans, “Christian Nationalists,” and “Political Conservatives,” generally.

But, unlike CCP China, the Biden Administration and several State Governments such as that of New York don’t even provide a modicum of “Public Safety.” Violent criminals are not dealt with harshly. Rather, they are continually released to commit more violence on innocent people.

And these same Governments that refuse to provide any measurable “Public Safety,”  talk not of “Personal Safety.” That concept isn’t part of their political philosophy and, so, does not appear in their lexicon. And there is a reason for that. ‘Personal Safety’ is tied to ‘Self-Defense,’ and that entails ‘Armed Self-Defense.’ And those concepts are anathema to these Governments.

The Biden Administration and the Hochul Government eschew both, finding Self-Defense inconsistent with their adherence to Collectivist principles that place value on “Group Conformity” over “Individual Autonomy.” And they especially abhor the concept of “Armed Self-Defense” as that represents an existential threat to their accumulation of and lust for power and concomitant absolute control over the common people.

A Government that operates within the strictures of the U.S. Constitution has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry. A Government that does not has much to fear from an armed citizenry. And Government today is much afraid of an armed citizenry that hews to a belief system that adheres to the principles of the Founders who constructed a free Constitutional Republic when the Government, today, no longer does so.

When a Government—this Government—forgets that its sole existence derives from a free sovereign people, then it becomes a veritable enemy of the people. And, knowing that it has become an enemy of the people, commences to treat its people as a threat, and proceeds, unlawfully, to constrain the fundamental rights of the people whose best interests it has a duty to serve, but has long since removed itself from.

New York’s Hochul Government, for its part, could, if it truly wished to do so, clamp down on rampant, violent crime, plaguing the State, and particularly the City of New York, but it chooses not to do so. There are several reasons for this. Two major ones are worth mentioning here.

One, her base of supporters, her constituency, will not allow concerted efforts to clamp down on violent crime. Even as that constituency, itself, suffers the consequences of violent crime, its mindset is so confounded and befuddled by incessant psychological programming, that it refuses to consider the impact that a highly restrictive firearms policy has on its own safety and well-being and, at one and the same time, insists upon a lax justice system and a shackled police, thereby inviting the very crime visited upon it.

Two, Kathy Hochul and her Government take their cue from the Biden Administration. The Biden Administration’s end goal is the dissolution of the Republic, the dismantling of an independent, sovereign Nation-State, and the subjugation of a once free and sovereign people.

Thus, the Biden Administration and the Hochul Government devise more and more scurrilous lies to cover their unethical, and patently unlawful objectives, pretending that all their policies are well-intentioned, even as they deliberately, duplicitously set one American against another, lest they organize and unite against the true threat to their well-being and safety: the Government, itself.

And, so it is that Hochul goes on and on clamoring over “Public Safety” and how her application of it is impeded by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Pistol and Rifle Association vs. Bruen, and that it is she and not the High Court that has the best interests of New Yorkers at heart.

But truth to tell, Hochul has jabbered about “Public Safety” well before the Bruen decision came down. And, with the publication of Bruen, the public hears this constantly, insistently without reprieve. See the article in the Gothamist, posted on March 25, 2022, and note the “props” on the stage. But, even if the Hochul Government truly desired to provide for “Public Safety,” that doesn’t obviate the responsibility of the individual to provide for his or her own “Personal Safety.”

The fact remains the right to armed self-defense and the responsibility for it rests, as it always did, with the individual, not the State. See January 19, 2020 article posted on Ammoland Shooting Sports News. In that same publication, see also the article posted on August 6, 2020, titled, “The Government Cannot Protect You; You Must Protect Yourself,” and the article posted on November 26, 2019, titled, “Can We, As Individuals, Rely On The Police To Protect Us.”

It is with the realization of the failure of the Hochul Government to truly promote “Public Safety,” despite her vehement remarks to the contrary, and it is with the equally important realization that one’s “Personal Safety” and that of one’s family ultimately rests solely with the individual, that Goldstein and others similarly situated filed their lawsuit against the Hochul Government.

The Goldstein case is the latest of the dozens heretofore filed in New York Federal District Court that present holders of valid New York concealed handgun carry licenses filed against the Hochul Government for refusal to abide by the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings in Bruen.

Enactment of New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act—although presented by Hochul as evidence of the State’s compliance with the Bruen rulings—was and is a bald-faced violation of the Bruen rulings and, at one and the same time.

Striking “Proper Cause” from the State’s Handgun Law serves as mere window dressing. The amendments to the Law (the CCIA) as enacted are more of an arrogant remonstration against the U.S. Supreme Court and a contemptuous repudiation of the Article 3 authority of the Court than they are a concerted effort to comply with the Court’s rulings. It would have come, then, as no surprise to Kathy Hochul that New York handgun licensees would see through the ploy.

The Plaintiffs in Goldstein filed their Notice of Appeal, of the adverse decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on July 5, 2023.

On July 6, 2023, Arbalest Quarrel had an opportunity to talk to a spokesman for the Temple who is knowledgeable about the lawsuit, Tzvi Waldman. Mr. Waldman’s group, the “NYS Jewish Gun Club,” is backing the lawsuit. And on July 10, Bob Unger (whom we reference in the first paragraph of this article) invited Tzvi Waldman to appear on Bob’s Podcast that aired on July 10, 2023, on the Rumble Video Platform.

When AQ spoke with Mr. Waldman on July 6, 2023, a few days before Bob’s Podcast, we pointed out that the Arbalest Quarrel cannot and does not give legal advice, but we do provide non-legal, well-researched information about the Second Amendment for educational purposes.

Both Bob Unger and the Arbalest Quarrel wish to assist the NYS Jewish Gun Club in their challenge to the Hochul Government’s unlawful attempt to abridge the fundamental right to armed self-defense of the Jewish Community in New York that has suffered substantial hate crime attacks, especially in the last few years.

The Hochul Government is oblivious to the needs and concerns of Jews, and of all innocent New Yorkers despite her claims to the contrary.

On her official website, on January 10, 2023, Hochul said this:

“Public safety is my top priority. . . .“I am committed to using every tool at my disposal to protect the people of this state, crack down on gun violence and violent crime, and invest in proven solutions that keep New Yorkers safe.”

It is all empty rhetoric. While spurning a person’s fundamental right to provide for one’s own “Personal Safety” through the exercise of the basic right to armed self-defense, the Hochul Government leaves the Common Man abjectly defenseless, for she provides neither “Public Safety” for the New York communities, nor allows the Common Man to bear arms for his own personal defense.

Concerning the salient legal matters for Plaintiffs to address apropos of the Goldstein case——

First, we mentioned to Mr. Waldman that, as the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and others have ruled that Governor Kathy Hochul is not a proper Party defendant for a lawsuit involving the CCIA, any case naming her principal Party Defendant will be dismissed for lack of standing since she is not the person actively implementing and enforcing the CCIA. For the same reason, the New York Attorney General, Letitia James, is not a proper Party Defendant to the lawsuit. The Plaintiffs should strike her name from the Goldstein case.

Consistent with the allegations of the Complaint, the principal and proper Party Defendant is the NYPD Police Commissioner, since it is the NYPD Police Commissioner, here, not the Governor, who is directly involved in the enforcement of the CCIA, as it affects the Plaintiffs in the Goldstein case, and notwithstanding Hochul’s obvious connection in getting the thing enacted and then signing it into law in the first instance. Had she not signed the CCIA into law, there would be nothing about the CCIA that the Police Commissioner would be able to enforce. Hence, it is quite understandable that the Goldstein Plaintiffs would assume that the New York Governor would be a proper Party Defendant and the principal Party Defendant, even if Hochul, is not, after the fact, the person who is enforcing the CCIA. It

The present interim New York City Police Commissioner, Edward Caban, recently appointed by Mayor Eric Adams, is the proper and principal Party Defendant in the Goldstein case. This is a ministerial problem that is easily corrected. See the NY Times article published on June 20, 2023. The Times reports,

“Edward Caban, the New York Police Department’s first deputy commissioner and an ally of Mayor Eric Adams, will become the interim head of the agency, the mayor said Friday.

‘There’s a natural process in place that the first deputy commissioner falls in line until we make a permanent announcement on who the commissioner is going to be,’ Mr. Adams said during a radio appearance on 1010 WINS. ‘And we are going to find a suitable replacement.’

The announcement coincided with the last day in office of Keechant L. Sewell, the department’s first female commissioner, who abruptly announced her resignation two weeks ago, after finding that her powers had been circumscribed by the mayor and his allies.”

And, the Plaintiffs should also add the name Steven Nigrelli, the acting Superintendant of the New York State Police, as a Party Defendant to the suit. All or most Post-Bruen New York cases challenging aspects of the CCIA in a United States District Court for one of the four Districts in the State have captioned these cases with the name Steven Nigrelli, as the principal Party Defendant. This practice is consistent with the captioning of the parent case, NYSRPA vs. Bruen, challenging the Constitutionality of New York’s Handgun Law, where, at the time, Kevin Bruen was the Superintendent of the New York State Police. The recaptioning of the case is essentially a ministerial, administrative matter that does not go to the substantive matters of the case.

Second, and much more concerning, is the Court’s opinion that fails to mention the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Hardaway v. Nigrelli, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200813 (W.D.N.Y. November 3, 2021). This flaw impacts the salient substantive matter pertaining to the right of worshippers to carry handguns into a House of Worship for self-defense. The only qualifier is the worshipper must be the recipient of a valid New York concealed handgun carry license issued by the appropriate New York licensing official. But, the U.S. District Court ruled that Houses of Worship are “Sensitive Places” under the Concealed Carry Improvement Act, and therefore a worshipper cannot carry a handgun into a House of Worship. This flies in the face of the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the Hardaway case.

The Court, in Goldstein, must have known about the Hardaway case, and the matter addressed by the Second Circuit in its interlocutory order is certainly relevant to and directly impacts the central issue in the Goldstein case, namely, whether a member of the Temple can carry a concealed handgun into the Temple for the purpose of self-defense. But the U.S. District Court, in Goldstein, says not a word about that Opinion. In fact, the District Court’s opinion on the matter is summed up in a paragraph where the Court asserts,

“Laws forbidding ‘the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings’ are consistent with the Second Amendment. Lower courts may ‘use analogies’ to historical regulations of sensitive places, such as schools, government buildings, legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses, to ‘determine that modern regulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new and analogous sensitive places are constitutionally permissible. Although the Court does not explicitly define what constitutes a sensitive place, it does address specific examples that provide lower courts with some guidelines on the limits of doctrine. For example, we know that it would be ‘too broad’ to classify the entire island of Manhattan simply because it is ‘crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department. However, it is also not so narrow that the Government must find an identical law from the relevant historical periods for the modern-day regulation to be allowed.” [Citations Omitted]. The District Court does not consider the fact that Houses of Worship are exempt from the CCIA’s “Sensitive Place” Restrictions to the lawful carrying of a handgun.

But the District Court says nothing about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruling in Hardaway, where the Court pointed out (prior to the Goldstein case) that a lawfully licensed person carrying a handgun concealed in a House of Worship is exempted from the ‘Sensitive Place’ prohibition when that person is “tasked with the duty to keep the peace.” The failure of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to acknowledge this ruling and either adhere to it or attempt to argue around it constitutes a fatal flaw in the District Court’s reasoning, negatively impacting the entirety of the District Court’s Opinion in Goldstein.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Hardaway v. Nigrelli, said this:

“Appellants request a stay pending appeal of the district court's order dated November 3, 2022 (W.D.N.Y. 22-cv-771, doc. 52), enjoining Appellants from enforcing a provision of New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act criminalizing possession of a firearm in a place of worship or religious observation. See N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01-e(2)(c). Having weighed the applicable factors, see In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 503 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2007), we conclude that a stay pending appeal is warranted. Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for a stay pending appeal is GRANTED and the district court's November 3 order is STAYED pending the resolution of this appeal. To the extent that the district court's order bars enforcement of § 265.01-e(2)(c) as it pertains to persons who have been tasked with the duty to keep the peace at places of worship, such category is EXCEPTED from this order.” [emphasis our own].

The failure of the Court in Goldstein to even mention the Hardaway Opinion is concerning and disconcerting. But, on the Plaintiffs’ new appeal to the Second Circuit, the Second Circuit should see through the flaw in the District Court’s Goldstein opinion. The Second Circuit should find that consistent with its earlier Opinion in the Hardaway case, people who have a lawful license to carry a handgun in New York must be allowed to carry a handgun in a House of Worship precisely because that “Sensitive Place” Restriction is now EXCEPTED from Government enforcement.

A decision of the Second Circuit involving one U.S. District Court applies to all the lower U.S. District Courts in New York. Apparently, the Southern District of New York, where the Goldstein case was brought, doesn’t see this. That might explain why the Court doesn’t mention the Hardaway opinion. But, there is a wrinkle to this, and it is one that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Goldstein might have and should have fleshed out for itself. That it did not do so is troubling.

But there is a potential problem, and it involves the meaning of “with the duty to keep the peace.” If that phrase implies that anyone who carries a handgun in a “House of Worship” is, ipso facto, presumed to be carrying “with the duty to keep the peace,” which is a reasonable conclusion to be drawn, then any person who desires to carry a handgun in a House of Worship for the Constitutionally protected purpose of armed self-defense, and who holds a valid New York State concealed handgun license to carry has complied with the CCIA.

However, if the phrase means that only armed security guards are those individuals who are considered as having “the duty to keep the peace” (apart from Police Officers, Peace Officers, and others exempted from “Sensitive Location” restrictions, as set forth in N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01-e), then a person who wishes to carry a handgun into a House of Worship must comply with stringent and onerous requirements to obtain a special license to carry. See, e.g., requirements as set forth on the New York Government’s Division of Criminal Justice Services website.

But the State Statute doesn’t explicitly refer to armed security guards in the context of “House of Worship” in the Penal Code.

It may well be that the phrase “with the duty to keep the peace” was intentionally meant by its drafters to be vague. If so, that explains why the State Legislature in Albany would add that phrase as a trap for the unwary. In effect, it would mean that carrying a handgun into a House of Worship remains a “Sensitive Place” where one cannot lawfully carry a handgun for self-defense, after all.

If this is true, and it may be an argument the Government would henceforth make, when its agents commence arresting worshipers who happen to be carrying a handgun in a House of Worship, that would be in keeping with the State’s agenda to continually harass handgun owners, as the Government continues to constrain the exercise of one’s fundamental, unalienable right to armed self-defense.

The New York Government’s end goal seems to be to make the entire State into one all-encompassing “Sensitive Place Gun-Free Zone,” and the common people and the U.S. Supreme Court* be damned if they don’t agree with that.

________________________________

*Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority in Bruen, aware that the New York Government would attempt to transform broad swaths of New York into “Sensitive Places,” expressly cautioned the State against doing this. The Justice writes, “Although we have no occasion to comprehensively define ‘sensitive places’ in this case, we do think respondents err in their attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a ‘sensitive-place’ law. In their view, ‘sensitive places’ where the government may lawfully disarm law-abiding citizens include all ‘places where people typically congregate and where law-enforcement and other public-safety professionals are presumptively available.’ Brief for Respondents 34. It is true that people sometimes congregate in ‘sensitive places,’ and it is likewise true that law enforcement professionals are usually presumptively available in those locations. But expanding the category of ‘sensitive places’ simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of ‘sensitive places’ far too broadly.”

NEW YORK’S HANDGUN LICENSING REGIME AT ODDS WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT

MULTIPART ESSAY SERIES ON POST-BRUEN CASE ANALYSIS

POST-BRUEN—WHAT IT ALL MEANS AND WHAT ITS IMPACT IS BOTH FOR THOSE WHO SUPPORT AND CHERISH THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND THOSE WHO DO NOT; THOSE WHO SEEK TO UNDERMINE AND EVENTUALLY DESTROY THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT AND THOSE WHO SEEK TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN THE RIGHT BOTH FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS

INTERLUDE

IMPORTANT POINTS OF THIS ESSAY

• ATTACKS ON THE RIGHT TO ARMED SELF DEFENSE AND ON AMERICA’S ARMED CITIZENRY WAGED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND BY A FEW STATE GOVERNMENTS SUCH AS NEW YORK ARE SERVILE RESPONSES TO INTERNATIONAL DEMANDS THAT AMERICA SUBORDINATE THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND LAWS TO AN ALIEN BELIEF SYSTEM  

• INTERNATIONAL “NORMS” CONTRA THE NATION’S NATURAL LAW RIGHTS TRANSGRESS AND DEFY THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHICAL TENETS ON WHICH THIS NATION WAS FOUNDED AND ON WHICH IT HAS WELL PROSPERED FOR OVER TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY YEARS.

New York’s handgun licensing regime is an omnipresent and omnipotent roadblock to Americans’ exercise of their fundamental and unalienable right to keep and bear arms in that jurisdiction.

But the licensing regime isn’t the cause of New York’s strenuous antipathy toward the commonalty’s natural law right to armed self-defense. It is merely the effect of the Government’s longstanding dismissiveness toward the average man’s exercise of his unalienable right to armed self-defense.

Apart from the untenability of the New York Government’s stance toward a fundamental right of the American people on both legal and philosophical grounds, there are societal consequences; horrible repercussions that follow from this Government stance.

First, there is the scourge of random criminal violence. This didn’t just happen. It occurred because of specific policy choices, including cashless bail; a reluctance of prosecutors to prosecute criminals; and a disinclination of a justice system to incarcerate dangerous elements, thereby preventing them from harming innocent members of the community.

This diffidence toward criminals and lunatics coupled with Government’s confrontational attitude toward the rank and file municipal police forces and toward State’s rural county sheriffs, and pathological abhorrence to the notion of civilian armed self-defense have all had a deleterious impact on the welfare of the people and well-being of the community.

The public no longer feels safe because quite simply the public isn’t safe.

When the New York Government couples its resentment of police, its tolerance toward the worst elements of society, a callous disregard for  the safety of the citizenry, and a refusal to countenance a person’s natural law right and responsibility to defend his or her own life against insistent predatory threats, then destabilization of society is imminent.

Such is evident in New York. It all results from deliberate policy choices of the New York Government. And there is something both devious and weird for a Governor of the State—in this instance, Kathy Hochul—who  insists she cares deeply about public safety but does nothing to secure it, handcuffing police, mollycoddling murderous criminals and dangerous lunatics, and presumptuously declaring that it is the armed citizen, and not the armed criminal, who endangers the very thing, “public safety,” she vociferously  declares and adamantly claims that it is she, not the U.S. Supreme Court, who seeks to protect the life, safety, and well-being of New Yorkers.

In an article posted on the National Shooting  Sports Foundation (NSSF) website on July 7, 2022, two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Bruen, and one week after Albany passed and Hochul signed into law a comprehensive package of amendments to its Handgun Law, called the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” of 2022 (“CCIA”), Larry Keane, Senior Vice President and General Counsel for the NSSF, aptly demonstrated that Hochul’s defiant sanctimony was nothing more than vacuous rhetoric, self-serving gibberish, created for the cameras:

“It only took 30 seconds, that’s all. New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul held a press conference calling back her state’s legislature for an ‘extraordinary’ session to pass more gun control after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York’s restrictive and subjective ‘may issue’ pistol permit license scheme.

In 30 seconds, she vocalized why her gun control agenda is destined to fail.

Failed Approach

Gov. Hochul exclaimed, ‘I’m absolutely shocked,’ after the Supreme Court held in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding Americans to carry a firearm in public for self-protection. She shouldn’t be. It only takes a simple reading of the actual amendment.

She called her state’s Democratically-controlled legislature back to Albany to restrict where licensed conceal carry permit holders can lawfully carry their firearms. The new laws include even more restrictive provisions like background checks and a state database for ammunition purchases, increased training requirements to obtain the permit, a mandatory sit-down, in-person interview and even requiring applicants to submit social media accounts for content review.

‘Do you have the numbers to show that it’s the concealed carry permit holders that are committing crimes? The lawful gun owner will say you’re attacking the wrong person,’ asked Albany-based CBS 6 News anchor Anne McCloy. ‘It’s really people that are getting these guns illegally that are causing the violence, not the people that are going to get the permit legally and that’s the basis for the whole Supreme Court argument. Do you have the numbers?’

‘I don’t need to have numbers,’ the governor shot back. ‘I don’t have to have a data point to point to to say this is going to matter.’

That’s what is called ‘the tell.’  These laws aren’t aimed at stopping criminals. They’re designed to rob law-abiding citizens of their rights.

What’s The Data Say?

Some estimates suggest New York has more than 200,000 conceal carry permit holders. For the entire United States, it’s over 21.5 million. These are law-abiding gun owners that meet state requirements and were approved after an FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) verification. New York is one of the states with the most stringent conceal carry requirements.

The actual data shows concealed carry permit holders are among the most law-abiding people in America. The Heritage Foundation’s 2019 data says, ‘. . . concealed-carry permit holders accounted for 801 firearm-related homicides over a 15-year span, which amounts to roughly 0.7% of all firearm-related homicides during that time.’

A Fox News report paints a picture Gov. Hochul would rather ignore. According to the FBI, Census Bureau and Rand Corporation data, states with lower rates of gun ownership and more restrictive gun control – like New York – have more firearm murders per 100,000 residents as a percentage of gun-owning population than states with high gun owner rates.

New York ranks fifth, with just 19.9 percent of households saying they possess a firearm and 1.53 firearm homicides per 100,000 residents. The Violence Policy Center attempted to ‘fact check’ a claim about concealed carry holders committing fewer crimes but ended up ‘revealing’ there were 37 firearm incidents (not specifically intentional homicide) involving concealed carry permit holders between May 2007 and May 2022. That’s less than 2.5 per year in the entire country.

Crime rates, especially in New York City, continue to climb.”

But if “public safety” and “Gun Violence” are just deflection created by the New York Government, and by a handful of other “May Issue” jurisdictions around the Country, and by the Federal Government under the present Biden Administration, what, then, is the true reason for the constant and vigorous assault on the armed citizen?

This is the second and more serious problem facing the commonalty of the Nation because the Federal Government and New York and these other “May Issue” concealed handgun licenses are outliers.

These Governments that act contrary to the tenets of the U.S. Constitution damage the core ethos of the Country.

It is one thing for a Government to disregard the general welfare of the Community. That is bad enough. But it is quite another for a Government to prevent, to deny, to the individual his right and duty to do what he can and must to secure his own life and well-being and that of his family.

A recalcitrant Government that trusts not its own people will expend much of its energies to exerting control over its people. The result is totalitarianism—the worst sort of authority under which a human being can live. And we are rapidly moving toward that. And in a free Constitutional Republic, upon which this Nation was constructed, such usurpation by Government of that sovereign authority belonging solely to the American people is an abomination.

The Biden Administration and many in Congress intend to disarm the public, and the common man rightfully resists. And States, like New York, sympathetic to the goals of the Biden Administration and to the mindset of the Collectivists in Congress perceive any American who holds to the values of the founders of the Republic is perceived as a threat that must be contained. Attempts to rein in speech and access to firearms and ammunition is Government’s response to a perceived threat to its power and authority. But who is the defiant rebel, here? Is it the common man who holds to the Constitution and to the Laws of the Land, and to the natural law rights bestowed upon him by the Divine Creator? Or is it Government actors themselves who betray their Oath to Country and God and Constitution and People? Many academicians would argue that Government cannot itself be capable of treachery to people and Constitution. But, if that is true, then tyranny is impossible. For, if it were possible, then the American people would have both the moral and legal right, and the duty to rise up against tyranny, as indeed the first Americans once did. Curiously, those first Americans are today denounced for it, by those who speak of a New American Revolution, by which they mean, although they don’t say, a Counterrevolution against the American Revolution. That explains the attacks against both the American founders and the Constitution they drafted and that the States ratified.

This present Federal Government under the Biden Administration and some States like New York, do not trust the common man, and therefore will place all manner of obstacles in his path to frustrate his personal autonomy and the power he wields through the firearms he bears. And, so, the Federal Government and States like New York attack armed self-defense incessantly, aggressively.

THE NEW YORK KATHY HOCHUL GOVERNMENT IS A CARBON COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDREW CUOMO, HER PREDECESSOR

The New York Government under Governor Kathy Hochul is no different from that of her predecessor, Andrew Cuomo. How it is that many Americans tend to vote for those people that, through their actions, and often through their words as well, couldn’t care less about the life and well-being of the commonalty is difficult to grasp, rationally.

This can be explained in part, at least, to advances in psychological conditioning imposed on the public.

The Government, through the Press and media, manipulate the psyche of the public.

Many fall prey to this manipulation. But many more Americans do not. They are inured to these machinations. But why does the Federal Government and States like New York attempt to ensnare the human mind if not to exert power and control over them for fear of them? But why does Government fear the common man? Would there be cause to fear the common man if Government would but forbear exerting power and authority upon him? For is it not that very power and control that Government exerts upon the common man that causes the common man to fear Government? It is an infinite loop, a vicious loop.

Government’s exercise of power and control over the common man causes anger and fear and resentment in man against Government. Government then comes to fear the common man and exerts more control over him, and thereby gradually becomes a Tyrant. And the common man then sees reason enough to overthrow the Tyrant, through force of arms. The Tyrant sees a threat to its authority and power grow in direct relationship to the power and authority wielded by the Tyrant. At critical mass, the public revolts against the Tyrant. The Tyrant sees anger brewing and rather than desisting from exercise of power, increases the exercise of it, which includes taking action against the common man, demanding, compelling the common man to forsake his arms on penalty of imprisonment or death if he fails to comply. Tyranny thus grows, becoming more evident, more strident, more emphatic with each new edict.  

At bottom the Federal Government and the New York Government fear the armed citizen more, much more, than they fear the armed, combative, violent criminal. The violent, depraved criminal and mindless lunatic are petty annoyances at worst, even if they are grave threats to the commonalty.  The Government leaders and the wealthy “elite” of society are cocooned against the threats visited daily on the average man by garden variety criminal elements and the criminally depraved and insane.

Unbeknownst to the criminal element, the Government uses this lowest common denominator of society to keep the public in check. That helps explain why the Federal Government and various State Governments are doing little to nothing to prevent rampant, raging violent crime and why it is that Government treats criminal violence gingerly, circumspectly—employing its energies to prevent the average, law-abiding, responsible, rational citizen from keeping and bearing arms, as it is the common man, not the depraved criminal and rampaging lunatic that Government sees as potentially the greater threat to IT, i.e., to Government.

But, if the Government’s first duty is to provide generally for the public safety and welfare of the denizens of the community, generally, there is something singularly odd for that Government to claim the armed citizen is himself a threat to that very public safety and order by the mere fact that he would wish to be armed to provide for his personal protection.

It is odd that the Government would see this common man doing his part to promote public safety by providing for his own safety and fault him for that.

Kathy Hochul engages in word games,  false rhetoric—at once discordant and absurd.

How is it that a Government would fear the common man—perceiving the safety and well-being of the community as threatened by that common man who provides for his own well-being and safety? Where is the harm in that? Does not that common man, in having taken due responsibility for his own well-being and safety serve the betterment of the community in which he lives? Or is there something more going on here? And of course there is. It is Tyranny that has taken over Government. And the Tyrant will ever fear the armed citizen—the keeping and bearing of firearms by the common man.

There is a singular irony though where tyranny comes to a Nation such as ours, and none not more so than ours, that is born in freedom.

Is it that the New York Government and the present Federal Government fear what is a basic truism of America: the idea that the common man is sovereign over Government? That idea clashes with the manifestation of a new world empire taking shape. It is one ostensibly predicated on global economics—a thing ubiquitous today. But that notion is also shaping political, social, and ethical thought.

The European Union has evolved, or, perhaps, metastasized is a better word, from a purely economic union—at least as explained to the populations of western Europe—to something much more elaborate and frightening. It has become a political, social union.

More power is now concentrated in Brussels than in the individual Countries.

One can understand the concern of a Country like Hungary that had lived under Soviet domination and that can perceive clearly what other Countries that had suffered under the weight of the Soviet Union are blind to—the movement of an ostensibly democratic-based confederation of nations to a decidedly undemocratic union of disparate countries that must come kicking and screaming to a new reality—thrown as they are into a burning kettle where they are all transformed into one homogenous amorphous super-state.

And the U.S. is moving in that direction. The Biden Administration, taking its lead from the EU is attempting to change the thought patterns of Americans—away from their uniqueness, which has worked well for the Country and for the American people—to an entirely new way of thinking, predicated on the tenets of Collectivism, that is decidedly contrary to the political and social and legal philosophy of the Country upon which the Constitution is based, grounded on the tenets of Individualism.

In this new Collectivist-themed universe, there is no place for freedom of thought, freedom of association with like kind, and there is definitely no place for an armed citizenry.

New York and a handful of States like it are intractable. They find anathema the promise of a secure and safe Country, one in which the American people are sovereign over Government. But given the power of a seditious Press and Government’s control over the vast apparatuses of military, police, and intelligence—and given that academia and big business and big finance and big tech are all onboard as well—this present outlier Federal Government along with several outlier State Governments have attacked the bedrock principles upon which this Nation survived and thrived. They are arguing that the sacred principles, precepts, and tenets of Individualism are archaic and no longer of significance in new neo-feudalistic empire that the world is rapidly marching toward, and must be therefore be dropped so that the remains of the United States can be easily, smoothly merged into this new Global empire.

These points aren’t mere supposition. They are supported by the weight of recent historical evidence.

Our Country has prospered like no other Country before it, and in the space of only a couple of hundred years. And, yet there are those that fault the common man, the average American for his accomplishments and the accomplishments of this Nation on behalf of and by the efforts of the common man. He is mocked and attacked. He is called a racist, a white supremacist, a nativist, and worse.

Those forces that are attempting to usher our Country into a new political, social, cultural, economic, and juridical reality are having a hard time of it.

At least one-third of the people of the Nation—a substantial number of people by any estimate—have serious reservations about that and demand to have their say.

And the Bill of Rights—a formidable ally to their Cause, hardly a little thing, although some make light of it—has their back.

No less so, do a few Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have the back of the American people, through the Court’s principled and avid defense of the Nation’s Bill of Rights.

Several Justices have come under concerted attack by many in the Legacy Press—a thing that would have been unthinkable even a decade ago. It is the only Branch of Government that has remained true to its sacred duty under Article III of the Constitution and has scrupulously adhered to its singular responsibility to preserve and protect the Constitution, without which the Nation and its people would be undone.

THE THIRD BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, AN INDEPENDENT U.S. SUPREME COURT, IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO THE PRESERVATION OF A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, AN INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGN NATION STATE, AND A FREE AND SOVEREIGN AMERICAN PEOPLE IN WHOM ULTIMATE AUTHORITY MUST REST TO THWART TYRANNY OF GOVERNMENT

Some argue that the Third Branch of Government, the U.S. Supreme Court, is considered of lesser importance than the first two. That is patently ridiculous.

See New York Times Guest Opinion, posted, October 11, 2018, by Pepperdine Law Professor, Barry P. McDonald, “Should the Supreme Court Matter So Much?”

He writes,

“If you paused during the heated battle over Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination to ask yourself whether it made any sense for the appointment of one individual to one position in our government to matter so much, let me assure you: The answer is no. It doesn’t make any sense.

Why did Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation matter so much? Because the Supreme Court has come to matter so much — indeed, because it has come to matter too much. The court has become a political actor that wields excessive power in our democracy. The uproar over the Kavanaugh hearings was, at bottom, a reflection of that unfortunate fact.

Americans have become so used to having the Supreme Court decree the country’s policy on such vital matters as abortion, gun rights, same-sex marriage and campaign finance that they assume this is how the court is supposed to function. But that assumption is mistaken.

Our nation’s founders would blanch to see how different the court is today from their conception of it. Only if we can figure out how to restore the Supreme Court to its intended role can we avoid a future in which a court nomination continues to be capable of tearing our country apart.

When the founders established our system of self-government, they didn’t expend much effort on the judicial branch. Of the roughly three and a half long pieces of inscribed parchment that make up the Constitution, the first two pages are devoted to designing Congress. Most of the next full page focuses on the president. The final three-quarters of a page contains various provisions, including just five sentences establishing a “supreme court,” any optional lower courts Congress might create and the types of cases those courts could hear.

Why was the judicial branch given such short shrift? Because in a democracy, the political branches of government — those accountable to the people through elections — were expected to run things. The courts could get involved only as was necessary to resolve disputes, and even then under congressional supervision of their dockets.

It was widely recognized that the Supreme Court was the least important of the three branches: It was the only branch to lack its own building (it was housed in a chamber of Congress), and the best lawyers were seldom enthusiastic about serving on it (John Jay, the court’s first chief justice, resigned within six years and described the institution as lacking ‘energy, weight and dignity’).”

These latter two remarks are in the nature of straw man arguments that beg the salient question at issue which Professor McDonald merely assumes to be the case rather than a thesis to be proved. Did the Framers consider the Judicial Branch to be of lesser importance than Congress and the Executive Branch? If true, that cuts into the doctrine of three co-equal Branches with carefully demarcated functions and authority.

Now, it is true that the Supreme Court does not have the power of the purse wielded by Congress, and it does not wield control over the vast military, police, and intelligence apparatuses, falling within the purview of the Executive Branch. But, the High Court is a Branch of Government that has one unique power that the other two Branches do not have: the power to say what the Law is—no small thing, that.

And Professor McDonald stretches to deal with this matter, as he must. He says,

“What about the task of interpreting the Constitution? This question is the subject of some debate, but the founders most likely believed that each branch of government had the right and duty to determine for itself what the Constitution demanded, unless the Constitution was clearly transgressed. If the Constitution was clearly transgressed, the Supreme Court had a duty to hold Congress or the president accountable — but only in the case before it. The founders almost certainly did not envision a roving mandate for the Supreme Court to dictate to Congress, the president or state governments what actions comported with the Constitution (unless they were a party to a case before it).”

If the interpretive function could be relegated to Congress, and if the Framers truly thought the U.S. Supreme Court to be “the least important of the three branches,” why would the Framers trouble themselves to create an independent Judiciary at all?

Professor McDonald recognizes this fact as problematic given the assumption he begins his paper on—taking as a given that the U.S. Supreme Court is not on an equal footing with the Congress and the Executive Branch. He asks and then responds to the question he raises:

“What about the task of interpreting the Constitution? This question is the subject of some debate, but the founders most likely believed that each branch of government had the right and duty to determine for itself what the Constitution demanded, unless the Constitution was clearly transgressed. If the Constitution was clearly transgressed, the Supreme Court had a duty to hold Congress or the president accountable — but only in the case before it. The founders almost certainly did not envision a roving mandate for the Supreme Court to dictate to Congress, the president or state governments what actions comported with the Constitution (unless they were a party to a case before it).

Professor McDonald contends that only “if the Constitution was clearly transgressed, the Supreme Court had a duty to hold Congress or the president, accountable—but only in the case before it.”

But, if Congress or the President were a party to a suit, would not that raise a political question that the Court would refuse to hear because of lack of standing, as determined by the Court, even if the Constitution were in fact transgressed by Congress and/or the President?

Consider, the recent immigration case, United States vs. Texas. Wasn’t this precisely the kind of case that Professor McDonald says the High Court could entertain—a case where the Biden Administration likely did transgress the Constitution and such an instance of unconstitutional conduct would operate as an exception Professor McDonald himself recognizes when he states, “the founders most likely believed that each branch of government had the right and duty to determine for itself what the Constitution demanded, unless the Constitution was clearly transgressed [emphasis my own].

Nonetheless, the Court Majority argued that the States lacked standing to challenge Executive Branch policy that arguably did violate Congressional law. The lone dissenter, Justice Alito, raises the tantalizing question that the failure of the U.S. Supreme Court to render a decision on the merits of the case, does not honor the separation of powers doctrine, but “actually damages that system by improperly inflating the power of the Executive and cutting back the power of Congress and the authority of the Judiciary.” See, e.g., analysis of the decision by Amy Howe. Justice Alito’s compelling Dissent serves as a powerful rejoinder to Professor McDonald’s generally dismissive attitude toward the authority of the Court.

And what would Professor McDonald’s retort be to matters involving the Bill of Rights? If Article III of the Constitution were to be repealed, and the authority to interpret cases were left to the lower Courts—those created by Congress— a patchwork quilt of decisions across the Country would leave fundamental natural law rights in tatters. Those members of Congress and many Americans across the Country who despise the Dobbs abortion case decision, correctly decided precisely because it does not involve a fundamental, unalienable right and properly belongs to the States, are in an uproar. Yet those same people—certainly Congressional Democrats—would have no issue with denigrating the natural law right to armed self-defense. And the presence of the High Court makes all the difference apropos of preserving the sanctity and inviolability of natural law rights without which a truly free Constitutional Republic and a free and sovereign people would no longer exist and, in fact, would not even be possible.

To that end, and for that purpose, the Court has set its imprimatur on three three landmark Second Amendment cases: Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, all decided in the last fourteen years. THE HIGH COURT HAS EXPLAINED WHAT THE LAW IS—AND IT IS FOR THE HIGH COURT, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, TO SAY WHAT THE LAW IS. THAT AUHTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY BELONGS SOLELY TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, NOT TO CONGRESS AND NOT TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

These cases explain cogently, coherently, and categorically, what the Second Amendment says and what it means, in accordance with the plain meaning of it, as the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended.

But, what the Court has to say about the Second Amendment does not sit well with the would-be Destroyers of a Free Republic, nor fit well with the type of Country these would-be Destroyers and their puppets in the Federal Government under the Biden Administration and in some State Governments like New York, and in the Press, and by some in the academia wish to create.

The High Court—at least those of the so-called Conservative Wing—understand that public opinion (constantly changeable and ever subject to the whim and caprice of Government, Press, and media propagandists) is not a factor in their deliberations and decisions, as well such factor should never be). That frustrates and angers those forces that are determined to overthrow this free Constitutional Republic, waging a Counterrevolution to the American Revolution of 1776. But, as long as the High Court remains true to the Constitution as written, and as long as a substantial number of Americans does not allow itself to be swayed by a mobocracy under the firm control of the propagandists, who target the “Lizard Brain” of broad swaths of the population, disrupting the psyche through incessant and massive campaigns deception, the American Revolution of 1776 will remain intact and the promises made by the Founders of the Republic to the generations of Americans since, will be preserved.

___________________________

BOOK REVIEW: “FINAL BATTLE” BY DAVID HOROWITZ

“FINAL BATTLE” BY DAVID HOROWITZ

BOOK REVIEW

REVIEWED BY STEPHEN L. D’ANDRILL AND ROGER J. KATZ

“Final Battle,” copyright 2022 by David Horowitz, is a wake-up call and an ominous warning for America’s patriots, 74 million citizens who voted for Trump in 2020.

“Elections [DO] matter.” That is the title of Chapter 1 of the book. The incoming President sets the tone for the Nation, and the Biden Administration would do just that.

What the Biden Administration has wrought is a complete reversal of Trump’s accomplishments. Biden reverted to the agenda of the Obama years—the agenda that Hillary Clinton would have carried out had the American people seen to it that she would not be allowed to carry on the destruction of the Country. The electorate voted in Donald Trump, an outsider, not connected with the Washington, D.C. political elite. Trump had slammed on the brakes of the Obama agenda—one that George W. Bush too had served.

Through manipulation of the electoral system, the forces that crush nations and people, sat their stooge in Office, a shell of a man; one who was and is corrupt and pliable, compliant, and ill-informed, a person physically and emotionally weak, suffering the onset of dementia. The worst person to serve as President of the United States, on a host of factors, especially personal traits. Biden is intellectually, emotionally, physically and physically weak. And he projects that weakness to the Country and the world, just as his benefactors want and expect. Biden is the perfect placeholder for those forces that seek to destroy the Nation. They require a willing manikin to serve as the public face of an America in the throes of weakness and malady. Biden’s Administration would return to completing the agenda that Bush and Obama had worked to achieve for their powerful and shadowy benefactors. But is this what the majority of the electorate truly wanted?  

Was the 2020 U.S. Presidential election fair and aboveboard? Hardly.

Horowitz does present a convincing argument, poking holes in any claim that the election was free and fair. And he succeeds without need to dwell on the technical aspects of a fraudulent election. He doesn’t have to. A few cogent remarks speak volumes:

“. . . when the 2020 election results were in, Trump outperformed every incumbent president before him. . . . in 2020, Trump miraculously increased his margin by 11.2 million votes, making his total of more than 74 million, the most votes ever cast for an American president. On the other hand, to believe that Biden had won, one would have to believe that a mentally challenged candidate, who campaigned from his basement, who could hardly sustain a train of thought and couldn’t get through a campaign speech without a teleprompter, whose crowds were generally in the low double-digits, while Trump was drawing thirty and fifty thousand supporters to his rallies—one would have to believe that this fumbling figure received nearly 12 million more votes than Barack Obama at his peak. . . . Biden’s margin of victory was still razor thin. Roughly 159 million total votes had been cast in the 2020 presidential election. Biden’s margin of victory was 43,000—or 0.027 percent of the total. If the votes illegally cast in Pennsylvania and two other battleground states had been properly thrown out by the courts, Trump would have won.”

Election fraud permeated the 2020 election. Apart from the fraud, the hypocrisy of the Democrats is also displayed.

Horowitz points out that Democrats had questioned Republican election victories in the past to decertify electors and attempt to reverse the result.

Democrats’ hypocrisy and double standard is revealed when it is now Republicans who made accusations about the conduct of the electoral process and raised cogent, sound, and reasonable arguments for investigation into irregularities and sought a suspension of the certification of the election results until an investigation into irregularities was conducted. Democrats would not hear of it and pounced.

Vice President Pence had the authority to call a halt to the certification process in the House. He didn’t. His failure to act might have been due to fear of reprisal from Democrats and the shadowy, sinister powers behind them, or it may be due to his own close connection with Bush Republicans, who are more tied to Democrats than they let on to be.

And now Pence is running for U.S. President himself. Who is he kidding? He has as much chance of gaining the Republican Party nomination as Mitt Romney or Liz Cheney. A better chance he would have if he ran as a Democrat. The idea of ‘voter fraud” isn’t in Pence’s lexicon.

But, when Trump talked about voter fraud in the election, Democrats and a sympathetic Press called it ‘the Big Lie, and likened Trump to Adolf Hitler.

The accusations were not only false, but insulting. Trump took it all in stride, as he had done numerous times in the past, as U.S. President. Trump has a character trait that many politicians lack: fortitude, and indomitable will, essential for a person who would serve the American people as U.S. President. Fortitude and will are traits wholly lacking in Biden.

Democrats and their silent, secretive benefactors are fearful of Trump. That explains why they continue to foment vehement attacks on him; why they continue to level civil lawsuits, and criminal charges against him, and why they mock and scold those tens of millions of people who voted for him, calling them “racist.”

But why is there so much frenetic energy and urgency surrounding this matter, if Democrats honestly believed the 2020 U.S. Presidential election was conducted fairly and was wholly aboveboard? Could it be they know the truth? They must know since they plotted to manipulate the process a couple of years before it even took place.

Substantial evidence points to serious irregularities and machinations in the election system. The bottom line is that Biden did not win the 2020 general election. Trump did. The Press should be investigating this matter itself. But it never did. It did the opposite. The Press is a party to a massive cover-up.

In his book, Horowitz also draws attention to the January 6, 2021 march on the U.S. Capitol Building. Democrats and the Press erroneously refer to as an “insurrection.” The word ‘insurrection’ is a legal term of art in the Federal Code.

There was no insurrection, and, while the Biden Administration has waged an unholy crusade against those Americans who marched to the U.S. Capitol Building that day, no one has been charged with insurrection.

Even so, Democrats drew up an article of impeachment against Trump, claiming that Trump’s actions on that day point to a scheme to take control of the Capitol Building to halt the counting of the electoral votes in the House.

But did Trump truly foment a scheme to take control of the Capitol Building with unarmed civilians or was the entire episode a “False Flag” operation that the Congressional Democrats and the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi had concocted to serve as a pretext to launch an impeachment inquiry against him and to hound those who took part in it, serving as an example that, regardless of the fundamental right to dissent, the new order will not tolerate dissent, the Constitution be damned?  

That is a probing question the discerning reader will ask after perusing the book. It is one the Press avoids dealing with or denies if it mentions the matter at all. But it is one that Horowitz does not shy away from.

Horowitz writes that, when Trump called for a peaceful, patriotic protest at the Capitol, he offered 10,000 federal National Guard troops to provide safety and security, and that Democrats rejected the offer.

The Capitol Police failed to secure the perimeter and those protesters who did enter the building walked in unimpeded and unopposed.

Horowitz also points out that, contrary to the claims of Democratic Party and media reports, the protesters were not armed, and that three of the four deaths that occurred on January 6 were Trump supporters, and occurred as a result from stress-related causes or other medical natural causes, not from violence.

One person, a victim of homicide, was an unarmed female Air Force veteran. A Capitol police officer shot her. It was deliberate, unnecessary, unprovoked. A reporter caught the shooting on video. That reporter was thereafter arrested, and the footage confiscated. The Capitol Police did not release the identity of the officer.

The officer’s identity came to light much later in time, and he was exonerated after a secret Justice Department investigation, despite video evidence pointing to criminal homicide. 

Still, Democrats and their friends in the legacy Press insist on referring to the protest as an “armed insurrection” and have never veered from that narrative. But it was no such thing.

Moreover, the Capitol Police refused to release more than 14,000 hours of unedited video surveillance. Why is this content being kept away from the public? Don’t they have a right to see the video evidence for themselves? And, Fox News Host, Tucker Carlson, having obtained that video footage devoted an episode to the January 6 protest and lost his job because of that. And, why is that? Had he demonstrated the flaws in the narrative produced by the Democrats and by the Press? But do the powers behind the Democrats have sufficient control over the Murdoch publishing empire, too, that they can exert their will and power on all whom they choose and compel obedience? What does this all mean and what does it portend for us, American citizens?

House Speaker Pelosi subsequently ordered 25,000 armed troops to guard the Capitol Building at a cost of half a billion dollars of taxpayer money. Was that really necessary? Or was it theater, to frighten Americans? But she did relent. Was she ordered to do so because the optics were deemed unacceptable, suggesting that, yes, the United States is in the throes of Autocracy, but that fact should not yet be made evident to the people?

Pelosi later reduced the number of troops to 1,500. And those 1,500 troops would remain at the Capitol for more than four and one-half months.

On January 11, 2021, Democrats filed an article of impeachment against Trump, charging him with “incitement of insurrection”—the second such action against Trump, altogether legally unmerited, politically unwarranted, and certainly unprecedented.

The book serves as a scathing indictment against Democrats and the Biden Administration. But Horowitz leaves to the reader the inference to be drawn.

And the inference to be drawn is that Democrats, on behalf of their powerful, wealthy, and secretive benefactors, have succeeded in an unlawful, unconstitutional, and scurrilous coup d’état of the Federal Government. The Nation is definitely all the worse for it, suffering the consequences of it. And the horror commences with Biden’s inauguration speech. Horowitz writes,

“In his inauguration speech on January 20, Biden repeated this pledge: ‘Today on this January day, my whole soul is in this: Bringing America together. Uniting our people. And uniting our nation. . . . I will be a President for all Americans. I will fight as hard for those who did not support me as for those who did.’

Biden’s executive actions launched the most radical regime in American history, the very opposite of what he had promised voters during his presidential campaign. It announced that Biden was coming out as the leader of the radical left in his own party and would abandon all the promises of moderation he had made during his campaign.”

Horowitz devotes the bulk of the book to a discussion of the tremendous misdeeds of the President and the horrific effects of his Administration’s agenda that followed upon the reversal of Trump’s policies. These include, inter alia:

•  Stopping the construction of the southern border wall that “opened the southern border to what turned out to be an invasion by close to 2 million unknown and unvetted individuals from approximately 100 countries, including failed terrorist states,”

• Having “the United States rejoin the World Health Organization (WHO) from which Trump had withdrawn and [restoring] much of the nearly $500 million in funding for the WHO that Trump had cut off,”

• Cancelling the “‘1776 Commission project Trump had launched at the very end of this term . . . to oppose the Times’ 1619 Project, which was designed to portray America as a white supremacist nation from its origins,” and

• Creating “‘an ambitious whole-of-government equity agenda’” that was unconstitutionally discriminatory on its face, as Biden intended for this program to apply only to select groups, excluding white Americans, especially poor white Americans,” which meant “a repudiation of America’s most essential value, enshrined in its birth certificate, which proclaimed that ‘all men are created equal,”

• Blaming gun dealers for spiking crime rates, all the while mollycoddling the criminal element and shackling the police.

• Blaming Trump for the devastation caused by the Coronavirus outbreak in America, and at once censoring speech to protect the actions of Dr. Anthony Fauci, who bears significant responsibility for the pandemic, for Fauci was instrumental in funding “gain of function” research in China which he continues to deny despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary,

• Engaging in “the biggest, most destructive spending spree ever,”

• Denying responsibility for the disastrous withdrawal of American forces in Afghanistan, which also involved abandoning billions of dollars of sophisticated weaponry, delivering this weaponry “into enemy hands,” and

• Shredding Trump’s achievements in the Middle East.

The last chapter of the book, “Final Battle,” is titled, “Where Are We Headed?” Horowitz recites the concern of many of us when he asks, “Is American already an empty shell of its greater self, and are its days already numbered?” The question is meant to be rhetorical. Horowitz says,

“Only a fool would say, with any certainty, no. Barbarian terrorist forces are already at the gates, and inside them, American leaders—both military and civilian—are preoccupied with delusional threats that are said to be existential—climate change, white supremacy, patriotic extremism. But the greatest existential threat to American democracy is the drive by the Democrat Party to create a one-party socialist state—a fascist state. This is manifest in their assault on the First Amendment through so-called ‘cancel culture,’ and their collusion in the deplatforming a president of the United States and his 74 million supporters.”

The central theme of the book is that upward of one-third of the Nation is being systematically ostracized, persecuted and abandoned. Reference to this 74 million Americans is mentioned throughout the book.

Horowitz doesn’t say it, but it becomes apparent that he justifiably thinks it: the Federal Government has devolved into tyranny, and a type of tyranny that suggests this Country is taking orders from malevolent, malignant, ruthless but also inordinately wealthy, powerful, and well-organized forces outside it, a type of totalitarianism unlike the classic totalitarianism of the past, where individuals wielded immense power.

The powers directing this present totalitarianism are unknown, and they wish to keep their identities private. Sheldon Wolin coined the expression “inverted totalitarianism” to describe this new totalitarianism. It is this sort that Americans see overlaid on our Republic.

The Biden Administration has come into Office manifestly unlawfully, and the purpose for doing so is manifestly to corrupt and destroy the Nation and he is obviously working for others, benefactors whom the public is not permitted to see. He is a messenger boy, nothing more, and not particularly adept one as he is hardly an adroit speaker. But he is reliable and easily controlled, and his manifold weaknesses reflect what is meant to be projected to the world: a Nation in decline. The differences between an America under Biden and an American under Trump are stark. One need only look to a Country that was well on the way to recovery under Trump whose policies and initiatives aligned perfectly with his campaign slogan to “Make America Great Again.”

This was the very thing the Biden Administration and its secret benefactors would have none of. Not content to simply ignore Trump’s campaign slogan and the import of it, the Administration denigrated it, treated it as an obscenity, and, in so doing, made clear that, far from making American great again, they intend to destroy the Nation, reduce it to rubble, further evidencing that the Biden Administration is not directing its efforts and resources for the benefit of the Country and the American people for the detriment of both, actively, avidly directing efforts and resources to destroy it, s

The horrible effects of the Administration’s policies cannot be ascribed to ineptitude and incompetence, alone, nor to events beyond the control of the Administration, for they are shapping those events. The Administration has orchestrated a scheme to weaken and drain the vital health out of the Nation: economically, financially, societally, militarily, geopolitically.

David Horowitz doesn’t say this expressly, but it is another inference to be drawn. The book is replete with evidence for it. The evidence is made explicit in the extensive documentation that the author provides in his book. The Country reels from the extent of the damage to the Nation, its people, and to the Constitution the Biden Administration has wrought. One need only look to the effects of the Administration’s policies and to the people that serve in high office in that Administration. They are not only ill-equipped intellectually, lacking native ability and experience. They lack moral scruples, integrity. Many have serious psychological issues, yet wield immense power over the Country, its institutions, and its people. Selected on the basis of and consistent with the dogma of “Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion,” percolating through the Government and the Country, Americans see well, the extensive damage to people, institutions, and government, wrought through implementation of this dogma.

74 million of us, though, roughly one-third of adult population of voting age, have had enough of Biden, his Administration, and those elements both here and abroad they are beholden to that have made their intentions known, and those intentions do not have our Nation’s best interests at heart.

Horowitz references these 74 million voters and supporters of Donald Trump throughout the book.

In the last couple of paragraphs of his book, David Horowitz, summarizes the damage already done to this Nation. And makes poignantly clear that any American who objects to the ravaging of the Nation will be the next target. He writes,

“They have pressed for the dismantling of the system of checks and balances, which has been the bulwark of the American democracy for over 240 years. They have done this by demonizing their domestic political opponents, attempting to abolish the Electoral College, and pushing to abolish the filibuster and to pack the Supreme Court; they have attacked the integrity of the electoral system by opposing voter IDS; they have assaulted anyone who questions election results as enemies of American democracy; and they have replaced America’s liberating culture of individualism with a tribal identity politics that undermines the foundations of the constitutional system. Finally, while handing the Islamic terrorists their greatest victory since 9/11, they have sought to attack and discredit their democratic opponents as ‘domestic extremists’ and terrorists. Their zealous advocacy of socialist economics and political fascism sets us on the path to a totalitarian future. All that awaits the sad conclusion to these efforts are the gulags and deprogramming camps, which are not shy about promoting.”

The last sentence is particularly ominous. Is it prophetic? Consider the words of Donald Trump, in a speech he gave to his supporters in Columbus, Georgia on June 10, 2023, after Biden’s DOJ dared to bring charges against him, a former U.S. President—a thing never before seen in our Nation’s history. Trump said, “. . . in the end, they're not coming after me. They're coming after you — and I'm just standing in their way. . . .

Who the hell would vote for them with the policies that they have of open borders and no voter ID? . . .

Can you imagine if it was the other way around? . . . They spied on my campaign and we caught them. They forge false evidence to get illegal surveillance warrants. The FBI offered $1 million for a fictitious dossier written by a foreign spy. To try to frame me for it.

They're trying to do it again.

‘These people don't stop and they're bad and we have to get rid of them . . . . We have to get rid of them ourselves.

If it's somebody else, that person will not be able to withstand the fire . . . . If it's not me, you know it'll be somebody else .  . . that fire doesn't stop just with me. That fire is going to go on against any conservative, any Republican anybody other than them. Because they want the power. They actually want to destroy our country. I believe that because there could be no other reason.”

It is uncanny how Trump’s speech echoes the concerns in the Horowitz book.

Both Trump, and Horowitz, and many other people, 74 million strong, know a violent storm is on the horizon. The coming U.S. Presidential election may well be our last, as Horowitz warns. But the “Final Battle” for the Nation’s Soul may not be the 2024 election results, but what comes after if Biden or someone like him secures the Office of U. S. President and continues the disastrous policies of the Biden Administration. A possible physical, not merely metaphorical, conflagration is in the offing.

There are, then, two possibilities for the future of the Nation, and only one of them can exist.

The American people may see the promise of the American Revolution of 1776 preserved in 2024 and thereafter. That is one possibility.

The second possibility is that the American people will witness a Neoliberal Globalist/Neo-Marxist Counterrevolution that will overthrow a truly Free Constitutional Republic that came about and that had flourished as a result of the American Patriots’ success in overthrowing the tyranny of the British Monarch, George III.

The Counterrevolution is in our midst. Americans now see firsthand the inklings of what it means, of what it portends. If it succeeds, America as a free Republic will cease to exist. And an American citizenry too will cease to exist. All vestige of an independent sovereign Nation and a free Constitutional Republic, and a sovereign people will come to an abrupt halt, and once gone, all of it will be gone forever.

Perhaps a few trappings of a free Republic here and there will be allowed to exist for a time, lest the public fall into despondency, leading to catatonia. But soon enough, even those trappings will be eliminated, no longer necessary, as the young people growing up today in tyranny will know nothing of freedom. A few of them may feel a pang now and again of the past, despite indoctrination. They may have a fleeting recollection of a once free and sovereign people—through an ancestral memory floating briefly and vaguely to the surface of their mind, but that will pass.

Whatever does come to pass, that rests with the American people. To capitulate to the forces behind the Biden Administration is to betray those who fought and died to create a free Republic, having successfully overthrown tyranny and to betray those Americans who, through the succeeding years and decades and centuries, had fought and died to preserve a free Republic.

Those Americans who think they can sit this one out have, by their non-action, taken a stand against the promise of our American Revolution, and deserve to feel the pain that comes to haunt him because of their indifference. And they will suffer pain and remorse. But it will be too late for them. Unfortinately, it will be much to late for us, too, who do understand and cherish the greatness of our Country and people, and who cherish our history, heritage, culture, ethos, and Judeo-Christian ethic, and who understand and cherish the significance of our fundamental rights, codified in the Bill of Rights of our Nation’s Constitution.

Only a Trump Presidency can now protect and secure and preserve a free Constitutional Republic for us, against those intent on destroying us, using stooges like Biden and others in his Administration to carry out their edicts.

It will be difficult to read through the David Horowitz Book without coming away with the realization that, yes, in fact, Americans are facing their “Final Battle.”

The book is an easy read, but it does not entertain. It wasn’t meant to. And for many Americans, it confirms much of what we believe to be true but offers documentary proof to support what many of us believe, transforming our beliefs into knowledge—uncomfortable knowledge, to be sure, but convincing knowledge, nonetheless.

For many other people the book provides eye-opening information that will shatter any preconceived notion that the 2020 electoral process was conducted fairly, that, having taken Office, Biden and his Administration have done a good job for the Nation and for the pepple, and that any bad consequences that have befallen us, are not his fault or the fault of his Administration.

Those readers who hate Trump should instead direct that hatred onto Biden and his Administration. They have severely weakened this Country, exploiting it on behalf of others, and obtaining personal reward for their betrayal. This will make recovery difficult, especially in matters of foreign policy. On that front, Biden and his Administration has devastated this Nation, placing both it and the world in a singularly precarious situation. It is impossible to read the Horowitz book and not see this.

To the rest of the world, the United States appears weak. That does not bode well for the security of the Nation and the world. The perception of weakness, in a once strong Nation that friendly nations had gained support from and that adversaries respected, means that many countries, both great and small, will use the signal of a weak United States to engage in warfare against their neighbors and will challenge the U.S., as China and Iran, have now done. Under Trump, this would never have happened. And during the four years that he was in Office, the United States would not engage in another war, and those countries that have warlike tendencies were careful about acting on those tendencies. With Biden the world has a completely different perspective, and the damage done to this Nation’s security and to the security of the world is painfully clear.

Biden has placed the world in a state of extraordinary tension that can explode at any moment into a full blown Global Thermonuclear conflagration.

David Horowitz’s book establishes Joe Biden’s incompetence and that of his senior officials. More, the book raises the specter that this incompetence is so wide in scope and extreme in impact that the fact of them can only be explained as deliberate, as difficult it may be, for many Americans, to accept. That raises the question who or what is behind the Biden Administration’s actions to destroy our Country, and the reason for this. The damage deliberately done to the Nation cannot rationally be attributed to Biden people. They wouldn’t dare. Powerful interests, here and abroad, must be orchestrating planned destruction of the Nation.

The Arbalest Quarrel has speculated on this. For there must be an answer. A demented fool for President and the implementation of policies designed to harm the Nation don’t just happen. They happen for a reason. And that reason is found somewhere beyond a consideration of Biden and his Administration alone.

There must be powerful but unseen forces behind the horrific events that have unfolded since Biden took office of which he and his Administration have implemented but that, on a higher plane of influence, these secretive others have devised and fed to the Biden Administration. “Final Battle” alludes to this and urges the public to secure their Nation from buffoons and charlatans and corrupt officials that would sell out our Country for a little gold and for the chance to wear the trappings of power.

The first order of business is to make sure our electoral system is fair, honest, and aboveboard. If the public doesn’t have faith in the electoral process, then faith in our Republic is weakened. But how does the public demand an overhaul of the electoral process and how might the public know, really know, that our elections are conducted fairly? And assuming the public can faith in the electoral system, it is then imperative that Americans vote, and that they vote into office a person that will protect our Nation and promote policies that do not impede one’s personal growth, responsibility, and chance of success. Under Biden this is impossible. Under Trump it is not only possible. It has occurred. During the first term of his Presidency, he began to turn America around to its once greater glory—and this was all the remarkable given the efforts to harm him and to sabotage his policies and initatives.

Once he is in Office he will be more careful when nominating individuals to Cabinet Level positions, and, even though it will take effort to rebuild what Biden has destroyed, he can still make American great again.

Trump will beat these recent ridiculous lawsuits and criminal charges against him. He will gain the Republican Party nomination. He is and will remain the front runner. And once he gains the nomination, it is imperative that the voting public vote for him. Whatever biases a person has about the man, consider what four years of his Presidency have brought: a secure economy, a safe and secure world, and pronounced faith in our Nation’s history, heritage, culture, ethos, and Judeo-Christian moral system. Compare that with what just two years of Biden has brought for America and its people. And Biden has another year and a half to go, to continue the destruction of the Country on behalf of his secretive and powerful benefactors to whom he is beholden, having betrayed the Oath of Office he has taken.

Read the Horowitz book, “Final Battle.” What Horowitz has to say may not be what some wish to hear. But it is the truth. And for most of us, there is value in that. 

NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL DEFIES U.S. SUPREME COURT AND BRUEN RULINGS; INTENDS TO WEAKEN EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE

On November 3, 2021 the U.S. Supreme Court heard Oral Argument in the third major Second Amendment case, NYSRPA vs. Bruen.

The Hearing was a mere formality. Both parties, Plaintiff Petitioners, and Defendant Respondent New York State Government, knew the outcome before the hearing took place, or had good reason to suspect a positive outcome for Petitioners and a decidedly adverse one for the State.

New York’s Handgun Law was in the crosshairs of U.S. Supreme Court for at least a couple of years.

New York, like several other jurisdictions, had pushed back on the Court’s rulings in Heller and McDonald for years, angering Americans who sought to exercise their natural law right to armed self-defense, and rightfully irritating several members of the Court having perceived State Government administrations and courts failing to  jurisdictions failed to adhere to the High Court rulings in those two landmark Second Amendment cases.

Heller made clear the right to armed self-defense is an individual right, unconnected with one’s service in a militia, a point plain from the text of the Second Amendment. This is consistent with the Standard Model, grounded on “the text of the Second Amendment and its historical underpinnings.” See, e.g., Critical Guide To The Second Amendment,” 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 461, 466 (Spring 1995), by Glenn Harlan Reynolds. Heller conforms to the most reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment, which foes of the Second Amendment dismiss outright.

Failing to appreciate the import and purport of the Second Amendment, Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions went their merry way. State Government administrations and their legislatures immediately rebelled against Heller, and the Courts of those jurisdictions, giving their imprimatur on unconstitutional acts. Through tortuous legal reasoning they gave their imprimatur on unconstitutional acts, requiring the U.S. Supreme Court to step in once again.

McDonald held the right of the people to keep and bear arms applies equally to the States and the Federal Government, albeit, apropos of the States, it applies to them through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Relying on its own case law precedent, in Barron ex rel., Tiernan vs. Mayor of Balt, 32 U.S. 243, 7 Pet. 243, 247, the High Court conceded the right codified in the Second Amendment applied originally to the Federal Government only, not to the States.

But, through its further analysis of the Constitution, the Court’s Majority inferred that the Right does in fact apply to the States, albeit through the Fourteenth Amendment.

But does that fact alter the force of the Bill of Rights, and do we treat these Rights contained therein, like any other Constitutional provision?

These are not trivial questions. For if the Rights contained therein are to be construed as elemental, fundamental, illimitable, immutable, unalienable and eternal Natural Law Rights, as the Founders of our Republic accepted as axiomatic, then these Rights are not the sorts of things that government, any government—State, Federal, or local—has the lawful authority to ignore, dismiss, tinker and tamper with, or abrogate, in any matter. That is to say, these are primordial Rights existent in the individual by Grace of the Divine Creator. They are “Natural Law.” They are not constructions by man. So, if Government, a collection of men, did not create these natural law rights, then it follows that Government has no lawful authority to bestow them on other men, or to rescind the right thus bestowed, or to deny the exercise of them. Yet many State governments do just that and insist they, alone, maintain and retain the sole right to do so. This leads inevitably to a problem of logic, more basic than one of law, and this logical conundrum plays out amply on review of the New York Sullivan Act.

New York State and Federal Courts acknowledge that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. But then they argue that, since the State requires the individual to acquire a license as a condition precedent to the exercising of the right to keep and bear arms, and as acquisition of a license is within the sole prerogative of the State, and since the Governmental act of bestowing a license on one person and denying it to another, all the while maintaining that such licenses once bestowed are subject to rescission, revocation, or suspension at the whim of Government, this means that acquisition of a license to exercise a fundamental right, is itself, a privilege, not a right. And the Courts have ruled.

This reduces a fundamental right to mere platitude, and it is one without force or effect. The Government interposes itself between a preexisting natural law right and one’s desire to exercise it.

The impact of the logical issue is not resolved through Heller or McDonald; nor does Bruen resolve it. It is a man-made problem, arising from a man-made act——

Government licensing of firearms.

LICENSING OF FIREARMS, PARTICULARLY THE LICENSING OF HANDGUNS UTILIZED FOR SELF-DEFENSE OUTSIDE THE HOME IS AT ONCE THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM FRUSTRATING ONE’S EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND THE MECHANISM EMPLOYED FOR DAMAGING THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE RIGHTS—EXERCISE OF WHICH ALONE FORESTALLS ENCROACHING GOVERNMENT TYRANNY

The Fourteenth Amendment that McDonald relies upon, is, of course, not part of the Bill of Rights that three-fourths of the States, then existing in the United States, ratified on December 15, 1791.

Better it would be for the High Court to rule that the Bill of Rights, as a collection of Natural Law, stand outside the power and authority of Government to regulate.

If that idea sounds outlandish, is it any less outlandish for a State, like New York, to claim that, although the right to keep and bear arms “cannot be” infringed, the ability to do so is dependent on first securing a license to do so, and the issuance of a license is a privilege gained by grace of the State, not a right existent in a person which he may therefore demand of the State? “‘That’s some catch, that catch-22. . . .’ ‘It’s the best there is.” [re: Joseph Hellers’ novel, “Catch-22.”]

The Indiana Courts recognized the problem but attempted to chart a course between Scylla and Charybdis.

‘The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.’ However, the Indiana Constitution also ‘affirmatively recognizes the state's police power.’ ‘It declares that government is ‘instituted for [the People's] peace, safety, and well-being.’” Id. (quoting City Chapel, 744 N.E.2d at 446 (quoting Ind.)). In this case, the governmental police power of regulating arms challenges the limitations on government when addressing the right to bear arms.” Reddington vs. State, 992 N.E.2d 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). [citations generally omitted].

New York was likely the first jurisdiction to impose handgun licensing on American citizens. That was the Sullivan Act in 1911.

The Sullivan Act was created on a lie, besmirching entire national groups or ethnic classes, new to the City, Italians and Jews as “dangerous people” responsible for crime in New York City:

“Whatever the actual dangers of the automatic revolver, immigrants scared authorities on both sides of the Atlantic. Crime by Jewish and Italian immigrants spurred New York State to enact the Sullivan Law in 1911, which required a license for handgun buying and carrying, and made licenses difficult to obtain. The sponsor at the Sullivan Law promised homicides would decline drastically. Instead, homicides increased and the New York Times found that criminals were ‘as well armed as ever.’” “All The Way Down The Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition In England And Some Lessons For Civil Liberties In America,” 22 Hamline L. Rev. 399 (Winter 1999), by Joseph E. Olson and David B. Kopel.

The Sullivan Act created out of a paroxysm of fear is still very much with us. In fact the impact of it is worse than ever.

Through time the Sullivan Act grew more elaborate, more burdensome, more restrictive. The New York Government intended this to occur.

Slowly at first, but inexorably, and gaining momentum in the second decade of the 21st, Century, notwithstanding or in spite of and contemptuous of the Heller and McDonald  rulings, the New York Government made patently clear its disgust for and abhorrence of the natural law right to armed self-defense codified Second Amendment.  

Challenges were inevitable.

New Yorkers’ anger toward the State’s actions, reining in exercise of a natural law right to armed self-defense grew in direct proportion to and relation with the Government’s own recalcitrance and arrogance.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the first challenge to the State’s Handgun Law in 2020.

The case NYSRPA vs. City of New York, 140 S. Ct. 1525 (2020), is referred to colloquially as the “New York Gun Transport” case. The Arbalest Quarrel has written several articles on this. Among our published papers,  See, e.g., article posted on April 27, 2020.

The Court could have taken up review of the merits of the case, the Constitutionality of Sullivan, head-on. Justices Thomas and Alito certainly wanted to. And had the Court done so, it might have spared both itself and handgun licensees in New York the time, expense, and frustration of having to deal with further challenges down the road.

Even as Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would have wished that, the Leftwing did not and Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, sided with the leftwing of the Court.

Those Justices—Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan— don’t merely oppose exercise of the natural law right of armed self-defense, they detest it. This is plain in their opinions.

The New York Government under Andrew Cuomo, through sleight of hand, amended the Handgun Law ever so slightly to allow Roberts, Kavanaugh, and the leftwing of the Court to declare the case moot.

The Justices dismissed it, avoiding review of the case on the merits.

This is precisely what both the New York Government and those Justices, who dismissed the case on the ground of mootness, wanted.

Justices Alito and Thomas were rightfully livid.

The machinations of Cuomo did not meet the test for mootness, but there was nothing Justices Thomas and Alito could do except prepare a comprehensive dissent.

Justice Kavanaugh, who sided with Chief Justice Roberts and the leftwing of the Court, wrote an odd concurring opinion. He obliquely acknowledged the disappointment of his brethren, and perfunctorily declared there would be other opportunities to vindicate Heller and McDonald. Whether he meant it or not, another opportunity did arise: the case was NYSRPA vs. Bruen.

With Justice Amy Coney Barrett now on the Bench, the Conservative wing of the Court had garnered sufficient votes to grant review of the case but with the aim of vindicating and clarifying the salient points of the two prior seminal Heller and McDonald cases.

Unlike the previous New York City case that could have emerged as the third landmark Second Amendment case, the present Bruen case did just that. This case challenged the core of the Sullivan Act: the idea of armed self-defense outside the confines of one’s home or place of business.

Governor Kathy Hochul, who had replaced Andrew Cuomo whom the secretive and powerful Globalist elites had grown both concerned about and tired of, forcing Cuomo to resign, knew that Bruen posed the greatest risk to the Sullivan Act since the Act’s inception, over a hundred and ten years ago.

The Government could not easily amend the Handgun Law, as Cuomo did in the prior New York case.

The Bruen rulings had the potential of gutting Sullivan Act. Hochul and the Progressives in Albany had no intention of allowing that to happen, regardless of the outcome of Bruen.

But how could Hochul and Albany preserve and even strengthen the Handgun Law consistent with past practice and with its goal of whittling away at exercise of the right to armed self-defense.

News accounts would have the public believe the New York Government had worked feverishly to amend the Handgun Law only after the Court published the decision on June 23, 2022.

But, given the breadth and depth of the Amendments to the Handgun Law, and the ingenuity that must have gone  into the crafting of a response, severely weakening the impact of the Bruen rulings on that Law, it is unlikely the Hochul Administration and the Progressive Legislators in Albany could have accomplished this task within a week of publication of the decision.

Albany passed the packet of amendments, referred to as the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (CCIA), on July 1, 2022, just one week after publication of the decision in Bruen, becoming the first State to amend its Handgun Law. See CNN article published July 1, 2022.

Hochul and Albany likely knew the U.S. Supreme Court would strike down the State’s May Issue “Proper Cause” Requirement, the day after Oral Argument in Bruen, held months before.

The mainstay of the CCIA includes two provisions: one aimed at restricting exercise of the right to armed self-defense in the public domain upon those whom State licensing officials have issued a concealed handgun carry license, and the other aimed at restricting the number of licenses so issued.

The upshot of all this is the Hochul Government aims, through the CCIA, to maintain the same oppressive standards for handgun carry in the State post Bruen, as it had done pre Bruen. That, of course, has led to a flurry of challenges many of which rest at the moment at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Decisions should be forthcoming.

Individuals who obtain a concealed handgun carry license pursuant to the CCIA, will see that “unrestricted carry” no longer exists.

TWO PRINCIPAL PROVISIONS OF THE AMENDED NEW YORK HANDGUN LAW SEVERELY WEAKEN THE NEW YORKERS’ RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE AND THEIR APPLICATION IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE BRUEN RULINGS

With enactment of the CCIA the Hochul Government has established a new set of stringent requirements, replacing “Proper Cause.”

It is true a person no longer has to establish a reason for carrying a handgun for self-defense in the public arena.

A demonstration of “EXTRAORDINARY NEED” to carry a handgun for personal protection” IS OUT.

The Government has deleted the words from the Handgun Law, and the import of ‘PROPER CAUSE.’

A right of Armed self-defense IS IN, and it is presumptively demonstrative of sufficient need to keep and bear arms and need not be stated in the application.

But, on scrutiny, the amendments to the Handgun Law are no less deleterious, confusing, and confounding as the Law prior to Bruen. The two new provisions establish new hurdles to acquiring a license to carry, for those who are lucky enough to acquire one, the utility of having it is now much in doubt. The provision is worrisome.

SENSITIVE PLACE RESTRICTIONS

With a plethora of “Sensitive Place” restrictions added to the Penal Code, holders of valid concealed handgun carry licenses see themselves unduly constrained from using a handgun for self-defense if the need arises. All concealed handgun carry licenses are now de facto “restricted carry” licenses, but with exemptions made for retired police officers, thereby creating an equal protection problem right off the bat.

Justice Thomas, who authored the decision in Bruen, anticipated that New York might attempt to dilute the utility of carrying a handgun for self-defense in New York and warned the Government of attempting to do so.

Hochul and the Anti-Second Amendment legislators who controlled the legislative process in Albany, didn’t listen. They did what they wanted to do anyway. They severely constrained the carrying of firearms for self-defense.

Hochul’s insolence and brazenness toward the Court isn’t subtle. It’s glaring as evidenced in her response to queries from reporters. See NY Times article, posted on June 30, 2022, titled, “N.Y. Democrats to Pass New Gun Laws in Response to Supreme Court Ruling.”

“‘When asked by reporters what areas would be left for permit holders to legally carry a firearm, Ms. Hochul said: ‘Probably some streets.’”

That perfunctory assertion is hardly reassuring. And she follows that caustic and defiant retort with another one—and this one also incongruous in light of the first:

“‘We know we have to make sure this is constitutional. we’re not looking to go back to the court,’ Ms. Hochul said, adding that, “I will go right up to the line, not cross the line.’” Id.

Well, Hochul did cross it.

If she honestly thought she would avoid a challenge, she is more of the fool for thinking so. There is nothing in the new ponderous, unconscionable amendments to the New York Handgun Law that would suggest that applicants for a New York handgun carry license would find the State’s amendments to the Handgun Law fair, aboveboard, and consistent with the Bruen rulings.

Be that as it may, the new “Sensitive Place” requirement against lawful carry of handguns only applies if a person is awarded with a concealed handgun carry license in the first instance. Just obtaining a handgun carry license is no less difficult than under the now defunct “Proper Cause” requirement. And, for renewal applicants who had met the arbitrary standards that licensing officials created—since the Legislators in Albany never defined what “PROPER CAUSE/EXTRAORIDINARY NEED” means, and each jurisdiction in New York had concocted its own standard or left entirely open what the requirement meant and what was required of an applicant to meet it—those individuals hoping to renew their applications, having, in many cases, held valid concealed handgun carry licenses for decades would now find renewing those applications in jeopardy. They would have to meet stringent new requirements, just as subjective and arbitrary as under the old “PROPER CAUSE/EXTRAORDINARY NEED” requirement.

GOOD MORAL CHARACTER

NEW YORK’S GOOD MORAL CHARACTER REQUIREMENT IS BOTH UNREASONABLE AND, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NATURAL LAW RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE, INCONGRUOUS

Through a combination of audacity, sly ingenuity, and craftiness, the Hochul Government has repurposed the “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” Requirement, that Justice Thomas, author of the Bruen Majority Opinion, mentions merely in passing.

Of course, the issue of whether application of a “Good Moral Character” requirement infringes the natural law right to armed self-defense was not at issue in Bruen. But clearly the Conservative wing was aware of a potential issue, reading the Hochul Government’s “mind” like an open book.

The Court clearly, categorically, emphatically ruled that “PROPER CAUSE”/“EXTRAORDINARY NEED” as used in New York’s Handgun Law is unconstitutional, the Hochul Government could not slither around it in a bald-faced attempt to keep it in the Sullivan Act. Hochul and Albany had to strike it from the Handgun Law. And, since “PROPER CAUSE”/“EXTRAORDINARY NEED” was the vehicle through which the State’s licensing regime severely constrained the number of concealed handgun carry licenses it would issue, the State needed to engineer another vehicle through which it could continue to remain a stringent “MAY ISSUE” jurisdiction, severely curtailing issuance of New York concealed carry handgun licenses, and those the State would issue would have little use for armed self-defense. The ‘SENSITIVE PLACE’ provision would suffice to deny a license holder an adequate means to lawfully defend him or herself with a handgun, without a roadmap, pinpointing the numerous areas in New York that a handgun could not be used for self-defense and, in fact, could not be lawfully carried.

To take up the slack at the other end—to control issuance of concealed handgun carry licenses—Kathy Hochul and Albany didn’t create a new device to severely constrain exercise of a Constitutional right, but reconfigured a thing already present in the Sullivan Act, which the High Court did not strike down or even carefully scrutinize: “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER.” There is much wrong with the way the Hochul Government repurposed this, and New York Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of it, but what they did not challenge and, in fact, did not address, but merely assumed to be within the prerogative of the State to insist upon, is whether assessment of a person’s “CHARACTER” is proper to consideration of one’s right to keep and bear arms in the first instance. That, as used in the CCIA, the expression is inherently vague. That is a fault in and of itself. Plaintiffs also object to a specific  manner in which “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” verbiage appears, suggesting that a person cannot be of “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” under New York Law if he were to use a handgun for self-defense. Plaintiffs in Antonyuk vs. Hochul, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182965, ____F. Supp.3d___ (N.D.N.Y. 2022), suggested verbiage which would exclude use of a handgun for self-defense. Apparently, Plaintiffs were concerned, and justifiably so, that use of a handgun for self-defense MIGHT NOT serve as a defense to aggressive attack on a person whose life would be placed in mortal danger, and that failure to exclude armed self-defense from the language of “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” means that armed self-defense is not justified and that a person cannot be considered to have “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” that he would consider using a handgun at all for self-defense—the most effective means to ensure one’s self-preservation against life-threatening assault—in an increasingly hostile environment like New York City.

But, this notion of “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER,” applied to exercise of a fundamental, unalienable right, is singularly bizarre.

How does a Government of men, THIS Government of men, GO ABOUT DECIDING who, among the great body of men, have the proper character and bearing to keep and bear arms? And That question entails another one:

How does a Government of men, This Government of men, GO ABOUT DISTINGUISHING those men who exhibit the proper character to keep and bear arms from other men whom the Government infers do not have the proper character and bearing to keep and bear arms?

This was the problem besetting New York Governor Hochul and her compatriots in Albany.

But why should these questions be entertained at all?

The questions are incongruous and absurd. They presume that moral character is an appropriate area of inquiry. The Hochul Government assumes that one’s moral character is here, an appropriate area of inquiry, and, further, takes as axiomatic that only people whom the Government deems to have “Good Moral Character,” however that trait is defined and tested for, may keep and bear arms.

But the question of the NATURE of one’s CHARACTER presumes what must be proved:

IS THE QUESTION OF  MORAL CHARACTER AN APPROPRIATE AREA OF INQUIRY, where exercise of one’s fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms is involved? Resolution of that question precedes inquiry into how one’s character is to be assessed—if in fact, it should be assessed at all.

Why should Americans presuppose that “Good Moral Character” is a legitimate area of inquiry here?

What does “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” or “BAD MORAL CHARACTER,” or, for that matter, the notion of “CHARACTER,” at all, have to do with one’s exercise of the natural law right of self-defense against predatory man, predatory beast, and as against the most dangerous predator of all, the MAN-BEAST predatory Government? Anything?

From whence does the natural law right of self-defense or any other natural law right derive?

The Hochul Government responds that such rights derive from the grace of Government, which entails the denial of such things as NATURAL LAW RIGHTS. But to deny such Rights is to dismiss an idea that the Framers of the Constitution, the Founders of our Republic, took as self-evident, true. But, then, Political Progressives such as Kathy Hochul demonstrate little regard for the Founders of our Republic, and dismiss out-of-hand their belief system upon which a Free Constitutional Republic sits.

From a pragmatic viewpoint, alone, it is difficult to refute the benefits and success of our Nation. So, then, why tinker with something that has worked so well for so many people, for almost two hundred and fifty years. A backwater Country has become the most powerful and successful Country in the world. Were it not so, we would not see literally millions of people from all over the world wishing to enter here, most of them illegally.

The Bill of Rights is a codification of Natural Law. That Natural law is wholly unlike man-made law.

Man-made law is transitory, modifiable, limited to a particular time and place, and subject to the whim and caprice of those men who wield power over other men. Natural law is innate, bestowed on and in man by the Divine Creator. For this reason, natural law rights are inextricably linked to one’s essence. Such rights are fundamental and unalienable, immutable and illimitable, not capable of modification, eternal.

It is in this belief of the Framers that our Constitution took shape. The Ethical System suffusing the Constitution is grounded in Deontology, predicated on morality. And that morality derives from the Divine Creator, not within Man, himself. Good conduct and bad conduct are based on one’s intentions first. Political and Social Progressives do not accept this. Their Political and Social system is based on Collectivism, the antithesis of Individualism. It substitutes the sanctity and inviolability of the Individual Soul with the well-being of Society, the Hive. The needs and desires of the Individual are secondary considerations if they are considered at all. And the Ethical System that underlies Collectivism is Utilitarianism. Consequences of actions alone dictate what constitutes good or bad moral conduct. Collectivists seek to maximize utility—the greatest good for the greatest number of people. That means the needs and desires of the individual must be sacrificed to the needs and desires of the Hive. But what constitutes the greatest good for greatest number of people? In other words, how does the Collectivism define ‘UTILITY’ and ‘UTILITY MAXMIZATION.’ We have a clue. On the Governor’s website (Undated to suggest a broad policy statement), Hochul drops a number of hints and none of them have anything to do with recognition of the right and responsibility of the individual to protect him or herself against the ravages of a society that has run amok with sociopathic criminals, psychopathic killers, and psychotic lunatics free to prey on innocent civilians——

“Governor Kathy Hochul is committed to protecting public safety, ending gun violence, and combatting the rise of domestic terrorism. The FY 2023 enacted budget invests in bold initiatives that will strengthen gun violence prevention efforts, change our public safety laws to make our state safer and more just, and protect victims of hate crimes and domestic violence.

In early June 2022, less than one month after the tragic shootings in Buffalo, New York and Uvalde, Texas, Governor Hochul signed a comprehensive legislative package to immediately strengthen the state's gun laws, close critical loopholes exposed by shooters in Buffalo and Uvalde, and protect New Yorkers from the scourge of gun violence that continues to infect our nation and endanger our communities.

In response to the Supreme Court's decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen, the State has taken steps to address the consequences of the Supreme Court decision and the resulting increase in licenses and in the number of individuals who will likely purchase and carry weapons in New York State. Less than a week after the ruling, Governor Hochul signed landmark legislation to bolster restrictions on concealed carry weapons, expand eligibility requirements, add background checks for ammunition, expand safe storage & amend a ban on body armor.”

Armed self-defense doesn’t factor into the above equation and, in fact, is considered a danger to the sanctity of and well-being of New York as a COLLECTIVE. How, then, can a person who must acquire a handgun license before he or she can exercise the fundamental, unalienable right to armed self-defense demonstrate the proper character to own and possess a handgun, or any firearm, if the armed citizen, the HIGHEST COMMON DENOMINATOR of society, is classified with the LOWEST by the very fact that a person chooses to exercise the fundamental right to armed self-defense?  

The natural law right of self-defense SUBSUMES armed self-defense.

There is nothing in Nation’s codification of the right of the people to keep and bear arms that mentions or alludes to an idea of “CHARACTER” as a defining or limiting factor in the exercise of a fundamental, unalienable, right to keep and bear arms.

IT BEARS REITERATING: The natural law right of self-defense proceeds from and is grounded on the instinctual need for self-preservation. As with all natural law rights, the right of self-defense is not bestowed onto man by other men but exists innately in all men.

Natural law rights are CENTRAL to the human condition. They AREN’T OR OUGHT NOT TO BE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONAL EXERCISE AS DETERMINED BY A GOVERNMENT AND BESTOWED ON ONE BY THE GRACE OF GOVERNMENT.

As with all natural law rights, the right to armed self-defense is not one bestowed onto man by other men, or by Government—which are, basically, just a collection of men—flawed, yet vested with power to act over other men and, if not themselves constrained, exercising their power and authority with impunity.

And if a man, on behalf of Government, is given authority to judge the character of another man to keep and bear arms, how does that man assess the character of another man? And there is a more basic question? Who is it that assesses the character of the judge? Is that not a fair question to ask? Apparently not for Kathy Hochul and for her friends in Albany.

When the New York Government under the Progressive Hochul, and the Democrat Party majority in control of the Legislature in Albany, mulled over the problem of constructing a new mechanism to limit issuance of concealed handgun carry licenses in New York, and decided on utilizing a robust “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” requirement, they didn’t bother themselves to ask the questions we ask, let alone provide answers for them.

And, yet answers are necessary precisely because we are discussing Government constraints here on the exercise of a natural law right.

New York does have a problem. New York has a host of problems and most of them are of the Government’s own making.

To be sure, the New York Government has a serious crime problem that it masks as a “Gun” problem. But there is no “Gun problem,” while there IS a crime problem. BUT that problem is tied to the criminal. Guns are objects, not agents. They have no sentient will.

GUNS DO NOT CAUSE VIOLENCE BECAUSE THEY CANNOT CAUSE VIOLENCE. Yet the Hochul Government insists on talking about a scourge of “GUN VIOLENCE” in New York.

What Hochul is really talking about is the Criminal Element THAT CAUSES VIOLENCE. And that Criminal Element CAUSES VIOLENCE with whatever means are available. Guns are just one of many means. If the Hochul Government dealt with CRIME and CRIMINALS with the same tenacity as she deals with GUNS, there would be little of any “CRIMINAL VIOLENCE” and little of what she refers to as “GUN VIOLENCE,” in New York.

But Kathy Hochul and her Progressive compatriots in Albany aren’t interested in tackling crime. What they are interested in doing is disrupting exercise of the right of armed self-defense of normal, average, rational, responsible, law-abiding citizens—the vast majority of Americans, WHO ARE NOT THE CAUSE OF so-called “GUN VIOLENCE.” But it is those people whom she is targeting and blaming the U.S. Supreme Court all the while for wrecking her plans to create a “GUN FREE”  NEW YORK, even as violent crime escalates. And why is this? The answer is at once plain and disturbing.

The Hochul Government is afraid of the normal, average, rational, responsible, law-abiding New Yorker. This is not something new, even as it is strange. New York has for centuries abhorred and detested and feared the idea of the armed citizen. All autocratic governments do—State Governments under Hochul in New York and Gavin Newsome in California, to name two of them, and the Federal Government under the Biden Administration.

Happy the New York Government was to ratify the Nation’s Bill of Rights in 1791 that included the natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms, so long as, when having done so, the Government did not bind itself recognizing a citizen’s exercise of the natural law right in the State. In the first version of the State Constitution, a Bill of Rights was noticeably lacking. When the State got around to including a Bill of Rights in a subsequent State Constitution, there was no mention of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Perhaps, as an afterthought, the State Legislature thought it prudent to recognize the right but, would do so only by placing it in the Civil Rights Statute as an act of the State Legislature rather than in the Constitution which would require assent of the people. This is no small matter.

Situated in Statute, rather than in the Constitution, means the right is a creation of Government, not a right residing in the person, bestowed on man by the Divine Creator, instead of Government.

The New York Government could and, thereafter, would control exercise of the right by crafting a massive set of laws governing firearms, and, eventually, would create an elaborate handgun licensing regime to suppress and repress the urge of many New Yorkers to exercise their right to armed self-defense, and oppress those who would insist on exercising their fundamental right to armed self-defense, regardless of the hurdles they would be forced to contend with.

Coming now to the present, after Bruen, the New York Government has, through the creation of a discordant requirement of “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER,” shown its hand. The Government intends to reduce the number of concealed handgun carry licenses that it would otherwise, under Bruen, be expected to issue.

Although the “Proper Cause” Requirement was always Constitutionally suspect because a demonstration of need for armed self-defense is inconsistent with both the plain meaning of the Second Amendment and with the logic of self-preservation, especially, where, as here, one resides in a dangerous jurisdiction, there is, in the “Good Moral Character” requirement something even more concerning and just as inconsistent with the plain meaning of the U.S. Constitution, and logic. Good Moral Character is difficult to assess even where it has utility, and in the context of a fundamental, unalienable right it has none.

Furthermore, if the Good Moral Character requirement is grounded on risk, then delineate those risk factors and, if they do not offend the core of the Right, then application of them will weed out those considered a risk to others from keeping and bearing arms.

The State doesn’t need and should not be using a “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” where application of objective  “RISK FACTORS” can be better employed and utilized. And, at the same time, the State can direct its energies to clamping down on criminals who would not bother to apply for a New York State concealed handgun carry license anyway.  

New York’s padded “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” requirement as applied to those individuals seeking a New York concealed handgun carry license is no more than a ruse, and a ridiculous one at that. We continue our analysis of The New York Handgun Law’s “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” in the next article of this Post-Bruen series.

___________________________

WHAT EXPLAINS NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL’S HOSTILITY TOWARD THE BRUEN DECISION ON CONCEALED CARRY AND HER BELLIGERANCE TOWARD THE U.S. SUPREME COURT?

MULTIPART ESSAY SERIES ON POST-BRUEN CASE ANALYSIS

POST-BRUEN—WHAT IT ALL MEANS AND WHAT ITS IMPACT IS BOTH FOR THOSE WHO SUPPORT AND CHERISH THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND THOSE WHO DO NOT; THOSE WHO SEEK TO UNDERMINE AND EVENTUALLY DESTROY THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT AND THOSE WHO SEEK TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN THE RIGHT BOTH FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS

PART TWENTY-SIX

QUOTATION FROM NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL’S OFFICIAL WEBSITE

“This is not about the Second Amendment, the Founding Fathers' murky protection of firearms. It's no more absolute than the First Amendment is. Rights have limits; they may be indistinct and subject to interpretation, but they exist, regardless of the braying of absolutists.What this is about is priorities: public safety vs. the right to own any kind of weapon; children's lives vs. the right to carry firearms designed for mass murder. In New York, there is a willingness to take facts into account, while in Texas, the compulsion, apparently irresistible, is to ignore such facts no matter how much blood is spilled or how young the victims.” From a Buffalo News editorial, reposted on Governor Hochul’s Official Website, on May 24, 2022, reflecting where the Governor’s sympathies, rest, apropos of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Note: this editorial appeared one month prior to publication of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022)and conceivably in anticipation of it: Hochul’s opening salvo directed against the High Court, taunting the Court and ridiculing, in insulting language, those Americans who support the exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense.

WHAT EXPLAINS NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL’S HOSTILITY TOWARD THE BRUEN DECISION ON CONCEALED CARRY AND HER BELLIGERANCE TOWARD THE U.S. SUPREME COURT?

NEW YORK: THE STANDARD-BEARER FOR THOSE FORCES INTENT ON DESTROYING THE NATURAL LAW RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

To say the Bruen rulings directed primarily to New York’s Handgun Law were not to Hochul’s liking, nor to the liking of her friends in the State Legislature in Albany, is an understatement.Hochul was apoplectic with rage—or perhaps not. And, if not, she must, at least, appear so: feigning all sorts of righteous indignation during her Press conferences or when distributing her official Press Releases.Hochul had expected an adverse decision from the High Court, surely, and was undoubtedly prepared for it, but she had to set the stage for what would come after, the imposition of a new set of highly restrictive handgun licensing measures, building on all that came before.Those amendments were already written—the Legislature must have drafted the amendments well in advance of the publication of the Bruen decision, given the breadth of detail in them and the scale of them—well before the Bruen rulings came down. They only needed to be finalized.To that end, Hochul’s temper tantrum directed to the Court upon publication of Bruen was obviously meant to pave the way for legislation designed to cohere with related contemporaneous Anti-Second Amendment legislation, apart from, but complementing, the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (CCIA) and operating seamlessly with it.The Press Release, dated June 6, 2022, on the Governor’s website, sports the headline: “Governor Hochul Signs Landmark Legislative Package to Strengthen Gun Laws and Protect New Yorkers.” The “Ten-Bill Package” includes:“Legislation S.9458/A.10503 Bars Purchase of Semiautomatic Rifles by Anyone Under Age 21 by Requiring a LicenseLegislation S.9407-B/A.10497 Prohibits Purchase of Body Armor with Exception of Those in Specified ProfessionsLegislation S.9113-A./A.10502 Expands List of People Who Can File Extreme Risk Protection Orders and Requires Law Enforcement to File ERPOs Under Specified Set of CircumstancesPackage Also Strengthens Crime Reporting; Closes ‘Other Gun’ Loophole; Requires Microstamping of New Semiautomatic Pistols; Eliminates Grandfathering of High-Capacity Feeding Devices; Requires Social Media Companies to Improve Response to and Reporting of Hateful Content.”Approximately one month later, on July 1, 2022, scarcely one week after the publication of the Bruen decision, i.e., on June 23, 2022, and again, on the Governor’s official website, and, under the bold, brash, impertinent headline, “Governor Hochul Signs Landmark Legislation to Strengthen Gun Laws and Bolster Restrictions on Concealed Carry Weapons in Response to Reckless Supreme Court Decision,” Hochul lays out a series of amendments to the Handgun Law itself, ostensibly responding to the Bruen rulings:“Legislation (S.51001/A.41001) Restricts the Carrying of Concealed Weapons in List of Sensitive LocationsInstitutes a Default of No Concealed Carry on Private Property and Businesses Unless Deemed Permissible by Property OwnersEstablishes New Eligibility Requirements and Expands Disqualifying Criteria for Those Seeking Concealed Carry PermitsEnhances Safe Storage Requirements, Extends Requirements to VehiclesRequires Backgrounds Checks for All Ammunition PurchasesAmends Body Armor Purchase Ban to Include Hard Body Armor Used by Suspect in Buffalo Shooting.”Again, given the depth and breadth of these amendments to New York’s Handgun Law, this new package of amendments, “The Concealed Carry Improvement Act” MUST HAVE BEEN DRAFTED WELL IN ADVANCE OF PUBLICATION OF THE COURT’S OPINION IN BRUEN.At most, the Hochul Administration and Albany had merely to tidy up some of the provisions in the CCIA—perhaps striking the words, ‘PROPER CAUSE,’ from the Handgun Law if the High Court were to demand that much from Kathy Hochul’s Government—which Governor Hochul and Albany did. And that assumes, of course, that Hochul didn’t receive an advance copy of the decision from leakers at the Court. Hochul was probably kept apprised about what to expect from Bruen (probably from the same people on the Court that illegally released a draft of the Dobbs decision).On the matter of “PROPER CAUSE,” the Court ruled that, since the words were tied inextricably to the requirement that the applicant for a concealed handgun carry license must demonstrate “EXTRAORDINARY NEED” to carry, apart from and above basic self-defense, when in the public domain, the New York Handgun Law, apropos of concealed carry, was inherently illegal and unconstitutional.This was a mere annoyance. The Hochul Government could dispense with it and concoct ways around it, making the Handgun Law no less severe than before Bruen. Kathy Hochul didn’t try to hide that from the Press or from the Court.After all, Hochul used the phrase in one of her Press Releases, “LANDMARK LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE TO STRENGTHEN GUN LAWS.” See supra. And she rationalized that message of defiance directed at the Court, by adding that her Government had designed these amendments “TO PROTECT NEW YORKERS.”Did Hochul presume the High Court did not wish to protect New Yorkers? The phrase is not only troubling but also insulting. Yet it plays into a running narrative that MORE GUNS ON THE STREET EQUALS MORE CRIME ON THE STREETS—A platitude held by Progressives, but false.How many average, responsible, rational, law-abiding gun owners have turned to crime, and further, how much of this presumed bad seed committed a crime with a gun? Hardly or nary a one, notwithstanding there are millions of Americans who lawfully carry a handgun for self-defense. See the article on Gun Facts.By striking ‘PROPER CAUSE’ from New York’s Handgun Law, and then repurposing the “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” requirement along with a host of other ludicrous Anti-Second Amendment laws, the Government could and has accomplished much the same thing: DISCOURAGING AND FRUSTRATING, CONFOUNDING APPLICANTS WHO SEEK A NEW YORK CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE.The Hochul Government had scripted its entire response to Bruen. It would be ready to play out with the official publication of the case. And, on the very day, it was published and through successive days and weeks, Hochul would never miss a beat. She would constantly harangue and berate both the rulings of the Court and, unforgivably, the Justices themselves.The Hochul Government would make the High Court out to be the Antagonist in a play, and the State, with the Government, as Protagonist Hero.Hochul would present herself as the Defender of New York residents, desiring only to protect and serve the residents of New York against an uncaring U.S. Supreme Court.How incredibly presumptuous of Hochul and those behind the scenes, in her Administration, and in Albany, working on her behalf to make the High Court into an Evildoer and “Fall Guy.”Once the U.S. Supreme Court came down with the Bruen decision on June 23, 2022, New York Governor Kathy Hochul went to work, wasting no time in publicly slamming both the Court and its decision.But would the public buy it? Could the public be so easily manipulated? Some obviously would, most, from her perspective, hopefully. Hochul knew that, in her messaging, she was addressing not merely New York, but the Country at large, and the Biden Administration, and many in Congress too, her compatriots.But to say her words and conduct toward the Court are disrespectful and that her response to the Bruen rulings amounts to evasion, not compliance, is to trivialize the seriousness of the actions of this Governor.Necessary as it was to set the groundwork for defiance of the High Court, Hochul was playing a dangerous game. She could not do this unless she felt she could rely on powerful interests both seen and unseen that would have her back on this.For, the Governor’s actions border on contempt of Court, and all the worse was it that she would vent with unrestrained, unconscionable fury against the Highest Court of the Land; railing against a Court exercising its own proper, legitimate Article III authority under the U.S. Constitution, to interpret the meaning of the Bill of Rights which was and is within the Court’s prerogative, alone, not that of Congress, nor that of the President, nor that of the Executive or Legislative components of State Governments.Hochul didn’t care, and she didn’t mince words. She called the Court’s rulings not only “reckless” but “reprehensible.” See the article in Spectrum Local News.The word, ‘RECKLESS’ means ‘THOUGHTLESS.’The word, ‘REPREHENSIBLE’ means ‘DISGRACEFUL.’In other words, Kathy Hochul tells the Court that it is worthy of her contempt toward it and she would not abide by the Court’s rulings. At most, she would give lip service to it. And that is what both she and Albany did.Upon the conclusion of the oral argument, on November 3, 2021, in the third landmark Second Amendment case, NYSRPA vs. Bruen, the New York State Government, under Governor Kathy Hochul, wasted no time in concocting a scheme to waylay the rulings that they knew were coming down the pike. And as a precursor to that she stated in no uncertain terms, in her Press Briefings—clearly directed to the Court—what she intended to do, castigating the Court for daring to involve itself in New York law.The amendments to the State’s Handgun Law (referred to, as a package, as the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (CCIA)), are the visible manifestation of the disdain she displayed toward the Court, in her Press Releases.On July 1, 2022, about one month after signing the CCIA into law, Governor Hochul, in a provocative move proclaimed the New York Government would not abide by the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Bruen, and in fact would defy the Court, continuing the process laid down by her predecessors of eradicating exercise of the right to armed self-defense in New York.The Headline of her Press Release, posted on the Governor’s official website, on that date, set forth in bold San Serif typeface, proclaimed:“Governor Hochul Signs Landmark Legislation to Strengthen Gun Laws and Bolster Restrictions on Concealed Carry Weapons in Response to Reckless Supreme Court Decision.”Hochul’s defiance and contemptuous attitude toward the High Court could not have been on more audacious display. The CCIA exemplifies her brashness and brazenness.These are the highlights of the CCIA that appear on her website that she has reiterated during the period of time since the publication of the case as challenges to the CCIA were filed immediately.“Legislation (S.51001/A.41001) Restricts the Carrying of Concealed Weapons in List of Sensitive LocationsInstitutes a Default of No Concealed Carry on Private Property and Businesses Unless Deemed Permissible by Property OwnersEstablishes New Eligibility Requirements and Expands Disqualifying Criteria for Those Seeking Concealed Carry PermitsEnhances Safe Storage Requirements, Extends Requirements to VehiclesRequires Backgrounds Checks for All Ammunition PurchasesAmends Body Armor Purchase Ban to Include Hard Body Armor Used by Suspect in Buffalo Shooting”Anticipating the Hochul Government might attempt to turn broad swaths of the State, especially, Manhattan Island, into a massive Gun-Free zone, and to forestall that, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the Majority in Bruen, opined:“Although we have no occasion to comprehensively define ‘sensitive places’ in this case, we do think respondents err in their attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a ‘sensitive-place’ law. In their view, ‘sensitive places’ where the government may lawfully disarm law-abiding citizens include all ‘places where people typically congregate and where law-enforcement and other public-safety professionals are presumptively available.’ It is true that people sometimes congregate in ‘sensitive places,’ and it is likewise true that law enforcement professionals are usually presumptively available in those locations. But expanding the category of ‘sensitive places’ simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of ‘sensitive places. far too broadly. Respondents’ argument would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense that we discuss in detail below. . . . Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a ‘sensitive place’ simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.” [Case Documentation omitted]What did Hochul do? She and Albany concocted an elaborate nightmare of new requirements for those individuals applying for a concealed handgun carry license under the CCIA.And, notwithstanding, the High Court’s warning to the Hochul Government, the Governor, and Albany proceeded to transform much of New York into a massive “SENSITIVE PLACE” Jurisdiction anyway—in direct defiance of the High Court’s warning.Manhattan Island, which Justice Thomas specifically warned the Government about, would become a huge “SENSITIVE PLACE” restricted zone anyway.The Government had spent substantial time on this, transforming the State into a confusing patchwork quilt of SENSITIVE LOCATIONS.Most curiously, the very words, SENSITIVE PLACE,’ never before appeared in the Handgun Law prior to Bruen. That would change.Here the New York Government was deliberately using that phrase to antagonize the Court, making the ‘SENSITIVE PLACE’ prohibition a major fixture of the “CONCEALED CARRY IMPROVEMENT ACT.”Were Kathy Hochul and Albany taunting the Court by choosing to utilize the very terminology the Court had expressed concern over but had not ruled explicitly against using?Prior to the effective date of September 1, 2022, the date when the CCIA took effect, there was no mention of ‘Sensitive Place’ in Section 19 of the amended Handgun Law (NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (19)), which reads:“Prior to the issuance or renewal of a license under paragraph (f) of subdivision two of this section, issued or renewed on or after the effective date of this subdivision, an applicant shall complete an in-person live firearms safety course conducted by a duly authorized instructor with curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, and meeting the following requirements: (a) a minimum of sixteen hours of in-person live curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, conducted by a duly authorized instructor approved by the division of criminal justice services, and shall include but not be limited to the following topics: (i) general firearm safety; (ii) safe storage requirements and general secure storage best practices; (iii) state and federal gun laws; (iv) situational awareness; (v) conflict de-escalation; (vi) best practices when encountering law enforcement; (vii) the statutorily defined sensitive places in subdivision two of section 265.01-e of this chapter and the restrictions on possession on restricted places under section 265.01-d of this chapter; (viii) conflict management; (ix) use of deadly force; (x) suicide prevention; and (xi) the basic principles of marksmanship; and (b) a minimum of two hours of a live-fire range training course. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate proficiency by scoring a minimum of eighty percent correct answers on a written test for the curriculum under paragraph (a) of this subdivision and the proficiency level determined by the rules and regulations promulgated by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police for the live-fire range training under paragraph (b) of this subdivision. Upon demonstration of such proficiency, a certificate of completion shall be issued to such applicant in the applicant’s name and endorsed and affirmed under the penalties of perjury by such duly authorized instructor. An applicant required to complete the training required herein prior to renewal of a license issued prior to the effective date of this subdivision shall only be required to complete such training for the first renewal of such license after such effective date.”Once the CCIA took effect, the expression, ‘Sensitive Place’ suddenly appears and, for those new holders of “Concealed Handgun Carry Licenses,” and for those renewing their licenses, Section 19 of the amended Handgun Law (NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (19)) presently sets, forth:“Prior to the issuance or renewal of a license under paragraph (f) of subdivision two of this section, issued or renewed on or after the effective date of this subdivision, an applicant shall complete an in-person live firearms safety course conducted by a duly authorized instructor with curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, and meeting the following requirements: (a) a minimum of sixteen hours of in-person live curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, conducted by a duly authorized instructor approved by the division of criminal justice services, and shall include but not be limited to the following topics: (i) general firearm safety; (ii) safe storage requirements and general secure storage best practices; (iii) state and federal gun laws; (iv) situational awareness; (v) conflict de-escalation; (vi) best practices when encountering law enforcement; (vii) the statutorily defined sensitive places in subdivision two of section 265.01-e of this chapter and the restrictions on possession on restricted places under section 265.01-d of this chapter; (viii) conflict management; (ix) use of deadly force; (x) suicide prevention; and (xi) the basic principles of marksmanship; and (b) a minimum of two hours of a live-fire range training course. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate proficiency by scoring a minimum of eighty percent correct answers on a written test for the curriculum under paragraph (a) of this subdivision and the proficiency level determined by the rules and regulations promulgated by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police for the live-fire range training under paragraph (b) of this subdivision. Upon demonstration of such proficiency, a certificate of completion shall be issued to such applicant in the applicant’s name and endorsed and affirmed under the penalties of perjury by such duly authorized instructor. An applicant required to complete the training required herein prior to renewal of a license issued prior to the effective date of this subdivision shall only be required to complete such training for the first renewal of such license after such effective date.”And where are these“Sensitive Place” restricted areas? A new provision of the New York Penal Code, Penal Code, 265.01-e, recites them.NY CLS Penal § 265.01-e(2) provides,“2. For the purposes of this section, a sensitive location shall mean:(a) any place owned or under the control of federal, state or local government, for the purpose of government administration, including courts;(b) any location providing health, behavioral health, or chemical dependance care or services;(c) any place of worship, except for those persons responsible for security at such place of worship;(d) libraries, public playgrounds, public parks, and zoos, provided that for the purposes of this section a “public park” shall not include (i) any privately held land within a public park not dedicated to public use or (ii) the forest preserve as defined in subdivision six of section 9-0101 of the environmental conservation law;(e) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, funded, or approved by the office of children and family services that provides services to children, youth, or young adults, any legally exempt childcare provider; a childcare program for which a permit to operate such program has been issued by the department of health and mental hygiene pursuant to the health code of the city of New York;(f) nursery schools, preschools, and summer camps; provided that for the purposes of this section, nothing shall prohibit the activity permitted under subdivisions seven-c, seven-d, and seven-e of section 265.20 of this article where such activity occurs at a summer camp in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules, and regulations;(g) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office for people with developmental disabilities;(h) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by office of addiction services and supports;(i) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office of mental health;(j) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office of temporary and disability assistance;(k) homeless shelters, runaway homeless youth shelters, family shelters, shelters for adults, domestic violence shelters, and emergency shelters, and residential programs for victims of domestic violence;(l) residential settings licensed, certified, regulated, funded, or operated by the department of health;(m) in or upon any building or grounds, owned or leased, of any educational institutions, colleges and universities, licensed private career schools, school districts, public schools, private schools licensed under article one hundred one of the education law, charter schools, non-public schools, board of cooperative educational services, special act schools, preschool special education programs, private residential or non-residential schools for the education of students with disabilities, and any state-operated or state-supported schools;(n) any place, conveyance, or vehicle used for public transportation or public transit, subway cars, train cars, buses, ferries, railroad, omnibus, marine or aviation transportation; or any facility used for or in connection with service in the transportation of passengers, airports, train stations, subway and rail stations, and bus terminals;(o) any establishment holding an active license for on-premise consumption pursuant to article four, four-A, five, or six of the alcoholic beverage control law where alcohol is consumed and any establishment licensed under article four of the cannabis law for on-premise consumption;(p) any place used for the performance, art entertainment, gaming, or sporting events such as theaters, stadiums, racetracks, museums, amusement parks, performance venues, concerts, exhibits, conference centers, banquet halls, and gaming facilities and video lottery terminal facilities as licensed by the gaming commission;(q) any location being used as a polling place;(r) any public sidewalk or other public area restricted from general public access for a limited time or special event that has been issued a permit for such time or event by a governmental entity, or subject to specific, heightened law enforcement protection, or has otherwise had such access restricted by a governmental entity, provided such location is identified as such by clear and conspicuous signage;(s) any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble;(t) the area commonly known as Times Square, as such area is determined and identified by the city of New York; provided such area shall be clearly and conspicuously identified with signage.Police officers and other designated categories are exempted.”Failure to abide by the ‘Sensitive Place’ Restriction requirement is a Class E Felony, as specified under NY CLS Penal § 265.01-d (1)”“A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in a restricted location when such person possesses a firearm, rifle, or shotgun and enters into or remains on or in private property where such person knows or reasonably should know that the owner or lessee of such property has not permitted such possession by clear and conspicuous signage indicating that the carrying of firearms, rifles, or shotguns on their property is permitted or by otherwise giving express consent.”But Note: Subsequent to Plaintiff Appellants’ Motion for a Stay pending Appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, granted the Motion in Part. In a short opinion, the Court stated, in pertinent part, in Antonyuk vs. Hochul , 2022 U.S. App LEXIS 36240 (2nd Cir, December 7, 2022): “Appellants request a stay pending appeal of the district court's order dated November 7, 2022 (N.D.N.Y. 22-cv-986, doc. 78), enjoining Appellants from enforcing certain aspects of New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act (‘CCIA’). Having weighed the applicable factors . . . we conclude that a stay pending appeal is warranted. . . . To the extent that the district court's order bars enforcement of the CCIA's provisions related to persons who have been tasked with the duty to keep the peace at places of worship, airports, and private buses, such categories are excepted from this order. Appellees' motion to expedite the resolution of the matter is granted.”Governor Kathy Hochul’s displeasure with the Bruen decision and anger toward the Court Majority was expected, was never a secret, and, so, isn’t at all surprising.  Yet, her hostility toward the Court, amounting to a rabid denunciation of the rulings and of the Justices themselves, is of another order of magnitude, and cannot be condoned, and ought not to be tolerated.The New York Government has detested the idea of civilian citizen possession of firearms for well over a century (actually for substantially longer (see author’s comments supra and infra)).Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, author of the Majority Opinion in Bruen, made the point, tacitly, at the outset of the Court’s argument, when discussing the State’s long-standing efforts to constrain, through overzealous regulation, the carrying of handguns.“New York State has regulated the public carry of handguns at least since the early 20th century. In 1905, New York made it a misdemeanor for anyone over the age of 16 to ‘have or carry concealed upon his person in any city or village of [New York], any pistol, revolver or other firearm without a written license . . . issued to him by a police magistrate.’ 1905 N. Y. Laws ch. 92, §2, pp. 129-130; see also 1908 N. Y. Laws ch. 93, §1, pp. 242-243 (allowing justices of the peace to issue licenses). In 1911, New York’s ‘Sullivan Law’ expanded the State’s criminal prohibition to the possession of all handguns—concealed or otherwise—without a government-issued license. See 1911 N. Y. Laws ch. 195, §1, p. 443. New York later amended the Sullivan Law to clarify the licensing standard: Magistrates could ‘issue to [a] person a license to have and carry concealed a pistol or revolver without regard to employment or place of possessing such weapon’ only if that person proved “good moral character”  and ‘proper cause.’ 1913 N. Y. Laws ch. 608, §1, p. 1629.”

THE SYSTEMATIC EROSION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURAL LAW RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE IN NEW YORK SNOWBALLED THROUGH TIME.

The systematic erosion of a fundamental, immutable, illimitable, eternal, and unalienable right—the most basic of all RIGHTS and NEEDS, that of “SELF PRESERVATION”—commenced, in New York, as a result of a reluctance by the New York Government to acknowledge the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the State, notwithstanding the State did eventually ratify both the U.S. Constitution and the subsequent Bill of Rights component to it, which included a prohibition on the Federal Government to infringe that right.The nascent threat to the civilian citizens’ right to keep and bear arms in New York itself, had always existed, in fact, PRECEDED Ratification of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights which would suggest a schizophrenia on the part of the New York Government, concerning its actions toward exercise of the Right.

NEW YORK RATIFIED THE BILL OF RIGHTS FOR THE UNITED STATES BUT ORIGINALLY REJECTED A BILL OF RIGHTS FOR ITSELF; AND IT CONSCIOUSLY AVOIDED ADDING A RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS TO MIRROR THE RIGHT CODIFIED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, ONCE THE STATE DECIDED ON INCORPORATING A BILL OF RIGHTS INTO A LATER VERSION OF ITS STATE CONSTITUTION

ALTHOUGH NEW YORK WOULD EVENTUALLY ACKNOWLEDGE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, IT DID SO ONLY STATUTORILY, NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY

Consider:New York is one of only a handful of States that currently does not have a fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms in its State Constitution. And it never did.“. . . The states without rights to bear arms enshrined in their state constitutions are: California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York. Citizens of these states must rely on the federal Constitution and statutory regulation of arms. See, e.g., N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 4 (McKinney 2012) (‘A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.’).”“Symposium: ‘Gun Control and the Second Amendment: Developments and Controversies in the Wake of District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago’: Article: ‘The (New) New Judicial Federalism: State Constitutions and the Protection of the Individual Right to Bear Arms,’ 39 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1449, October 2012, Michael B. de Leeuw*See also, “Shocking the Second Amendment: Invalidating States’ Prohibitions On Taser With The District Of Columbia v. Heller,’ 20 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 159 (2010) By Ron F. Wright.“Ratified in 1909, New York’s right-to-bear arms provision differs from the latter provisions in that it is a statutory rather than constitutional grant. While its language is similar to the Second Amendment, contemporaneous sources carry strong undertones of keeping and bearing arms for strictly militia purposes. Looking first to New York’s treatment of the phrase ‘the people’ in its Civil Rights Law, we note that other than its right-to-bear arms provision the phrase refers to a right only one other time: the individual right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures. Furthermore, in the other appearances where the phrase ‘the people’ appears not a single instance refers to an actual right, express or implied.”In fact, in the original iteration of the State Constitution, New York did not incorporate a Bill of Rights. Later renditions did include a State Bill of Rights, but originally, involved procedural matters rather than substantive rights. The Bill of Rights of New York’s Constitution evolved sporadically over time.But New York always intended to whittle away at the natural law right to armed self-defense. Half-heartedly, or grudgingly at best, it eventually placed the right of the people to keep and bear arms in its Civil Rights Statutory scheme.NY CLS Civ R § 4 (Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms), says,“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.” [underlining added]Note, the substitution of the words, ‘SHALL NOT’ as they appear in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, with the word, ‘CANNOT,’ in Section 4 of the Civil Right Law of New York.The word, ‘CANNOT,’ means ‘TO BE UNABLE TO DO OTHERWISE THAN.’ It isn’t a legal term of art. The words, ‘SHALL NOT’ however have a specific meaning in law: “THE ELEMENT OR ACTION IS PROHIBITED.” Is this change of major significance? Surely, the alteration of the language of the Right, in the Consolidated Laws of New York wasn’t an inadvertent oversight but made with intention.The New York Legislature made sure that “CANNOT BE INFRINGED” does not mean the Legislature has no authority to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. On the contrary, the suggestion is that no person or entity but the New York Government itself can infringe the right for the Government here establishes that it has created the right, i.e., statutorily. The Right, then, is neither something the people of New York create nor that of a Divine Being.Use of a nonlegal word establishes and avoids any foreseeable problem that might arise from a citizen contesting Government infringement of a Right that “CANNOT” be infringed. At least that is the obvious rationale for the change in construction.Providing only statutory recognition of a right to bear arms, the State could not easily be constrained from hobbling the exercise of the right. And both New York State and the State and Federal Courts were complicit in supporting each outrageous Government action, through regulation, of the “RIGHT” THAT “CANNOT BE INFRINGED.”New York's Executive Branch and Legislative Branch constantly invented ways to erode the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms and, in so doing, to sever the people’s connection with their fundamental right—ultimately creating a permanent estrangement.Overzealous regulation coupled with a lengthy, industrious campaign of psychological conditioning, affected the mind. “Gun Possession” became identified with and equated with “Gun Violence.” Many New Yorkers didn’t mind this. In fact, they fanatically embraced the viral memes planted in their minds.The latest developments in psychological conditioning and in technology that allows for rapid dissemination of information, affecting millions of people simultaneously, made this possible.Instead of dealing with crime and criminals, the Government would instead go after average Americans, creating a nightmare for those citizens who were not taken in by the contortions and distortions of the New York Government and who insisted on exercising their natural law right to self-defense that the Government was loathed to recognize or allow.What eventually emerged in New York was an elaborate, expensive, time-consuming, and confounding licensing regime that New Yorkers would be required to navigate through. The questions no one in Government dared to consider and that a Press, sympathizing with the Government, would never ask are these:“Why should it be so difficult for me to exercise a fundamental, unalienable right?”“Why should I be compelled to navigate my way through a mass of confusing firearms regulations, and then once failing to gain State permission to defend my life with the most effective means available, I am thrown to the winds and compelled to navigate through a cesspool of criminals and lunatics that dot the landscape of New York?“Why is it the New York Government constrains my right to defend myself against depraved criminals and lunatics, and, at the same time, refuses to use my tax dollars to protect me against those elements that incessantly threaten the life, safety, and well-being of millions of average, rational, law-abiding, responsible citizens like me?”“By what inductive or deductive reasoning does the New York Government and Kathy Hochul presume to reduce the highest denominator of society with the lowest, refusing to allow me to defend myself against predators, arguing that, on the matter of firearms, I can no more be trusted to responsibly keep and bear them than would the common criminal, the psychopathic murderous gang member, or the raving drug-addled lunatic?With the enactment of the Sullivan Act in 1911—a law that introduced handgun licensing to the State—the New York Government would, through the years and decades, enact more laws, aimed at frustrating those Americans residing or working in New York who merely wish to exercise the fundamental right to keep and bear arms as is their natural law right to do so?The Sullivan Act of 1911 would serve as the New York Government’s answer, exemplifying their disdain for the average citizen. And the Government did not stop with the enactment of that. Introducing handgun licensing to New York was merely a precursor to and an inkling of what was yet to be.The Sullivan Act of 1911 served, then, merely as a stepping stone in a lengthy inexorable process, whittling away at the citizens’ exercise of their unalienable right to armed self-defense.Whether by conscious intent or by unconscious conditioned reflex, the State had effectively placed a New Yorker on a medieval torture rack, tormenting those individuals who insisted on—dared to—exercise the right that the New York Government did not wish for New Yorkers to exercise.Once on that rack, the State slowly tightened the screws, enacting more constraints on a person’s exercise of the right, through time, frustrating those New Yorkers who demanded that Government not interpose itself between the right of the people to keep and bear arms as bestowed on man by the Divine Creator, not Government, and the exercise of that right that the founders of a free Constitutional Republic recognized and insisted on.And the process of whittling away at the natural law right to armed self-defense gained speed over time, frustrating the desire of anyone who simply wished to exercise his basic right of self-preservation with the most effective means available: A handgun.Hochul’s predecessor, New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, had added extensive amendments to the Handgun Law and to related New York Statutes, affecting all firearms and possession of them. through the enactment of the New York Safe Act of 2013.Cuomo rammed that through the State Senate in the dead of night, and, once it had passed the Senate, he immediately signed it into law, on January 15, 2013.Hochul’s“Concealed Carry Improvement Act” of 2022 doesn’t ease the dire impact of the Safe Act on those who seek to keep and bear arms. One might rationally expect that the CCIA would ease the exercise of the fundamental right, consistent with Bruen. Rather, the CCIA builds upon the earlier Act and is part and parcel of several other Anti-Second Amendment laws that Hochul signed into law on or about the same date she signed the CCIA into law.Bruen changed nothing. NY Safe and the CCIA continue a process that began not with the passage of the Sullivan Act of 1911, but over a hundred years earlier—in fact earlier yet—much earlier.In fact, New York’s antipathy toward the natural law right to armed self-defense always existed, going back prior to the founding of the Republic itself, through the ratification of the U.S. Constitution on July , 1788.“The first New York Constitution was adopted by the Convention of Representatives of the State of New York on April 20, 1777,” 15 months before ratification of the U.S. Constitution that New York, among other States that existed at the time, agreed to. See Historical Society of the New York Courts and content infra.What began as a concern and annoyance over the exercise ofthe right of the people to keep and bear arms in New York, evolved, over the centuries, into distress and disgust, and anxiety over the citizens’ keeping and bearing of arms.That distress, disquiet, and disgust grew into trepidation and panic, coupled with a rabid abhorrence over the notion a person should possess firearms at all.Today, Governor Hochul proclaims her anger over the Bruen decision. Worse, she articulates a visible contempt for the Court.But, how much of that anger is grounded on true and firm belief and how much is mere political rhetoric, playing to a “woke” audience?A decade ago, Hochul, ever the consummate politician, evinced a different position toward the Second Amendment. See the article in Bearing Arms. What caused a transformation in her thought—a complete 180-degree turn?It matters not. If Hochul is duplicitous and is behaving theatrically, her present words and actions must be taken at face value, not minimized. No one should attempt to explain them away as mere emoting as if to suggest her words are not to be taken seriously. They are TO BE TAKEN MOST SERIOUSLY.Hochul’s words, both their insolent tone and the detrimental impact on those who wish to exercise their natural law right to armed self-defense at home or in public, cannot be assigned simply to fabrication or theatrics. The intent behind those words, seen in the legislation enacted, which Hochul has signed into law—a flurry of new restrictive Anti-Second Amendment legislation—has real-world impact and dire consequences for New Yorkers.Regardless of what Hochul the politician really believes the fact remains that New Yorkers, especially the politically progressive denizens of New York City, and Hochul’s wealthy, Neoliberal Globalist benefactors, have long held to a New York tradition antithetical to and wholly destructive of the Second Amendment right. And Hochul, the politician, through her present words and actions, mirrors the predilection of her base, millions of New Yorkers, most of whom reside in NYC.Attuned to her supporters’ beliefs, she rails incessantly against “guns,” “gun owners,” and that thing the Anti-Second Amendment wordsmiths had recently concocted to push their narrative against the right to armed self-defense on the public: “Gun Violence.”Long-standing New York tradition contra recognition of the basic right to armed self-defense overpowers any thought of compliance and obeisance to the dictates of “shall not be infringed,” much less acquiescence and adherence to High Court rulings on the matter.As noted, supra, several years before New York ratified the U.S. Constitution, on July 26, 1788, and, later, when New York ratified the Nation’s Bill of Rights, on March 27, 1790, the Revolutionary Convention of the Representatives of New York (see New York Archives) prepared the groundwork for a State Constitution:“In August 1776, the revolutionary Convention of the Representatives of the State of New York appointed a committee to draft a state constitution and a bill of rights. Despite this command, the constitution eventually produced did not contain a separate bill of rights. Robert Yates, a member of the drafting committee, later explained that advocates of a bill of rights thought in terms of an instrument by which ‘the power of the rulers ought to be circumscribed,’ modeled after the 1628 Petition of Right and the 1689 Bill of Rights. The committee, however, took the view that the American Revolution placed the people ‘in a state of nature’ such that the new fundamental instrument the people themselves created, the constitution ‘would operate as a bill of rights.’ This view was not uncommon in revolutionary America. John Jay, for instance, a principal drafter of the 1777 federal constitution, used the same argument when objecting to the adoption of a federal bill of rights in 1788.  The constitution adopted by the New York Convention in April 1777, did contain certain clauses guaranteeing basic rights, such as might be found in a bill of rights: all power derived from the people, right to counsel in criminal trials, freedom of religion and abolition of religious establishments, and trial by jury and prohibition of attainder (to take effect after the war). In addition, on the motion of Gilbert Livingston (later a radical antifederalist), the Convention added to the constitution a clause guaranteeing due process. In the face of Loyalist threats to the existence of the new government, the Convention refrained, however, from adding to the constitution any further assertions of fundamental rights that would hinder efforts to suppress counter-revolutionary activity.” “New York’s Statutory Bill of Rights: A Constitutional Coelacanth,” 19 Touro L. Rev. 363, 366-367 Winter / Spring, 2003, by  Robert Emery. “The New York legislature adopted the original version of the statutory bill of rights, ‘an Act concerning the rights of the citizens of this State,’ in January 1787.” Id. at 368. There was no mention of a right of the people to keep and bear arms in the first rendition of the New York Constitution, nor would there be any future version of the State Constitution. There certainly was no serious consideration for that.“New York has adopted four constitutions (1777, 1821, 1846, and 1894) and held eight constitutional conventions (1801, 1821, 1846, 1867, 1894, 1915, 1938, and 1967). The Constitution of 1894, revised in 1938 and amended over 200 times, remains in place today. As provided in this document, the state legislature can propose a constitutional convention at any time, subject to approval by the electorate.  However, the state constitution also mandates that the question of whether to hold a convention be submitted to the electorate every twenty years.” In a climate openly hostile to the very thought of relaxation of New York’s Gun Law—having placed more and more restrictions on the exercise of the right to armed self-defense through 112 years of the Sullivan Act—it stands to reason the Hochul Government wouldn’t be dissuaded from continuing its concerted, single-minded march toward achieving the goal of Dissolution of the right to armed self-defense in New York or, if not able to that, grudgingly, at least, getting damned close to attaining it.Notwithstanding the State had recognized the right of the people to keep and bear arms at the National level, having ratified the Nation’sBill of Rights in 1790, it felt no compunction to do so at the State level, believing, apparently, that, whatever negative impact the Second Amendment on the Federal Government, its application would pose no hardship on the States and would not limit the State’s ability to do away with the entirety of it if it wished. Was the State Government being disingenuous? Was it holding disparate, inconsistent beliefs that defy rational explanation? Who can say what the State Government's motivations were at the time?Prior to the McDonald decision, and for those theorists who mistakenly held to a “collective rights-only” notion of the Second Amendment, (and many still do), the early New York Government felt it need not worry about the Second Amendment. The State would have its Police Powers and could deny all residents of the State and those who work there the keeping and bearing of arms. And, for a time, it would seem the State could get away with its perfunctory dismissal of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms.And, even with the McDonald decision in 2010 (McDonald vs. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010)), New York would continue to evince schizophrenia toward the Second Amendment, as would a few other jurisdictions around the Country. They would all pretend that, whatever McDonald happened to say about a State’s obligation to adhere to and respect the citizenry's exercise of the right codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, through the application of the Fourteenth Amendment, those States could regulate the exercise of the right to an effective nullity. That is what such State Governments presumed to think and that is how they acted.State licensing is the vehicle that drives the impetus for State arrogance toward the natural law right to armed self-defense.Prior to Bruen, Federal and State Courts in New York held an incongruous position, when rubber-stamping what is clearly illegal New York Government action.These Courts acknowledged that, while a person has a fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms, that person must still obtain a valid State handgun license to exercise his fundamental right.The New York Courts had heretofore preposterously argued that, since having a license to exercise one’s Second Amendment right is, one, a condition precedent to the exercise of one’s fundamental right, and that, two, since the issuance of a handgun license is a prerogative of the State, a completely discretionary act and that, further, since the acquisition of a State issued handgun license is a privilege, not a right, be that right fundamental or not, the State can lawfully deny a person exercise of his fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms. New York Courts’ ruling considered this reasoning as valid and sound law, “black letter law” in New York, and, as expected, especially for those who sought to obtain a New York concealed handgun carry license, the acquisition of those coveted licenses to exercise a fundamental right was very few in number. Such was true before Bruen. And now, after? Will there be many more issuances of concealed handgun carry licenses? And of those that are issued, will they truly work as intended by Bruen, to enable the licensee to truly exercise armed self-defense? This all remains to be seen.The Hochul Government did not assert—it felt it wouldn’t have to—that 225 years of refusal to countenance a citizen’s natural law right to armed self-defense as it saw fit was argument enough to continue to constrain the exercise of the right and to require much from those individuals who had the fortitude to demand what they should not have had to demand: an exercise of their unrestrained right to armed self-defense. Long-standing State tradition would circumvent any argument about the purported supremacy of the natural law right to armed self-defense over the State's authority to deny a citizen's exercise of that right.New York’s negative attitude toward the Second Amendment, coupled with a firm belief, taken as self-evident true for well over two hundred years—that New York Government police regulatory authority supersedes an American citizen’s exercise of his fundamental, illimitable, immutable, eternal natural law rights and would always remain so and hold sway over a U.S. Supreme Court decision to rule or hold otherwise, is soon to be tested. It must be tested.Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, together, apparently do not operate, in the mind of the New York Government, as a formidable force, powerful enough to overcome the New York Government’s belief in its own legal and moral invincibility. New York continues to go its own way.How many U.S. Supreme Court decisions must, then, come down the pike before jurisdictions like New York accept the Article III authority of the Third Branch of Government—the authority of the High Court to say what the Law Is? But is it just New York that is rebelling against the authority of the High Court?Clearly, there are dangerous, ominous stirrings afoot, suggesting the actions of shadowy, ruthless forces both here and abroad that have set wheels in motion to destroy a free Constitutional Republic and a sovereign American citizenry. It all bespeaks tyranny at the highest levels of Federal and many State Governments. What we are doing here is looking at the manifestation of those wheels set in motion, as pertaining to the incremental, continuous, devastating erosion of the Bill of Rights, and the blatant misuse of authority by Federal and State Governments to control the life, safety, well-being, and personal autonomy of the American citizen.One need only reflect carefully and honestly on the manner in which Governments are shredding the Bill of Rights slowly, methodically, and inexorably to understand the mortal danger facing our free Constitutional RepublicLooking at the New York Government’s actions despicable actions toward the U.S. Supreme Court is explanation enough that something more is afoot than imbecilic behavior by Governor Hochul and the Democrat-Party-controlled Legislature in Albany.The New York Government would not have dared to contend against the High Court unless they knew that powerful interests and forces stood behind them to protect them. The New York Government's insolent maneuverings are not emanating solely from the Government. The masterminds of the treachery against our Nation stand well above Government agent toadies. They are merely the faces the public sees; that the public is permitted to see. All we can do here is try to convey to our kind readers the legal, logical, and Constitutional weaknesses of New York’s actions. And we must remain content with accomplishing that. It is more than enough work for us, a small voice supporting our Constitution as the founders of our Republic intended.With this groundwork laid as an explanation for New York’s recalcitrance in obeying a direct High Court ruling, we will, in the next few articles of this series draw our attention to the deceitfulness at work through the operation of the “Good Moral Character” provision of the CCIA the Hochul Government has repurposed to operate like the past “Proper Cause” Requirement, to frustrate the applicant. The New York Government continues on the path it had first set for itself centuries ago, at the dawn of New York's statehood. Hochul and her Government intend to restrict the issuance of New York concealed handgun carry licenses, now, as then, and to constrain the use of those licenses for those individuals who happen to be among the few to acquire them.________________________________________*A decade after this article came out, Iowa amended its Constitution to include “a right to bear arms.” In a news article posted November 8, 2022, The Des Moine Iowa Register reported that,“Iowa voters have adopted an amendment to the Iowa Constitution to add the right ‘to keep and bear arms,’ adding language that goes beyond the protections contained in the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, according to unofficial results.Iowa will become the fourth state with ‘strict scrutiny’ language to protect gun rights in its state constitution, achieving a longtime goal of Republicans in the Iowa Legislature. . . .The language of the amendment states: ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sovereign state of Iowa affirms and recognizes this right to be a fundamental individual right. Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.’The amendment described the right to keep and bear arms as ‘a fundamental individual right,’ requiring any restrictions on gun rights to survive ‘strict scrutiny.’Strict scrutiny is the highest legal hurdle for legislation to clear. It requires any restrictions on gun rights to be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest.”Two weeks after Iowans voted to amend their Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court held oral argument in Bruen, and the Court published its decision seven months later. Much of the Majority Opinion clarified the test that Courts must follow in deciding whether State Government action conforms with or offends the core of the Second Amendment when a Government action is challenged.But twelve years before Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down means-test scrutiny, in favor of a historical test. Although the late eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia, writing for the Majority, in Heller, had specifically mentioned defects in the lowest standard of means-test scrutiny, “Rational Basis,” it was clear from the decision that the Court had scrapped the entirety of means-test analysis in Second Amendment cases, including, then, “Intermediate” and “Strict” Scrutiny, in favor of historical analysis. The vast majority of Courts failed to get the message or otherwise chose to ignore it. Although many Courts, prior to Bruen may have utilized a historical analysis, in analyzing the constitutionality of State action impinging on the Second Amendment right, they went impermissibly further, unable or unwilling to disavow means-test scrutiny altogether. But nothing in Heller suggests the High Court retained so much as an iota of means-test scrutiny. Moreover, the Majority in Bruen explicitly states that the Court wasn’t creating a new methodology. Bruen merely clarifies what Heller asserts. Associate Justice Thomas, writing for the Majority in Bruen, said this:“Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a ‘two-step’ framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.”This brings us back to Iowa’s amendment to its State Constitution. Since the Amendment refers explicitly to the use of “strict scrutiny,” the Amendment is unconstitutional. The irony is that supporters of the Amendment sought not only to cast in stone the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms for Iowans but to preclude the State Legislature and the State Federal and Appellate Courts from employing any test that might henceforth weaken the exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense. The supporters of the Iowan Amendment thought that strict scrutiny in Second Amendment cases would prevent unconstitutional State action from infringing the core of the right. The U.S. Supreme Court had no such illusion, as a Strict Scrutiny means-test methodology suffers from the same defect as all means-test (weight analysis) methodology. There exists a tendency of Courts to find, almost invariably, in favor of a Government’s action, denying a challenge of unconstitutional infringement. This is one reason, and probably the salient one, why the Court struck down means-test scrutiny altogether, in Heller.Can the Iowa Legislature amend the verbiage of the Constitutional amendment to cohere with Heller and Bruen? Probably not since that would involve statutory reconstruction of a Constitutional amendment, which in the action would defeat, even if the intention were honest, the force and efficacy of the State Constitution, either subordinating the State Constitution to State Statute or placing the State’s Constitution on the same footing as State Statute. Neither possibility is acceptable.It appears Iowans will have to undertake another round of voting, first to repeal the unconstitutional amendment, and second to vote on a redraft of the amendment first voted on, that omits the “strict scrutiny” language.The Des Moines Register article, supra, also refers to four other States that have employed the language of strict scrutiny in their own constitutions:“Iowa will become the fourth state with ‘strict scrutiny, language to protect gun rights in its state constitution, achieving a longtime goal of Republicans in the Iowa Legislature.”If true, those States as well must amend their constitutions to cohere to the rulings and reasoning of Heller (District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008)) and Bruen, (N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022)).___________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

UNDER THE PRETEXT OF KEEPING THE RESIDENTS OF HER STATE SAFE, NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL DEFIES U.S. SUPREME COURT BRUEN RULINGS

MULTIPART SERIES ON POST-BRUEN CASE ANALYSIS

POST-BRUEN—WHAT IT ALL MEANS AND WHAT ITS IMPACT IS BOTH FOR THOSE WHO SUPPORT AND CHERISH THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND THOSE WHO DO NOT; THOSE WHO SEEK TO UNDERMINE AND EVENTUALLY DESTROY THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT AND THOSE WHO SEEK TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN THE RIGHT BOTH FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS

PART TWENTY-FIVE

THE TYRANT EVER DISTRUSTS THE ARMED CITIZEN

New York Governor Kathy Hochul and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany designed amendments to the State Handgun Law to avoid compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings in Bruen and thus avoid the categorical dictates of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. There is no question about this, no tenable away around this. To believe otherwise is a delusion.Hochul makes the case herself. There are numerous accounts detailing this: Press accounts and Press Releases abound. Consider one example: In August 2023, Hochul said this, as presented on the Governor's website:“‘In response to the Supreme Court's decision to strike down New York's century-old concealed carry law, we took swift and thoughtful action to keep New Yorkers safe,’ . . . . ‘I refuse to surrender my right as Governor to protect New Yorkers from gun violence or any other form of harm. In New York State, we will continue leading the way forward and implementing common sense gun safety legislation.’”In other words, Governor Kathy Hochul, in her role as Tyrant Nanny of New York, keeping her wayward children, residents of New York, and citizens of the United States, safe and sound from all those dangerous, nasty firearms, will ignore the fundamental, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms, etched in stone in the Second Amendment of the Nation’s Bill of Rights, and will defy the Article III authority of the U.S. Supreme Court.Hochul had unconscionably harsh words for the High Court, calling the Bruen decision “reckless and reprehensible.” See the article in NCPR.One thing motivates Governor Hochul’s actions and others like her who have, through the passing years, decades, and centuries, enacted laws to cut the Bill of Rights to ribbons:INCOMPARABLE LUST FOR POWER, INORDINATE WEALTH, AND SELF-AGGRANDIZEMENT—ALL AT THE EXPENSE OF THE COMMON MAN. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN SO.The history of civilization illustrates an unfathomable and unquenchable desire of sociopathic/psychopathic individuals to wield control over their respective tribe, nation, or empire, or other political, social, economic, and juridical structure.These ill-begotten men desire to thrust their will, their reality, onto everyone else.The Articles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights of this Nation—of this Nation alone—were drafted with the aim to at least forestall, if not, prevent the perpetuation of this theme from happening here: the urge to dominate and rule.Of course, the presence of power-hungry misfits in the world is nothing new.Some who have succeeded in wielding control over the life, well-being, and happiness of the populace create the illusion they exercise power by virtue of Divine Right. Through time that odd idea becomes embedded in the public psyche. The public comes to accept this and accepts, too, that the rule over others by Divine Right is in the natural order of things, that it has always been thus.Rule by Divine Right—the wielding of near absolute power over others—is sometimes disguised.In our Nation, a free Constitutional Republic, the sociopaths, and psychopaths who lust for power, wealth, for personal aggrandizement and who have the wherewithal, knack, and tenacity to bend the mechanisms of power to their will, to their liking, must resort to deceptive messaging to woo the public, to lull them into dull complacency to accept the messaging conveyed to them by the deceivers and fabricators to mislead them into thinking that curtailment of their God-Given Rights is for their own good. But the truth is other than what is conveyed to the public.The Nation’s Bill of Rights is a check on the power of Tyrants. These Rights, especially the first two Rights are the final fail-safe to keep would-be Tyrants in check.The First Amendment codifies, inter alia, the right of Free Speech, i.e., the Right to Dissent; the Right to Personal Autonomy; the Right of the Individual TO BE and to Remain Individual, against public pressure, at the behest of the Tyrant to compel compliance to his edicts. Those edicts demand uniformity of thought, of conduct, of action. The idea is to force submission of one’s will to the will of the State, the Greater Society, the “Hive,” the Tyrant.The Right of the people to keep and bear arms is the vehicle through which the Individual prevents the Tyrant from forcing submission. This was meant to be so. Americans, millions of individuals, discrete souls, retain sovereignty over the Tyrant by force of arms and thus prevent usurpation of their will to that of the Tyrant.The Tyrant knows this. Many in our Country do not. They are denied THE TRUTH. Each American should know the TRUTH:The preservation of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a right to be exercised by the common man, serves as a counterweight to the usurpation of the sovereign power of the people over the power of the Tyrant. The Tyrant seeks to restrict and constrict this right as the Tyrant cannot continue to wield power and cannot accrue more power at the expense of the people so long as they are armed. Thus——The common man cannot be controlled, corralled, nor subjugated so long as he bears arms. That he does so constitutes a threat to the Tyrant. The Tyrant knows this even if the polity does not, and the Tyrant utilizes the organs of a corrupt Press to prevent the people from recognizing the slow disintegration of their basic, core Rights, bestowed on them by the Divine Creator, and not by Government.Corruption of  Government proceeds from corruption existent in the Tyrant himself. Corruption of Government and concomitant corruption of every facet of society and of our institutions are recognized in decay, in the destabilization of society, and in the demoralization and degradation of the common man who resides within it. The physical manifestation of destruction is mirrored in the corrupt soul of the Tyrant. On a macro level, one sees this in the immolation of a once great Nation, and of its institutions, culture, ethos, and people.On the micro level one sees this corruption in the immolation of major cities and in the degradation of the lives of the people who reside in them, run by a host of petty tyrants.The salient purpose of armed Self-Defense is to prevent the onset of Tyranny of Government. If you, the reader, don’t see this, take a look at the Second Treatise of Government by the English Philosopher, John Locke. Our Constitution is constructed from the well-reasoned political philosophical remarks of John Locke.Do you need further proof: Take a look, once again, at the U.S. Supreme Court cases District of Columbia vs. Heller and McDonald vs. City of Chicago.The Tyrant knows that the exercise of the right to armed self-defense must be constrained else he cannot wield and maintain power and control over the commonalty, but he doesn’t say this. The Tyrant makes a different argument, directed to denizens of a free Republic.The argument against the exercise of the right to armed self-defense in this Country is that the Second Amendment is archaic and that the proliferation of guns in this Country causes “Gun Violence.”More recently, consistent with absurd political dogma, the Tyrant claims that the roots of the Second Amendment are racist. And a seditious Press echoes those sentiments.But then, ask yourself: Where is this disorder, this violence manifested? Is it in the actions of tens of millions of average, rational, responsible, American citizens—the commonalty that happens to possess firearms?When was the last time you heard that the common rational, responsible gun owner committed a crime through the use of a firearm or through the use of any other implement? When was the last you heard of an average gun owner who went on a shooting spree? How many of those occur in our Country anyway? How might they be prevented? Has not an armed citizen, in the midst of a “mass shooting, often prevented many deaths because he was able to stop the killer? If more people were armed, would they not be able to secure their life and that of others?Where does this so-called “Gun Violence” emanate and predominate?Is not the escalation of  “Criminal Violence” in the Country and especially in the major urban areas, the deliberate result of Government policy that allows the criminal element and the occasional lunatic to run amok?Why should curtailment of the basic natural law right to armed self-defense proceed from Government’s failure, oft deliberate, TO CONSTRAIN THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR of society: the foul, drug-addled lunatic; the monstrous, murderous gang member; and the opportunistic criminal—all of whom are devoid of empathy for the innocent person.Why should curtailment of a basic natural law right to armed self-defense proceed from instituting strict control over the natural law right of THE HIGHEST COMMON DENOMINATOR: tens of millions of average Americans?And, if those tens of millions of average Americans were to surrender their firearms to the Tyrant, how might that prevent the criminal and lunatic from engaging in less mayhem? Might not that encourage more illicit behavior and leave the common man absolutely defenseless, dependent completely on the goodwill of the Tyrant to dispel threat?But isn’t that really the point of disarming the citizenry: to leave the common man, the sole sovereign over Government, defenseless, powerless against the Tyrant, lest the common man rises up against the usurper?The New York Handgun Law and related laws as codified in the Consolidated Laws of New York, illustrate the Tyrant’s irrationality, arrogance, and lust for power over the citizens of the Country, residents of New York. But in the Gun Law and in other laws peppered throughout the breadth and depth of the Laws of New York, one sees, if one but reflects on those laws, a raw fear exposed. The Tyrant fears the common man.New York’s Handgun Law, the Sullivan Act, was enacted in 1911. It was predicated on fear of the common man—at the time, those were construed as new Italian immigrants to New York.The Sullivan Act was grounded on a lie at the outset: based on the idea that Italians were by nature, criminals, and their conduct in public had to be forcibly restrained lest they commit untold crimes throughout the State. This meant keeping firearms out of the hands of Italians. The form of the argument may have seemed valid to many. The premises were false, laughably so.The idea of converting a fundamental, unalienable right into a privilege is mystifying and disconcerting.Did the New York Government issue handgun licenses to Italians, recent naturalized citizens, residing in New York? One must wonder. If the idea behind the Sullivan Act, seemingly content neutral on its face, was to keep Italians from exercising their right, as citizens, to keep and bear arms, the law makes perfect sense.Yet the Sullivan Act came to be, and it survived, and thrived.The Sullivan Act requires all individuals who seek to carry a handgun in public to first obtain a handgun license from the Government to lawfully exercise their natural law right to armed self-defense.So then, the New York Government insists on inserting itself between the natural law right to armed self-defense, as codified in the Second Amendment, and one's exercise of that right, free of Government interference.The Handgun Law expanded exponentially to include further restraints, to encompass many more groups of people—the common man en masse—and to make the acquisition of a handgun carry license more expensive, time-consuming, and frustrating. That was the point.Many New Yorkers conceded defeat. They threw in the towel. They gave up the effort to obtain a license. The Handgun Law worked THAT well.Through time, the Handgun Licensing Statute became more elaborate. It developed into a cumbersome Handgun Licensing Regime. The challenges were many. But none succeeded in toppling the unconstitutional construct. And, then came the Heller case.The U.S. Supreme Court had for years stood idly by while State Government Tyrants and the Tyrant Federal Government road roughshod over the absolute right of the people to armed self-defense.In the 21^st Century, some Justices on the High Court had had enough. It was clear that Two Branches of the Federal Government, the Executive and the Legislative, and many State Governments, including the District of Columbia, were not going to adhere to the strictures of the Bill of Rights, especially the dictates of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito set matters aright.With the indomitability of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, and assisted by two able Associate Justices, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, and, having convinced or perhaps cajoled the Chief Justice, John Roberts, and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy to climb on board, the Court agree to review a case where the District of Columbia had enacted a law banning, outright, civilian citizen possession of handguns for self-defense, in the District.Since the District of Columbia law was predicated on the notion that the right to keep and bear arms was a collective right, not adhering to the individual, an erroneous notion, the Court Majority held clearly, concisely, and categorically that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right—one unconnected with association with a militia. And, having enunciated the clear, plain meaning of the natural law right codified in the Second Amendment, the High Court struck down the D.C. law.The anti-Second Amendment States were appalled and argued that Heller applied only to the Federal Government. That led to another challenge, this time from Plaintiff gun owners in Illinois, who argued that the right of the people to keep and bear arms applies with equal force to the States. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed. Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the Majority Opinion said, the right of the people to keep and bear arms applies with equal efficacy to the States through the application of the Fourteenth Amendment.Further challenges to States that refused to adhere to the rulings of Heller and McDonald went unreviewed by the Court, until a good ten years after McDonald.The High Court agreed to hear r a challenge to New York’s Handgun Law in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, et.al. vs. The City Of New York, 140 U.S. S. Ct. 1525 (2020)—the first major assault on the Sullivan Act to be heard by the High Court. In that case, Petitioner holders of valid restrictive handgun premise licenses sought to be able to transport their handguns to target ranges outside the City. The Rules of the City of New York forbade that.the narrow issue in the City of New York case dealt with the Second Amendment rights of holders of highly restrictive New York premise licenses. Yet, the case implicated broad Second Amendment questions impacting Heller and McDonald.Hochul’s predecessor, Andrew Cuomo, feared a decision on the merits of that case would open up a serious challenge to the core and mainstay of the State’s Sullivan Act, pertaining to the carrying of handguns in public.He could not, must not, allow a decision on the merits that would render the Sullivan Act vulnerable to further challenges that might eventually lead to the decimation of Handgun Licensing in New York.The Cuomo Administration weathered the storm by amending the State’s Gun Law. Those amendments required the City of New York to amend its own Gun Rules, pertaining to the transportation of handguns outside the home, by holders of New York City handgun premise licenses.The amendments satisfied Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice  Brett Kavanaugh. Those two votes, together with the votes of the liberal wing of the Court, sufficed to avoid the substantive merits of the case from review.With changes made to both the State Handgun Law and to New York City’s Handgun Licensing Regulations, the High Court dismissed the case, ruling the Plaintiffs’ claims moot.Associate Justice Alito thought otherwise. In his dissent, he argued there was no legal justification for a finding of mootness. Justice Alito laid out his arguments comprehensively and convincingly.Justice Kavanaugh without addressing the mootness matter, mentioned, in a separate Concurring Opinion,“I share Justice Alito’s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.”Kavanaugh’s point came to fruition with Bruen, two years later, and in a major way, vexatious to the liberal wing of the Court, and likely so to the Chief Justice as well, and, no less so, the gravest fear of Governor Cuomo.But the conservative wing—now with Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the Bench—would no longer be constrained by foes of the Second Amendment who would erase the exercise of the right altogether if they had their way. Vindication of the Heller and McDonald rulings was at hand.The Hochul Government and Kathy Hochul, especially, weren’t pleased.If the City of New York case gave her predecessor, Governor Andrew Cuomo, a trifling headache, the Bruen case gave Hochul and Albany a full-on migraine.Bruen involved a challenge to the core of the State’s Handgun Law: the Constitutionality of predicating issuance of concealed handgun carry licenses on demonstration of “Proper Cause”/“Extraordinary Need.”Bruen struck down “Proper Cause.” And that required Hochul and the State Legislature in Albany to strike the phrase from the Handgun Law. There was no way around that.But Hochul and Albany had no intention of complying with a ruling that would tear the guts out of a handgun Law that existed for well over a century and that, through time, grew increasingly elaborate and more oppressive.So Governor Hochul and Albany brushed the rulings aside, concocting the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) of 2022 that gives lip service to Bruen and is, at once, consistent with the State’s end goal to transform the State, eventually, into one massive “Gun Free Zone.” Likely Hochul and Albany were working on the CCIA once the oral argument had concluded on November 3, 2021, having anticipated the High Court intended to shred the core of the Sullivan Act.The Hochul Government was prepared. The High Court issued its decision on June 23, 2022. Ten days later the State Senate enacted the “CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY IMPROVEMENT ACT” (CCIA). Hochul signed it into law on the same day, July 3, 2022.That word, ‘Improvement,’ as it appears in the title of the Act is incongruous, even incoherent. For what is it the Act improves? Certainly not the right of the American citizen, residing and/or working in New York, and the Act did not comply with the Bruen rulings.The CCIA was a cleverly, cunningly drawn evasion tactic that strengthened the Handgun Law, consistent with an age-old plan.This plan, this agenda, involved the methodical, evisceration of gun rights—a plan going back over a century ago. The Hochul Government did not design the CCIA to comply with the rulings, except on a superficial level. The Court did not like the words, “PROPER CAUSE,” so the Government would strike those words from the Sullivan Act.Since the Hochul Government still had to contend with the salient ruling that the right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense is not confined to one’s home but extends to the public arena, the State would slither around the ruling. That was the intent of the Hochul Government, and the CCIA well reflected that intention. They did that through the creation of a new construct: “SENSITIVE PLACE” restrictions, and through a bold reconfiguration of an old one, “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER.”Through the CCIA Hochul and her cohorts in Albany laid bare their objective: Erosion of the civilian citizen’s right to armed self-defense outside the home, notwithstanding the import of the Bruen decision: recognition of the right to armed self-defense outside the home, no less than inside it.The CCIA was to take effect on September 1, 2022. The Act's challengers wouldn’t wait for that to happen.The ink had not yet dried on the CCIA document Kathy Hochul signed when the Plaintiffs came forward to challenge the amendments to the Gun Law. There would be others—most of them in New York, but several across the Country as well, challenging similar Gun Laws, the language of which is contrary to the Bruen rulings.Several New York cases, including the main one, i.e., Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, presently sit on review at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.Fully briefed, the Court conducted oral hearings for each of them, on March 20, 2023. Expect final orders during the summer months.

“SENSITIVE PLACE” AND “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER”

As we stated supra, two provisions of the CCIA stand out as they serve as the basis of the State’s defiance of the Second Amendment and the Bruen rulings: “SENSITIVE PLACE” and “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER.”The “Sensitive Place” provision is new. There is no correlation with it in the prior version of the Law or in any previous version, hearkening back to the commencement of handgun licensing in 1911 with the enactment of the Sullivan Act. Much has been said about the “Sensitive Place” provision and challenges to the CCIA invariably point to it.The “Good Moral Character” requirement, on the other hand, is not new.Little is said about it in the prior version of the Handgun Law. And, apart from mentioning it in Bruen, the High Court had nothing to say about it.As applied to applications for restrictive handgun premise licenses—and a multi-tiered Handgun structure remains in the New York Gun Law—there is no change from the prior Law.However, as applied to applications for concealed handgun carry licenses, the State Legislature added substantial and significant provisions—a massive transformation from what had existed before.A major distinction between the two provisions, “Sensitive Place” and “Good Moral Character,” needs to be mentioned and discussed before we proceed to a comprehensive analysis of the latter provision.

THE NUANCES OF “SENSITIVE PLACE” RESTRICTIONS

“Sensitive Place” restrictions affect holders of State concealed handgun carry licenses only, not those holders of highly restrictive premise handgun licenses —a point seemingly trivial. It isn’t.A holder of a premise license cannot lawfully utilize a handgun for self-defense outside the home or place of business, notwithstanding instances of dire threats to life presenting themselves outside the home or one’s place of business.The lawful use of a handgun for self-defense begins and ends within the confines of the walls of the structure.As if to emphasize the point, the holder of a home or business license, who wishes to transport his handgun outside the home, lawfully, must keep the handgun in a handgun case, not in a holster on his person. Ammunition must be kept in the case as well and separate from the handgun itself.This means that, if the holder of a restricted premise license were confronted by a deadly threat while out in public, the handgun won’t be readily accessible. And that is the point. And that is concerning for two reasons.First, a handgun case is easily identifiable as such.If the licensee is in a subway, say, on the way to a New York City target range, a determined and highly aggressive thief can strongarm the case away from the owner.In that event, the owner must immediately notify the NYPD of the fact of the theft, and he will likely be required to surrender his premise handgun license during the investigation. If the police fail to recover the handgun, the owner will likely be denied issuance of a replacement license, which is a condition precedent to lawful receipt of a new handgun. And to add insult to injury, the owner will likely be blamed for the theft having occurred. The police report will indicate that the owner had lost possession of the case, suggesting that, if the owner had been deficient in protecting the property, and, perhaps, should haven’t taken the handgun outside the home or place of business in the first instance.Second, if the licensee were threatened with violence to self and were able to access the handgun and successfully avert a tragedy to self by incapacitating the aggressor by shooting him, the licensee would lose his license. There is no question about that.Worse, the licensee would be prosecuted for misuse of the handgun.Worst of all, the aggressor would likely be charged with criminal assault and wrongful possession of a handgun, for the premise license doesn’t lawfully allow the licensee to wield a handgun in public. As if to emphasize this point, Governor Hochul made patently clear that Bruen doesn’t authorize a person to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. In other words, New York remains a Handgun Licensing State Par Excellence among Anti-Second Amendment fanatics.Further, if the aggressor died of his wounds, the licensee would be indicted for manslaughter or murder. That outcome isn’t merely likely. It is certain and inevitable.Under New York Law self-defense may be a perfect defense to a charge of manslaughter or murder if one didn’t initiate the aggressive act, but “armed” self-defense isn’t if the person appealing to it happens to use a handgun in the absence of a valid State issued concealed handgun carry license.This is true even if the perpetrator himself is armed and threatens to kill the innocent person.The idea that an innocent person cannot defend him or herself but for use of a handgun and would suffer indictment for unlawful homicide notwithstanding, is ludicrous. But that is the nature of New York law.Isn’t that the tacit point of a fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms? And isn’t that the central point of the Bruen rulings?Raw abhorrence of firearms precludes rational debate over the right to armed self-defense in the face of imminent violent assault against self.In fact, even if the licensee does hold a valid concealed handgun carry license, that may not protect him from a charge of manslaughter or murder. The best that can be said about this is that at least the licensee is alive when he would otherwise be dead. But the ramifications of armed self-defense reflect the sad truth about living and working in New York.The Hochul Government’s aversion toward firearms and civilian citizen gun ownership is so strong that the New York Government begrudges the issuance of handgun licenses at all.And it gets worse. Of late, even where a handgun isn’t employed in self-defense, any use of self-defense that results in harm or death to an assailant may still result in a felony indictment. Recall the recent incident involving a retired Marine whom Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg, brought a charge of manslaughter against. See, e.g., the article in Reuters. Even as violent crime escalates around the Country, especially in the major cities run by Democrat-Party administrations, the right to self-defense, armed or not, is under assault.The irony of an increasingly dangerous society, a wary, tentative police force post-Floyd George, and the incessant Government attack on Americans who would logically wish to carry a handgun for self-defense—since it is the most effective means available to defend one’s life—is both a disheartening and disorienting fact of life for those living or working in New York and in similar jurisdictions across the Country. That is what they must contend with.As if reading the minds of New Yorkers, the Hochul Government issued a reminder (actually a warning) to all New York residents, on June 24, 2022, one day after the Bruen decision came out, that New Yorkers should take care not to carry a handgun in public without a valid concealed handgun carry license, that Bruen hasn’t changed anything.“Governor Kathy Hochul today issued a reminder to gun owners that the U.S. Supreme Court's Thursday decision to strike down New York's concealed carry law does not mean New York State's licensure processes and rules do not need to be followed. It does not automatically give current residential permit owners the ability to carry guns outside the home. Gun owners are required by law to follow current restrictions.” Hochul made these remarks on June 24, 2023, one day after the publication of the Bruen decision.Hochul would have known that most of the amendments to the Handgun Law were already drafted and coming down the pike, momentarily. That meant the nuances and peculiarities of multi-tier Gun licensing Statutes would remain.And that raises the question, post-Bruen: Why would a person seek to acquire a restricted New York handgun premise license in lieu of a concealed handgun carry license? After all, didn’t the elimination of the “Proper Cause”/“Extraordinary Need” requirement make the acquisition of a concealed handgun carry license easier? Not really.Sure, the Hochul Government struck “Proper Cause”/“Extraordinary Need” from the Sullivan Act. But she remains stubborn and undeterred.Hochul continues to place roadblocks in the path of those individuals who wish to exercise their natural law right to armed self-defense. A plethora of sensitive place restrictions on lawful carry and use of a handgun for self-defense now plague holders of concealed handgun carry licenses: both new applications and renewals.The inclusion of the “Sensitive Place” provision and the “Good Moral Character” requirement in the CCIA operate essentially as stand-ins for “Proper Cause.”If the Hochul Government must acknowledge the right to armed self-defense outside the home no less than inside it, then the New York Government will place a plethora of obstacles in the path of those whom the State issues licenses to carry.The holder of such a license now finds himself constrained in the act of lawful carrying of a handgun and, therefore, constrained from lawfully using a handgun for self-defense in places that heretofore had no such restrictions.New York State, and New York City, especially, has become a patchwork quilt of places where the carrying of a handgun for self-defense—and therefore the use of it for self-defense—is illegal, notwithstanding the issuance of a concealed handgun carry license.Pre-Bruen, the only place restrictions pertained to were school zones and Federal and State Government buildings. The licensee knew that and avoided carrying a handgun in those areas and buildings. Now, the holder of a valid concealed handgun carry license must play a child’s game of  “Hopscotch”—kept mentally off-balance not precisely aware whether he and his handgun and the concealed handgun license he carries, are situated in a prohibited “Sensitive Place.” Did he miss a marker? What if he has to walk through or drive through a designated “Sensitive Place” to arrive at his destination? Must he detour around the area?The concealed handgun carry licensee must also keep in mind that “Sensitive Locations” are subject to revision. New restricted areas may be listed, and he must keep assiduously abreast of all amendments to those“Sensitive Place” restrictions.So then, “full carry” UNRESTRICTED handgun licenses no longer exist in New York. Under the CCIA, such “full carry” licenses, are constrained by numerous rigidly enforced place restrictions—which the Government may add to at any time.New York UNRESTRICTED “FULL CARRY” CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSES are for all intents and purposes now reduced to RESTRICTED “LIMITED CARRY” CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSES, most notably, on Manhattan Island.

NUANCES OF THE “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” REQUIREMENT

The “Good Moral Character” requirement operates differently from the State’s “Sensitive Place” provision.The idea behind amendments to “Good Moral Character” as applied to applications for New York concealed handgun carry licenses is to dissuade an applicant from going through the hurdles of obtaining one.That is a strong inducement for the applicant to forego attempting to acquire such a license, opting instead for a restrictive premise license. That is why the Hochul Government has maintained the confounding multi-tiered handgun licensing structure post-Bruen.While there would appear, at first glance, no rational reason for a person to opt for a HIGHLY RESTRICTED New York premise handgun license Post-Bruen, the Hochul Government there are more than enough hurdles in place, making the acquisition of a RESTRICTED concealed handgun carry license no assured proposition, and the detailed information the CCIA mandates might cause a conscientious person to wish to refrain from divulging substantial details of his private life to the Government. In that case, a person might wish to forego the intricate, confusing, and intrusive process to obtain a concealed carry license and accept, instead, a New York premise handgun license.

INDIVIDUALS PURSUING A NEW YORK CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE MUST BE WILLING TO WAIVE THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF PERSONAL AUTONOMY AND PRIVACY, ALLOWING THE NEW YORK GOVERNMENT TO INTRUDE MERCILESSLY INTO EVERY ASPECT OF THEIR LIFE

For the individual undeterred in his quest to acquire a concealed handgun carry license, he must willingly accept Government interference with his fundamental right to privacy and autonomy.Application of this bolstered “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” provision has a chilling effect on the First Amendment Freedom of Speech clause and on tacit Freedom of Association, and on the Fourth Amendment right of a person to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. An Applicant must now waive those rights if he wishes to pursue the acquisition of a concealed handgun carry license.“GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” also butts up against one’s right to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment—the very reason the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the“PROPER CAUSE” requirement.As applied to applicants for either highly restricted or restrictive premise handgun licenses only, the 2023 version of New York’s Handgun Law does not change anything. The CCIA reads as the prior version of the Gun Law read:NY CLS Penal §400.00(1):“Eligibility. No license shall be issued or renewed pursuant to this section except by the licensing officer, and then only after investigation and finding that all statements in a proper application for a license are true. No license shall be issued or renewed except for an applicant (a) twenty-one years of age or older, provided, however, that where such applicant has been honorably discharged from the United States army, navy, marine corps, air force or coast guard, or the national guard of the state of New York, no such age restriction shall apply; (b) of good moral character, which, for the purposes of this article, shall mean having the essential character, temperament and judgement necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others (c) who has not been convicted anywhere of a felony or a serious offense or who is not the subject of an outstanding warrant of arrest issued upon the alleged commission of a felony or serious offense; (d) who is not a fugitive from justice; (e) who is not an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance as defined in section 21 U.S.C. 802; (f) who being an a noncitizen (i) is not illegally or unlawfully in the United States or (ii) has not been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa subject to the exception in 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(2); (g) who has not been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (h) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has not renounced his or her citizenship; (i) who has stated whether he or she has ever suffered any mental illness; (j) who has not been involuntarily committed to a facility under the jurisdiction of an office of the department of mental hygiene pursuant to article nine or fifteen of the mental hygiene law, article seven hundred thirty or section 330.20 of the criminal procedure law or substantially similar laws of any other state, section four hundred two or five hundred eight of the correction law, section 322.2 or 353.4 of the family court act, has not been civilly confined in a secure treatment facility pursuant to article ten of the mental hygiene law, or has not been the subject of a report made pursuant to section 9.46 of the mental hygiene law; (k) who has not had a license revoked or who is not under a suspension or ineligibility order issued pursuant to the provisions of section 530.14 of the criminal procedure law or section eight hundred forty-two-a of the family court act.”The above requirements apply to the issuance of all New York handgun licenses: the highly restrictive premise home or business license and the concealed handgun “full carry” license.Note that the requirements set forth in the aforesaid section of the Handgun Law mirror the requirements of Federal Law, 18 USCS § 922, but also, in some instances, as illustrated in the State law, go well beyond what counts as a disability under Federal law. But understand——

FEDERAL LAW DISQUALIFIERS FOR POSSESSING A FIREARM DO NOT INCLUDE A GOOD MORAL CHARACTER REQUIREMENT. NEW YORK LAW DOES.

The requirement is both inherently vague and markedly, nakedly subjective.How does a licensing officer determine an applicant has “the essential character, temperament, and judgment necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others”? If the individual falls into a Federal disability—for example, the individual has been involuntarily committed to a mental asylum, has a felony conviction, or having served in the military, has received a dishonorable discharge—the licensing officer will point to the disability and likely add the applicant lacks the necessary character to be trusted with possession of a handgun or with the possession of any firearm. But then, a claim of lack of proper character and temperament adds nothing to a notice of denial to issue a handgun license. THE REQUIREMENT IS REDUNDANT.But, if the licensing officer does not specify a disability in the notice of denial apart from the assertion that, in the licensing officer’s opinion, the applicant lacks proper character and temperament, then, in the absence of a factual basis for such a finding, other than mere recitation of subjective, personal opinion, a Court of competent jurisdiction would likely find the decision to be arbitrary and capricious.But an applicant would have to go through the lengthy, arduous, and costly process of filing a New York “ARTICLE 78” action, challenging the licensing officer’s decision, to obtain relief from a Notice of Denial to Issue a License.That has always been a problem with the use of a Character requirement in the Handgun Law. But, prior to the enactment of the CCIA, the requirement never posed a viable problem.The licensing officer wouldn’t point to the absence of proper character and temperament EXCEPT if the denial were grounded on an objective disability. Recitation of the disability would suffice to deny the issuance of a handgun license. But, of itself, recitation of lack of proper character would not suffice to support a notice of denial to issue a handgun license. Lack of Good Moral Character was, heretofore, in New York, neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to obtaining a license.The Licensing Officer might append his Notice of Denial with a finding that the applicant lacks proper temperament and character, but its inclusion would not add anything portentous to the Notice of Denial.An Article 78 judicial action challenging the Notice of Denial would address the license officer’s litany of disabilities—discrete and specific matters. For, it would be on the basis of the disabilities that character objectively comes into play. Still, one might make the case that severe mental illness, severe enough to require institutionalization is not of itself demonstrative of “BAD MORAL CHARACTER,” any more than a person having a serious heart condition, or cancer, should be considered to have “BAD MORAL CHARACTER” due to illness.Where a person has committed a serious crime due to mental illness (for example, a person is found not guilty by reason of insanity), a case may or not be made out that such a person has “BAD MORAL CHARACTER.” It is a gray area. But, in any event, the New York licensing officer would refuse to issue a handgun license to that person. The issue of “GOOD” or “BAD” MORAL CHARACTER is really irrelevant in that case.Moreover, by itself, the issue of “CHARACTER” counts for nothing. And yet, for those individuals now applying for a concealed handgun carry license, this elusive and illusive provision becomes a new highly ramped-up basis to deny issuance of a handgun license. It is even more subjective, and just as arbitrary, as New York’s old “Proper Cause” requirement.Like the multi-tier structure of handgun licensing, the inclusion of a character requirement in the Handgun Law has itself developed into a complex multi-tier structure.The requirement for those applying for a concealed handgun carry license, the “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” requirement established for application for a highly restricted handgun carry license is now merely the first step in a two-step process to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the licensing authority, that the applicant has the proper character to be issued a concealed handgun carry license.Post-CCIA, NY CLS Penal §400.00(1)(o):“for a license issued under paragraph (f) of subdivision two of this section the applicant shall meet in person with the licensing officer for an interview and shall, in addition to any other information or forms required by the license application submit to the licensing officer the following information: (i) names and contact information for the applicant’s current spouse, or domestic partner, any other adults residing in the applicant’s home, including any adult children of the applicant, and whether or not there are minors residing, full time or part time, in the applicant’s home; (ii) names and contact information of no less than four character references who can attest to the applicant’s good moral character and that such applicant has not engaged in any acts, or made any statements that suggest they are likely to engage in conduct that would result in harm to themselves or others; (iii) certification of completion of the training required in subdivision nineteen of this section; (iv) a list of former and current social media accounts of the applicant from the past three years to confirm the information regarding the applicants character and conduct as required in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph; and (v) such other information required by the licensing officer that is reasonably necessary and related to the review of the licensing application.”It isn’t clear whether only one, or two, or all five requirements listed above all fall into the sphere of “Good Moral Character” and we must wend our way through the thicket to get a handle on this.To begin, it is odd to require more than one standard of proper character in the State’s Handgun Law.Logically, if a person cannot be deemed to have sufficient good character to possess a handgun at all, what does it mean and why should it matter to require more of one’s character to carry a handgun in public?Surely, if a “Character” requirement is going to be posited at all, then it follows that a person either has the proper character and temperament to possess a handgun or does not. This is not to suggest that a person should be required to demonstrate special Character traits. Indeed a person can have bad character, but, unless he is a blatant threat to others, a licensing authority should not wield one’s Character as a sword against him.The problem here rests with the Government licensing of handguns. The multi-tier handgun scheme that New York has constructed around which the Government creates ridiculous requirements to justify, or rationalize, the need for such a tiered structure, only makes the entire notion of “CHARACTER” more ridiculous. But, to employ a “CHARACTER” provision in a licensing scheme at all is just “nuts.”Government creates handgun licensing schemes and then interjects requirements that beg the question of whether Government should be in the game of licensing exercise of a fundamental right at all.Sure, a person requires a license to practice law or to practice medicine, but, while a person does enjoy a basic (we would argue an unenumerated Ninth Amendment) right to make a living, and, in fact, has a duty to provide for himself and for his family, so as not to be a burden on himself and on society, a person does not have a Constitutional right to practice law or medicine.And the professions, not the Government, regulate whether one has the proper character to practice law or medicine, anyway. If a professional Board sitting on review of a person’s character does not believe a candidate has the proper character, the Board will not allow a person to sit for the Bar Exam or, in the case of the medical profession, to sit for the Medical Licensing Examinations. These exams are necessary conditions precedent to acquire a State License to practice law or medicine.But the inclusion of a “Good Moral Character” requirement as a condition precedent to obtaining a license to exercise the fundamental right to armed self-defense is bizarre, and, in practice, application of the requirement adds nothing substantive, definitive, or even rational to the process. Application of the requirement merely reflects the personal bias of the licensing authority.And there never was anything substantive about it. It is just a makeweight, and wholly subjective.The Federal grounds for disqualification are sufficient,* as they are, for the most part, objective and tend to preclude the insinuation of personal bias, conscious or not, into the process of adducing whether one can or cannot possess a firearm. The instant background check undertaken at a firearms dealer is enough.The mindset of the Hochul Government is crucial in analyzing and evaluating these new requirements in the CCIA.We will delve into this in the next article, beginning with whether New York makes use of this thing, in other State Statutes. It does. And we will take a look at how other States that have such a provision, utilize it, and lay out our arguments in support of the remarks made herein that there is no justification for employment of “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” in New York’s Handgun Law.____________________________________*We must stress, consistent with prior statements made in previous articles, that our position is that, despite the seeming contradiction, the natural law right to armed self-defense is absolute.

But does this mean that all individuals should possess a firearm if they wish? The term ‘absolute,’ means ‘unqualified,’ and ‘without restriction.’ This logically entails the proposition that the natural law right to armed self-defense is an unqualified right of man, hence a right, without restriction.

But refer back to the word, ‘should,’ in the afore-referenced question, “Should all individuals possess a firearm if they wish? Further to the point, should there be some limitation on who possesses a firearm?

The word ‘should’ changes a proposition into a normative, moral statement that does not readily fall into the basic “true”/“false” paradigm. Our position is that pragmatic considerations require tough choices when it comes to who “should” “be allowed” to possess a firearm. That ultimately means some people, for pragmatic reasons, “should not” be permitted to possess guns.

Murderous psychopaths and psychotic maniacs fall into categories of individuals who should not possess firearms because their use of firearms is not limited to self-defense or for such benign purposes as hunting, target practice, or sport, such as skeet or trap-shooting, or Olympic events. And, recall the codification of the natural law right to armed self-defense (subsumed into “self-defense”/“self-preservation”) as the core predicate of the right, eliminating, then, use of firearms to commit murder or to threaten murder or other violence.

Federal Law also prohibits “illegal aliens” from possessing firearms. And that is right and proper. The United States is a Nation State, with physical geographical borders, comprised of citizens, whose allegiance, whether they accept it or not, is to the Nation—its Constitution, history, heritage, culture, ethos, and core ethical values.

By definition, an ‘illegal alien,’ is a person who intentionally defies our National geographical Integrity, our Constitutional integrity, and our Laws. His allegiance is not to our Country, nor to our Constitution. Therefore he, like a murderer, is a threat to our natural law right to self-defense, and therefore is prohibited from possessing a firearm, and, from a normative perspective, “ought” rightfully to be prohibited from possessing a firearm.

“Mental Defectives” are another category of individuals that are not in a position to be trusted with a gun as a very young child, as they pose a threat to others if they have access to a firearm. And as for those members of the armed forces who have been dishonorably discharged, they have brought dishonor on their Nation and on themselves and have demonstrated an inability to be trusted with a firearm, as, by definition, they pose a danger to the Nation, People, and Constitution.

But how far should these pragmatic bases to deny possession of firearms extend? The Government itself exists to preserve and protect the Constitution and provide for the common welfare of the citizens.

But Government is naturally inclined—given the power it wields—to subvert those ends, usurping the sovereignty of the American people.

The Biden Administration has disdainfully, unabashedly usurped the sovereignty of the American people and has deliberately, and maliciously failed to faithfully serve and protect the Nation, and has intentionally, malevolently, and spitefully, ignored enforcement of the Laws of the Land. And the Administration has gone further yet: coldly, callously, designing and implementing policy for the purpose of subverting and sabotaging the Laws of the Land.

It is not by accident this Administration has deliberately thwarted the citizenry's exercise of their Bill of Rights. The Administration has designed and implemented policy systematically designed to weaken the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The Biden Administration is hell-bent determined to dismantle the institutions of our Country, to destroy our history, heritage, culture, and Judeo-Christian ethical values, fully embracing a Tyranny to thrust upon the Nation. And Democrat Party-controlled State Governments across the Country have taken the policy positions and messaging of the Biden Administration to heart: zealously following in the Administration’s footsteps, designing and implementing similar policies, all with the aim of destabilizing society, destroying the economy, demoralizing the people, and promoting all matter of vices against God, Country, and People.

It is but an understatement to assert that neither the Federal Government nor many State Governments are the best arbiter to decide how or whether the natural law right to armed self-defense is to be exercised.

As we see most clearly today, Government tends, through time, to institute more and more restrictions on who may “lawfully” possess firearms, and places ever more draconian restrictions on the types, kinds, and quantity of firearms and ammunition one may possess, and on the component parts and paraphernalia a person may “lawfully” keep.

The Arbalest Quarrel has discussed this notion of ‘Tyranny’ in some depth, in previous articles and we will have much more to say about it and will do so in future articles. We will also deal at length with the notion of ‘absoluteness’ of our natural law rights and lay out further how that concept can be seen to cohere with a seeming logical inconsistency of ‘limitation’ placed on absoluteness in the exercise of natural law rights, utilizing “pragmatic realism” and “normative principles” to secure the Bill of Rights for all time, notwithstanding the strong desire and goal of the Neo-Marxist Internationalists and Neoliberal Globalist Empire Builders that insist the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights is archaic, unworkable, and, therefore, must eventually be eliminated, as part of their major overhaul of this Nation’s  Constitution.

___________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

IT IS HIGH TIME THE HIGH COURT DEALT WITH GOVERNMENT HANDGUN LICENSING REGIMES HEAD-ON

MULTIPART SERIES ON POST-BRUEN CASE ANALYSIS

POST-BRUEN—WHAT IT ALL MEANS AND WHAT ITS IMPACT IS BOTH FOR THOSE WHO SUPPORT AND CHERISH THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND THOSE WHO DO NOT; THOSE WHO SEEK TO UNDERMINE AND EVENTUALLY DESTROY THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT AND THOSE WHO SEEK TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN THE RIGHT BOTH FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS

PART TWENTY-FOUR

“MAY ISSUE” VERSUS “SHALL ISSUE” A HANDGUN LICENSE ISN’T OF SALIENT IMPORTANCE. GOVERNMENT HANDGUN LICENSING, PER SE, IS.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York’s “May Issue” concealed handgun carry license “Proper Cause” requirement in New York on June 23, 2022, in the third landmark Second Amendment case, NYSRPA vs. Bruen. That much is known among both friends and foes of the Second Amendment alike. And the Democrat Party legislative machinery in Albany, at the behest of New York Governor Kathy Hochul, did strike “Proper Cause” from the State’s Handgun Law, the Sullivan Act.But a comprehensive set of amendments to the Law did nothing to weaken the import of the Act.Hochul and Albany simply rejiggered it, leading immediately, and unsurprisingly, to a new round of challenges.But what accounts for this brazenness of the New York Government? And why is it fair to say the recent set of Amendments to New York’s Handgun Law (the Sullivan Act) is no less in conflict with the right codified in the Second Amendment, after Bruen, than before the Bruen decision?As we argue, the Amendments to the Handgun Law, “The Concealed Carry Improvement Act” of 2022 (“CCIA”), negatively impact not only the Second and Fourteenth Amendments but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Bill of Rights as well.Moreover, for holders of valid New York concealed carry licenses prior to Bruen, the Amendments to the Handgun Law do not secure acquiring a renewal of their concealed handgun carry license any easier, but create new hurdles for those licensees, no less so than for new applications for concealed carry licenses.And, for those individuals who do acquire a valid New York concealed handgun carry license under the CCIA, its usefulness is jeopardized.Prior to Bruen, the State had established two tiers of concealed handgun carry licenses: Restricted and Unrestricted. That distinction no longer exists. The CCIA collapses the two tiers. Henceforth, all concealed handgun carry licenses are now, in effect, “Restricted.”What is going on here? How has the New York Government come about?One must dig deep into Bruen for an answer, and that analysis must extend to Heller and McDonald. For the three landmark Second Amendment cases operate in tandem.

THE NEW YORK GOVERNMENT HAS EXPLOITED WEAKNESSES IN THE BRUEN DECISION

The New York Government has exploited weaknesses in the rulings and reasoning of Bruen and in the parent Heller and McDonald cases.Consistent with our prior analyses, we continue to delve deeply into U.S. Gun Law.In this and subsequent articles, we unpack and decipher the language of the three seminal 21^st Century Second Amendment cases to gain an understanding of the weaknesses and flaws that have allowed State Government foes of the Second Amendment to flaunt the High Court rulings.Sometimes these Government schemes demonstrate adroitness and cunning. At other times the schemes show ineptitude, appearing crude and amateurish. No matter. Foes of the Second Amendment illustrate, through their actions, unmitigated Government contempt for theArticle III power of the Third Branch of Government, a marked disdain for the natural law right to armed self-defense, and outright hatred toward Americans who exhibit a marked intention to keep and bear arms, consistent with the right guaranteed to them by eternal, immutable Divine Law, albeit contrary to transitory, ever-changing international norms.  High Court rulings do not and cannot transform innate and open hostility toward the Second Amendment, harbored by and exhibited by the legacy Press; a plethora of native Anti-Second Amendment interest groups; the Biden Administration and its toady functionaries; Democrat Party-Controlled State Governments; International Marxist-Communist, and Neoliberal Globalist influences; the fixtures of the EU and UN; the Nation's Political liberals, Progressives, and Radicals among the polity; and international-sponsored NGOs.Reason doesn't factor into the equation. Those forces hostile to the very existence of the Second Amendment remain so. The hostility is attributed to and engendered by the agenda of the Globalist Billionaire Class the goal of which is to bring to fruition a neo-feudalistic corporatist Globalist economic, and financial empire, around which a one-world socio-political Government is to be constructed, through which the Hoi Polloi of the world, amorphous billions, are to be ruled with an iron fist, keeping them corralled and constrained.Constitutions of individual nation-states, especially those of the U.S. that embrace God-Given natural law, beyond the lawful authority of any Government to tamper with, are antithetical to The Globalist end-game. And, so, the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are deemed both dangerous and irrelevant.Yet, the salient job of the U.S. Supreme Court is to preserve the import and purport of the U.S. Constitution by interpreting the plain meaning of it as drafted, and, in so doing, constrain malevolent or opportunistic forces that would manipulate the Constitution to serve an agenda at odds with it, whose unstated goal, as has become increasingly apparent, amounts to the wholesale destruction of a free Republic and the Nation’s sovereign people. It need hardly be said, let alone argued, that decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are not and ought not to be determined by popular opinion. Inferring the plain meaning of the Constitution, the decisions of the Court are not to be shunted aside due to the fervor of the moment. In any event, public opinion is fickle; easily manipulated. The public, much of it, is easily roused to anger. Now a mob, it is whipped into a frenetic, frenzied rage through the launching of industry-wide propaganda campaigns— elaborate psychological conditioning programs, blanketing the entire Nation. It is in this climate of induced fear and rage toward firearms and toward those of us who intend to exercise our fundamental, unalienable, immutable, eternal right to armed self-defense that the U.S. Supreme Court operates and must navigate in and through, never losing sight of one axiomatic principle enunciated by John Marshall, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, over two centuries ago in the landmark case Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137 (1803). All first-year law students come to know this case.

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. 

So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.”

See also, the article, The Court and Constitutional Interpretation, on the High Court's website:

“When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.Chief Justice Marshall expressed the challenge which the Supreme Court faces in maintaining free government by noting: ‘We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding . . . intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.’” This suggests the High Court should never be tentative, circuitous, or vague in its opinions, especially when dealing with the Bill of Rights.Alas, that normative commandment is less objective practice and more unattainable goal. The elusiveness of it is due more likely to stormy conditions in the Court itself, among the Justices, that require them,  at times, to pull their punches.

THE PROBLEM WITH BRUEN RESTS NOT WITH THE RULINGS BUT WITH A  LACK OF CLARITY DUE POSSIBLY TO THE MACHINATIONS OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE (?)

The problems attendant to Bruen rest not with the rulings themselves, but with abstruseness; a lack of clarity. The authors of Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, could have closed the loopholes. They didn’t.But the fault does not lie with the late, eminent Justice Antonin Scalia, author of the Heller Majority Opinion, nor with Justice Samuel Alito, author of the McDonald Majority Opinion, nor with Justice Clarence Thomas, author of the Bruen Majority Opinion.The fault, more likely than not, rests with Chief Justice Roberts. Conscious of the political headwinds, and desirous to establish a modicum of common ground between the two wings of the Court, he likely had demanded watered-down versions of the Majority Opinions.Were Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas given free rein, they would have denied to State Government actors and their compliant Courts, an escape route, however narrow, allowing these foes of the Second Amendment to concoct mechanisms to skirt the Heller, McDonald, and Bruen rulings and reasoning that supports those rulings.

A CONUNDRUM RESTS AT THE HEART OF BRUEN AND HELLER AND MCDONALD

On a few major findings, the three landmark cases were patently clear.Heller held firmly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia, and the Federal Government is prevented from disturbing that right. McDonald made clear the rulings and reasoning of Heller applied with equal force to the States. Bruen made clear the individual right to armed self-defense isn’t confined to one’s home but extends to the public domain.At each step, the three LandmarkSecond Amendment cases strengthened, in turn, an aspect of the plain meaning of the natural law right to armed self-defense, drawing upon and building upon and then clarifying a central plank of the predecessor case.The foes of these Landmark cases contested findings of law and fact. The arguments invariably began with a false premise: that the U.S. Supreme Court has impermissibly expanded the right embodied in the Second Amendment. The High Court did no such thing. It expanded nothing.The High Court simply laid out what exists in the language of the Second Amendment but that some State Governments fail to recognize or know but fail to acknowledge. And, in their actions, these Governments contort and distort, and inexorably weaken the clear, concise, and categorical meaning of the natural law right codified in the Second Amendment.The central thesis of the latest Landmark case, Bruen is this:

WHETHER AT HOME, OR IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE, A PERSON HAS A FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO DEFEND ONE’S LIFE WITH THE FUNCTIONALLY BEST MEANS AVAILABLE, A FIREARM, A FACT TRUE CENTURIES AGO, AND NO LESS TRUE TODAY.

And, yet there exists a conundrum, a problem, a painful shard embedded in the heart of Bruen—a  carryover from Heller—that begs for resolution in a fourth Second Amendment case that likely is coming down the pike: Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, another New York case.That case is the progeny of an earlier case, Antonyuk vs. Bruen—the first major challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court case, NYSRPA vs. Bruen.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, amenable to the allegations made attacking the legality and Constitutionality of New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act, dismissed the case without prejudice, tacitly, but unsubtly, encouraging the Plaintiff, Ivan Antonyuk to refile the case.New York Governor Hochul, apparently oblivious to the fact that the dismissal of Antonyuk vs. Bruen did not mean the Court found the CCIA Constitutional, pompously reported the District Court’s action as a win. She should have saved her breath. She would have looked less the fool.The Plaintiff, Ivan Antonyuk, promptly filed a new complaint, and five other holders of valid New York concealed handgun carry licenses joined him as Party Plaintiffs. During the litigation of the case, the Parties filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction to stay enforcement of the CCIA, and the District Court granted the Motion.The Hochul Government appealed the Injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Appellate Court reversed the District Court’s granting of the stay, and the Plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. In an unconventional request for a response from the Government to the Plaintiffs’ appeal, the Hochul Government filed its opposition to the lifting of the stay of enforcement of the CCIA case—eventually, recaptioned Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli—and the High Court, in deference to the Second Circuit, did lift the stay, permitting the Government to enforce the CCIA while the Second Circuit rules on the Preliminary Injunction.Having received what it wanted from the High Court and knowing or suspecting the core of the CCIA would likely be overturned on appeal of a final Order of the Second Circuit, the Hochul Government would have every reason to dawdle.The High Court, aware of this, cautioned the Government against this, in its Order, stating that that the Government must proceed apace with the case, and explicitly asserting that Plaintiffs can appeal to the High Court if the Government deliberately drags its feet.Yet, months later, the case, Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, still sits at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

A TENSION EXISTS BETWEEN THE DICTATES OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND LANDMARK RULINGS OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ON THE ONE HAND, AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE INTENT OF THOSE STATE GOVERNMENTS, THAT ABHOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT, TO OPERATE IN DEFIANCE OF THE DICTATES OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND LANDMARK RULINGS OF THE U.S. SUPREME

State Governments—like New York and others—that abhor exercise of the right embodied in the Second Amendment—will continue to enact Statutes spurning the High Court’s rulings until the Court deals with this conundrum.The central premise of Bruen is that the right to armed self-defense, inherent in the language of the Second Amendment, is not bounded in space or time.A person need not, then, present a reason to carry a handgun for self-defense in public. Self-defense is reason enough, and that reason is presumed in a person’s application for a carry license.It was the presumption of “May Issue” jurisdictions that an applicant for a handgun carry license must show the need for a handgun carry license that the U.S. Supreme Court attacked head-on.Justice Thomas, writing for the Majority in Bruen, said this:  “New York is not alone in requiring a permit to carry a handgun in public. But the vast majority of States—43 by our count—are shall issue’ jurisdictions, where authorities must issue concealed-carry licenses whenever applicants satisfy certain threshold requirements, without granting licensing officials discretion to deny licenses based on a perceived lack of need or suitability. Meanwhile, only six States and the District of Columbia have ‘may issue’ licensing laws, under which authorities have discretion to deny concealed-carry licenses even when the applicant satisfies the statutory criteria, usually because the applicant has not demonstrated cause or suitability for the relevant license. Aside from New York, then, only California, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey have analogues to the ‘proper cause’ standard. All of these ‘proper cause’ analogues have been upheld by the Courts of Appeals, save  for the District of Columbia’s, which has been permanently enjoined since 2017. Compare Gould v. Morgan, 907 F. 3d 659, 677 (CA1 2018); Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81, 101 (CA2 2012); Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 440 (CA3 2013); United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F. 3d 458, 460 (CA4 2011); Young v. Hawaii, 992 F. 3d 765, 773 (CA9 2021) (en banc), with Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F. 3d 650, 668, 431 U.S. App. D.C. 62 (CADC 2017).” [Bruen, Majority Opinion]Justice Thomas says Appellate Courts have upheld “May Issue” in six which include New York and the District of Columbia. What Justice Thomas doesn’t say but suggests is that “May Issue” is henceforth unconstitutional in all those jurisdictions because those jurisdictions embrace a“Proper Cause” schema even if the precise phrase, ‘Proper Cause,’ isn’t used in those “May Issue” in the handgun laws of those jurisdictions.Moreover, insofar as the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in those jurisdictions have heretofore held “May Issue” Gun Laws Constitutional, the holdings of those Courts are henceforth overruled to the extent they conflict with Bruen. That means the reasoning in conjunction with and supporting those holdings is to be given no effect.A showing of “Extraordinary Need” is the mainstay of “Proper Cause”/“May Issue.” But, as to what had heretofore constituted this “Proper Cause”/“Extraordinary Need” was never defined in New York Statute. So, then, what is this thing, “Proper Cause?” How does New York define ‘Proper Cause’ since the Legislature never defined it?“No New York statute defines ‘proper cause.’ But New York courts have held that an applicant shows proper cause only if he can “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.” E.g., In re Klenosky, 75 App. Div. 2d 793, 428 N. Y. S. 2d 256, 257 (1980). This ‘special need’ standard is demanding. For example, living or working in an area “‘noted for criminal activity’” does not suffice. In re Bernstein, 85 App. Div. 2d 574, 445 N. Y. S. 2d 716, 717 (1981). Rather, New York courts generally require evidence ‘of particular threats, attacks or other extraordinary danger to personal safety.’ In re Martinek, 294 App. Div. 2d 221, 222, 743 N. Y. S. 2d 80, 81 (2002); see also In re Kaplan, 249 App. Div. 2d 199, 201, 673 N. Y. S. 2d 66, 68 (1998) (approving the New York City Police Department’s requirement of “‘extraordinary personal danger, documented by proof of recurrent threats to life or safety’” (quoting 38 N. Y. C. R. R. §5-03(b))).’”It was, then, left up to the various Licensing Authorities in New York to construct operational rules for “Proper Cause”/“Extraordinary Need.”The expression, ‘Proper Cause,’ means ‘Special Need.’ And the expression, ‘Special Need’ means that an applicant for a concealed carry license must establish a reason for carrying beyond simple ‘self-defense.’A demand that a prospective concealed carry licensee convince the licensing authority that his need arises from an “Extraordinary Need,” i.e., a need beyond that faced by most people is what New York and similar “May Issue” jurisdictions demand. And it is this the U.S. Supreme Court finds both incongruous and repugnant under both the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.Justice Thomas points out that “May Issue”/“Proper Cause”/“Extraordinary Need”—all allude to the fact that the Government licensing authority may exercise discretion in issuing a handgun license. This wasn’t a feature of New York’s Handgun Law Licensing Statute when the State Legislature enacted the Sullivan Act in 1911. “Magistrate” (i.e., Government Authority) discretion in issuing a carry license came about a couple of years later.“In 1911, New York’s ‘Sullivan Law’ expanded the State’s criminal prohibition to the possession of all handguns—concealed or otherwise—without a government-issued license. See 1911 N. Y. Laws ch. 195, §1, p. 443. New York later amended the Sullivan Law to clarify the licensing standard: Magistrates could ‘issue to [a] person a license to have and carry concealed a pistol or revolver without regard to employment or place of possessing such weapon’ only if that person proved “good moral character” and ‘proper cause.’ 1913 N. Y. Laws ch. 608, §1, p. 1629.” [Bruen, Majority Opinion] Through the passing years and decades, New York added more requirements, further constraining the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.The history of New York’s Sullivan Act illustrates a consistent and systematic course of action by foes of the Second Amendment to frustrate efforts by those individuals who desire to exercise their fundamental right to armed self-defense.  Eventually, as the trend toward ever more elaborate, convoluted, and oppressive amendments continued, the Handgun Law came to embrace several categories or tiers of handgun licensing and became increasingly difficult to decipher.New York’s Courts stamped their imprimatur on these Government actions, opining disingenuously, ludicrously that New York Law did indeed recognize a right of the people to keep and bear arms, but that exercise of that right required the acquisition of a license, and applicants had no right to demand a license of the Government. The Courts stated the obvious—that issuance of a license is a privilege, not a right, and one the New York Government reserved, to itself, the right to bestow or not, and to rescind once bestowed, as a matter of right.Americans who resided or worked in New York had had enough and challenged the legality and constitutionality of the State’s handgun law.  The process of obtaining a New York concealed handgun carry license is especially difficult demonstrating the Government’s callousness toward gun owners and its utter disdain for those civilian citizens who deign to exercise their natural law right to armed self-defense.“A license applicant who wants to possess a firearm at home (or in his place of business) must convince a ‘licensing officer’—usually a judge or law enforcement officer—that, among other things, he is of good moral character, has no history of crime or mental illness, and that ‘no good cause exists for the denial of the license.’ §§400.00(1)(a)-(n) (West Cum. Supp. 2022). If he wants to carry a firearm outside his home or place of business for self-defense, the applicant must obtain an unrestricted license to ‘have and carry’ a concealed ‘pistol or revolver.’ §400.00(2)(f ). To secure that license, the applicant must prove that ‘proper cause exists’ to issue it. Ibid. If an applicant cannot make that showing, he can receive only a ‘restricted’ license for public carry, which allows him to carry a firearm for a limited purpose, such as hunting, target shooting, or employment. See, e.g., In re O’Brien, 87 N. Y. 2d 436, 438-439, 663 N. E. 2d 316, 316-317, 639 N.Y.S.2d 1004 (1996); Babernitz v. Police Dept. of City of New York, 65 App. Div. 2d 320, 324, 411 N. Y. S. 2d 309, 311 (1978); In re O’Connor, 154 Misc. 2d 694, 696-698, 585 N. Y. S. 2d 1000, 1003 (Westchester Cty. 1992).” [Bruen Majority Opinion]Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that demonstration of “extraordinary need” for carrying a handgun in public for self-defense, heretofore inextricably tied to “Proper Cause”/“May Issue”,  is unconstitutional. The Court articulated this point clearly and categorically. But, having taken this action, the Court stopped. It did not take the next logical step. It did not deal with the issue of “May Issue” Handgun Licensing itself.And that is why Bruen leaves us with a disheartening quandary; a diluted, seemingly equivocal opinion, as also occurred in Heller. The Hochul Government recognized this as a weakness in Bruen, and her Government ran with it.This must have frustrated Justice Clarence Thomas, author of the Bruen Majority Opinion, along with Justice Samuel Alito, author of the McDonald Majority Opinion.No doubt the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, author of the Majority Opinion in the parent Heller case would register his own frustration and indignation at repeated attempts by some on the High Court, to inhibit the citizenry’s exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense.The basic problem with the Bruen decision, and the source of the quandary, goes to the High Court’s handling of “May Issue” licensing.The Justices must have known that lukewarm handling of “May Issue” would provide the Hochul Government with a loophole—just enough, perhaps—to allow the Government to slither around the fundamental right of the people to armed self-defense at home and in the public arena.Drilling down the problem with“May Issue,” we proceed to the legitimacy of handgun licensing itself.

IS STATE GOVERNMENT “MAY ISSUE” HANDGUN LICENSING CONSTITUTIONAL?

Is the practice of “May Issue” handgun licensing constitutional? This is the source of our inquiry here. It is a question that the U.S. Supreme Court must at some point contend with. We hope it does so, and in short order, in the next major Second Amendment case to come before it.In Bruen, the Court Majority doesn’t deal head-on with the matter of the legitimacy, legality, and Constitutionality of Government “May Issue” Licensing of firearms generally and with handguns particularly. The Court touches upon it, tentatively acknowledging the problem, noting that very few States, including New York, and the District of Columbia, are “May Issue” jurisdictions, but does not pursue it. This, to our mind, is a major failing of the case.That failing, a major and pervasive one, and one longstanding, going back fifteen years to Heller, has provided jurisdictions like New York, and others, with a path through which they not only are able to salvage draconian handgun licensing schemes but to strengthen them—all this despite the prominence and impact of Heller and Bruen that would seem at first glance to have closed all loopholes, demanding compliance.It is curious that obtaining a New York “restricted” handgun license for, say, hunting or target practice, is a relatively easy endeavor, at least in comparison to the hoops a person has had to jump through to acquire a concealed handgun “FULL CARRY” License. New York may be construed as a “SHALL ISSUE” jurisdiction apropos of restricted home or business premise licenses. In other words, so long as the applicant does not fall under a disability established in Federal Law, 18 USCS § 922, (and the State embellishes those, making it even more difficult to overcome the disability provisions set forth in the Penal Code), the State licensing authority would issue a restricted handgun premise license. Generally, if the applicant did not meet the State's stringent “PROPER CAUSE”/“EXTRAORDINARY” (“SPECIAL”) NEED” requirement, sufficient to acquire a restricted or unrestricted concealed handgun carry license, the licensing authority would inquire of the applicant if he would accept a highly restrictive handgun premise license in its stead. That would, at least, avoid the need for the applicant to go through substantial time, effort, and expense necessary to reapply for a premise handgun license. And THAT would be the extent of the New York Government's concession to a person who wishes to exercise his right to armed self-defense under the Second Amendment. The only requirement for one to obtain a limited use premise license is that a person isn’t under a disability which would entail automatic denial from legally possessing a firearm at all.Acceding to issue HIGHLY RESTRICTED, LIMITED USE HANDGUN LICENSES amounts to a booby prize. To this day, notwithstanding the Bruen rulings, New York remains a “MAY ISSUE” jurisdiction.The New York State Legislature has made the acquisition of a concealed carry license an extraordinarily difficult endeavor traditionally, and so it remains today. New York disincentivizes the acquisition of concealed handgun carry licenses post-Bruen, as it has done pre-Bruen. The process is lengthy, costly, and time-consuming. That doesn’t bother Associate Justice Steven Breyer. He feels acquisition of a handgun carry license should remain difficult, the reason articulated predicated on the prevalence of violent crime in society.He reminds the target audience of a connection between handguns and violent crimes that he and other foes of the Second Amendment invariably draw:“Consider, for one thing, that different types of firearms may pose different risks and serve different purposes. The Court has previously observed that handguns, the type of firearm at issue here, ‘are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home.’ District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 629, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). But handguns are also the most popular weapon chosen by perpetrators of violent crimes. In 2018, 64.4% of firearm homicides and 91.8% of nonfatal firearm assaults were committed with a handgun. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, G. Kena & J. Truman, Trends and Patterns in Firearm Violence, 1993-2018, pp. 5-6 (Apr. 2022).” [Breyer, Dissenting Opinion in Bruen]What is interesting about this argument—one routinely made by foes of the notion of civilian citizen armed self-defense—is the implication derived therefrom.The implication is that the lowest common denominator of society—inhabited by the common criminal opportunist, the psychopathic killer, and the psychotic maniac (all of whom Democrat-Party-Controlled Governments allow to run amok), and at times, here and there, the atypical, careless, irresponsible, but otherwise law-abiding, rational adult—should dictate firearms’ policy negatively impacting exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense for the rest of us: tens of millions of the common people, i.e., responsible, sane, trustworthy, law-abiding Americans. Who are these Americans? Roughly a third of the Country, over 80 million Americans. See, e.g., American Gun Facts.There are proven ways to deal with the lowest common denominator of society. Get them off the streets and into prisons or institutions for the criminally insane. But those Americans who consider themselves “Liberals” or “Progressives” and who are, as a group, antagonistic toward the very notion of a natural law right to armed self-defense, focus their energies on curbing or curtailing the right to armed self-defense of the vast commonalty—using a sledgehammer rather than a surgical knife to deal with violent crime posed by a small but virulent element of society.This suggests that intractable violent crime is but a pretext for the accomplishment of a goal: disarming the citizen. One wonders: Is it a pervasive violent crime that motivates Anti-Second Amendment sentiment among those who seek to eliminate the exercise of the right to armed self-defense, or is it something else, something much different: the threat that the armed citizenry poses to an Authoritarian Government? Is it not the latter, rather than the former that motivates and drives the Government to disarm the American public en masse?Justice Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, discussed tyranny but there is nothing in that discussion to cement as a rationale for the “individual right to keep and bear arms” holding—what Justice Scalia points out to be the key point of the Second Amendment for the framers of the Constitution—that the Second Amendment is the final “fail-safe” to prevent or, at least, to forestall the onset of tyranny. Rather, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is tied to a notion of armed self-defense against the criminal element. Thus, the Heller rulings operate as a counterweight to the dissenting opinions' arguments that guns should be removed from civilian citizens precisely because they are often utilized by criminals and lunatics, suggesting erroneously, that the way to prevent Gun Violence from thousands of psychopathic criminals and psychotic maniacs, whom the political and progressive elements in society are loathed to deal effectively with, is to remove guns from the hands of everyone else: approximately a third of the Nation, one hundred million law-abiding, rational, responsible, American citizens. But then, it is this armed citizenry—upward of one hundred million Americans—whom the Anti-Second Amendment contingent of the Country and one-world-government proponents are really targeting.Tyranny is what the world empire builders have sought for decades and what they intend to accomplish, for that is what a world government means. And the armed citizenry—that which is nonexistent in CCP China and Russia, the EU and in the British Commonwealth Nations, and in almost every other nation or political grouping of nations on Earth, save for Switzerland and Israel—is the one definitive preventive medicine to Tyranny. Our Constitution’s framers knew that. They fought a war over it. And, but for the force of arms, this Nation today would still, more likely than not, still be under British rule, a part of the British Commonwealth.  With the truth of this as a given, all talk of “Gun Violence” is to be perceived as a deflection—a “dodge,” irrelevant. True “Criminal Violence”—if there is any import to the expression equates with “Tyranny.” Armed self-defense against predatory animal and man is understood and need not be stated.The Second Amendment directs one’s attention to the threat to a free people as a whole—a dire threat, posed by Predatory Government. Justice Scalia undoubtedly recognized it. And, in Heller, he surmised that future scholars of U.S. case law would see in the Heller decision that the case is a doctrinal essay on the rationale for the Second Amendment, and, thus, for the central holding—the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, qua the armed citizenry, as necessary for the security of a Free State: Tyranny Thwarted only through the continued existence of the armed American citizenry.It is that idea that is both repugnant to and frightening too and therefore intolerable to those forces both within this Country and outside it, who understand, in these three cases, Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, a direct assault on their goals and initiatives. Those goals and initiatives are directed at eliminating, not safeguarding, preserving, and strengthening the Bill of Rights—especially the natural law right to armed self-defense.This natural law right to armed self-defense is tied to the right of free speech, i.e., the right of the individual TO BE individual: the natural law right of the individual to dissent from Government dictates and mob rule and societal pressures that compel uniformity in thought and conduct; that demand obedience; demand the surrender of one’s will to the will of the “Greater Society,” to the will of “The Hive.”  Those forces that crush entire nations and populations into submission view the U.S. Supreme Court’s 21^st Century Second Amendment rulings in Heller, McDonald, and now Bruen, as an unacceptable and intolerable assault on what they wish to achieve: a Neoliberal Globalist empire. These forces perceive the Nation’s Bill of Rights as anachronistic, antagonistic, and antithetical to that goal. Individual thought and an armed citizenry cannot coexist in such a reality. Thus, the goals and policy initiatives in vogue today are employed to drive a wedge between the American people and their history and heritage, culture, and ethos. The aims of these forces are directed at eliminating, not preserving and strengthening, the Bill of Rights—especially the natural law right to dissent and to armed self-defense. The New York Government has long resided in the camp of these Globalist, world empire builders.The New York Government under Governor Kathy Hochul—and before her, Andrew Cuomo—is virulently opposed to civilian citizens carrying handguns in the public domain for personal defense.The New York Government, with the assistance of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, weathered the previous challenge to the Sullivan Act and New York City handgun rules, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, et.al. v. The City Of New York, 140 U.S. S. Ct. 1525 (2020), but that case dealt only with the constitutionality of certain restrictions on the use of a restricted New York City premise license. The State and the City modified the Handgun Statute and the City modified the Rules of the City of New York to avoid a possible attack on the core of the Sullivan Act, involving the carrying of a handgun concealed in New York. The core of the Sullivan Act, though could not be avoided in Bruen. For, the legitimacy, the legality, the constitutionality of the core of the Sullivan Act was at issue.The Hochul Administration and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany attempted an end-run around Bruen by complying with a superficial aspect of the Bruen holding. The High Court held that,“New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.”So, then, if the High Court found “Proper Cause” to be problematic, the Government would strike the words, “Proper Cause” from the Sullivan Act—which turned out to be a superficial genuflection. The Hochul Government thereupon bolstered the “Good Moral Character” requirement of the Gun Law that the High Court mentioned in a cursory fashion in Bruen but did not remonstrate against because “Good Moral Character” had not functioned as anything more than a makeweight. It did not factor substantively into the equation whether the New York Handgun Licensing Authority would issue a person a concealed handgun carry license. What does that mean? How does the Licensing Authority process an application for a concealed handgun carry license in New York? The process of issuing a concealed carry license in New York, prior to Bruen, involved a two-step process. First, the licensing official determined whether the applicant falls under a disability that precludes that person from possessing a firearm at all.If the applicant falls into a category of disability as set forth in the “Crimes and Criminal Procedure” Section of Federal Law, Title 18, Part I (“Crimes”) Chapter 44 (“Firearms”), then that person is incapable of legally possessing any firearm.18 USCS § 922 sets forth:“(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;(2) who is a fugitive from justice;(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;(5) who, being an alien—(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;(8) who is subject to a court order that—(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; [and](n) It shall be unlawful for any person who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm or ammunition or receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”In the letter of denial, the licensing officer will state the basis for denial and add that in the License Officer’s judgment the individual does not satisfy the “Good Moral Character” requirement. The words, “Good Moral Character” do not add anything pertinent to the letter of denial. For, whether mentioned or not, the applicant cannot lawfully possess a firearm under federal law, once the licensing officer sets forth the ground or grounds of federal disability and/or the State's own grounds, which build on the Federal grounds of disability. For example, the New York Handgun Licensing Officer in New York City, i.e., the NYPD License Division, has routinely denied the issuance of handgun license, whether for an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license or a restricted premise license if a person has an arrest record, even without conviction and even if the arrest or arrest and conviction occurred while the applicant was a juvenile, and the arrest or conviction record would likely be under seal, or if the individual has a history of mental illness whether or not the applicant had been institutionalized.It should be noted the NYPD License Division, for one, always denied a person’s application for any kind of handgun license if the individual had an arrest record, even sans conviction, although the denial in that circumstance could often—depending on the nature of the prior arrest or arrests, but not invariably—be overcome through an Administrative Hearing.Assuming the applicant did not fall into an 18 USCS § 922(g) or (n) category and the applicant did not seem, to the licensing officer, to have an “objective” flaw such as an arrest record, or history of mental illness, AND the applicant sought a concealed carry license, the officer would proceed to the second step, to ascertain whether that person satisfied the “Proper Cause”/“Extraordinary Need” requirement. This, traditionally, was difficult for the average applicant to satisfy, as noted, supra.Since the U.S. Supreme Court saw no Constitutional flaw in the “Good Moral Character” requirement of the Handgun Law—and as the Plaintiffs in Bruen did not, apparently object to it—the High Court did not find fault with it either, apart from mentioning it in the Bruen Majority Opinion. It was never seen as an issue demanding resolution.The Hochul Government immediately perceived the “Good Moral Character” as a useful mechanism to maintain the “May Issue” prerogative and jumped on it.After the publication of the Bruen decision, the Hochul Government went to work to transform the “Good Moral Character” Requirement into a de facto “Proper Cause”  requirement. It did this by demanding that the applicant for a concealed handgun carry license comply with a host of new requirements that had not heretofore existed in the Handgun Law.Now, under the Amendments to the Handgun Law, “current through 2023,” NY CLS Penal § 400.00(1),“. . . for a license issued under paragraph (f) of subdivision two of this section, the applicant shall meet in person with the licensing officer for an interview and shall, in addition to any other information or forms required by the license application submit to the licensing officer the following information: (i) names and contact information for the applicant’s current spouse, or domestic partner, any other adults residing in the applicant’s home, including any adult children of the applicant, and whether or not there are minors residing, full time or part time, in the applicant’s home; (ii) names and contact information of no less than four character references who can attest to the applicant’s good moral character and that such applicant has not engaged in any acts, or made any statements that suggest they are likely to engage in conduct that would result in harm to themselves or others; (iii) certification of completion of the training required in subdivision nineteen of this section; (iv) a list of former and current social media accounts of the applicant from the past three years to confirm the information regarding the applicants character and conduct as required in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph; and (v) such other information required by the licensing officer that is reasonably necessary and related to the review of the licensing application.”Requirements (i), (iii), (iv), and (v) are problematic on grounds of legality and constitutionality, and vagueness. Each one is a potential stumbling block—and this is by design.We will delve into each of these in a forthcoming article. In our analysis, we will also attempt to discern the reasoning behind each.But, for now, concerning the new “Good Moral Character” requirements (i), (iii), (iv), and (v), let it suffice to say that, since these requirements were not mandated before the Bruen decision, there is no legitimate rationale for mandating them now other than to maintain “May Issue” through the creation of a new set of hurdles to replace the loss of the “Proper Cause” requirement.These points are important. If true, this would strongly suggest, as applied to New York, that the mere act of striking the words ‘Proper Cause’ from New York’s Handgun Law doesn’t alter the subjective nature of the “May Issue” standard through which a New York licensing authority may, in its discretion, deny issuance of a concealed handgun carry license. That discretion continues to exist under the CCIA.The Legislature in Albany basically transformed the “Good Moral Character” requirement that, prior to Bruen, was essentially redundant—which is why Plaintiffs did not claim fault with it—into a new “Proper Cause” requirement with a litany of new subjective criteria that a New York handgun licensing authority has as its disposal to confound the applicant and through which that licensing authority can effectively deny issuance of a concealed handgun carry license.Although the Hochul Government was astute enough to refrain from tying this bolstered “Good Moral Character” with “Extraordinary Need,”  “May Issue” a concealed handgun carry license remains. And that is problematic.The CCIA “Good Moral Character” requirement and the “Sensitive Place” restriction provisions are two principal bases of challenge that have generated, to date, at least two dozen lawsuits in New York. Again, this could have been avoided. Apart from finding New York’s “Proper Cause” requirement Unconstitutional, Justices Thomas and Alito, along with Trump’s nominees, Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney-Barrett might have made an unequivocal pronouncement that “May Issue” handgun licensing statutes are per se illegal and unconstitutional because “May Issue” jurisdictions allow for improper use of Government discretion. But they forbore doing so.That failure led to the enactment of New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act and gave New York handgun licensing authorities the tools to continue to deny an applicant, not under a disability, from exercising his fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms. The Justices must have been aware of the problem, and they must have seen this coming. They probably realized the New York Government would recognize the weakness in the High Court’s rulings just as they did. In fact, Justice Thomas, alluded to the problem, when, he said, as we iterated, supra,“New York is not alone in requiring a permit to carry a handgun in public. But the vast majority of States—43 by our count—are shall issue’ jurisdictions, where authorities must issue concealed-carry licenses whenever applicants satisfy certain threshold requirements, without granting licensing officials discretion to deny licenses based on a perceived lack of need or suitability. Meanwhile, only six States and the District of Columbia have ‘may issue’ licensing laws, under which authorities have discretion to deny concealed-carry licenses even when the applicant satisfies the statutory criteria, usually because the applicant has not demonstrated cause or suitability for the relevant license. [Bruen Majority Opinion].So, “MAY ISSUE”/“PROPER CAUSE”/“EXTRAORDINARY” (“SPECIAL”) NEED” lives on—unconditional, unalloyed, absolute Government Discretion to continue to refuse to issue concealed handgun carry licenses, contrary to the right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense in the public domain as well as in one's home.Did Chief Justice Roberts tie the hands of Justices Thomas and Alito in Bruen, just as both he and Justice Kennedy tied the hands of Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, in the Heller case?Unfettered Government discretion reduces an intrinsic, unalienable, right into a mere privilege: To be bestowed on one or not at the whim of Government, and just as easily rescinded, if once bestowed.New York’s Governor Kathy Hochul and her Democrat Party supporters in the State Legislature in Albany have taken advantage of the weaknesses and vagaries in Bruen, to launch a scheme to keep the core structural scheme of the Sullivan Act.The Hochul Government concocted a set of unconstitutional amendments to the Sullivan Act, referred to, collectively, as the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (“CCIA”). Together with a series of other oppressive Anti-Second Amendment Statutes, the State’s Gun Law is as potent and as noxious, and as illegal as it was prior to Bruen. And so, a flurry of new lawsuits ensued.The essence of the problem here isn’t ‘May Issue’ versus ‘Shall Issue’ a handgun carry license. The essence of the problem rests with the very act of requiring a license to exercise a fundamental right in the first instance.There is something deeply disturbing and discordant with State Government requiring licensing as a condition precedent to exercising a fundamental, unalienable right.Drilling down to the bedrock, the question is:  “Is the Act of Government Handgun Licensing Legal and Constitutional, at all?” The majority of States recognize inherent Constitutional problems with licensing, and as of January 2023, most States have established “permitless carry.”The U.S. Supreme Court did not address the issue of whether Government licensing of a fundamental, unalienable right is legal and Constitutional. The Court alluded to it fifteen years ago in Heller, and once again in Bruen, last year, but that is as far as the Court went, as far as it was willing to go.But that doesn’t mean the Court condones Government firearms licensing regimes. And so, the legitimacy of State Government handgun licensing remains an open question. And jurisdictions like New York have taken advantage of the Court's failure to take firm and categorical action on this.,The tentativeness of the High Court to address this issue directly and the seeming elusiveness of the conjecture have led some jurisdictions to infer, erroneously, that gun licensing is a legitimate prerogative of the State. It is not, but that doesn’t stop foes of the Second Amendment from making the claim, anyway. And New York has made such a claim.In the New York’s “Brief in Opposition to Emergency Application for Relief and to Vacate Stay of Preliminary Injunction” in Antonyuk versus Nigrelli, pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Letitia James, Attorney General, representing the New York Government, made the blanket statement,“Indeed, this Court in Bruen endorsed shall-issue licensing regimes [citing Bruen at 2138 n.9; and Kavanaugh’s concurring at 2161-62.”But is that true? What DID the Court really say?Footnote 9 of Bruen reads, verbatim:“To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ ‘shall-issue’ licensing regimes, under which ‘a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].’ Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 442 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting). Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily prevent ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens’ from exercising their Second Amendment right to public carry. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 635, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens.’ Ibid. And they likewise appear to contain only ‘narrow, objective, and definite standards’ guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 151, 89 S. Ct. 935, 22 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 305, 60 S. Ct. 900, 84 L. Ed. 1213 (1940)—features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.”Letitia James is wrong. Moreover, her remarks are insulting.The High Court HAS NOT endorsed the notion that Government licensing of handguns is Constitutional. To the contrary, the Court acknowledges only that licensing regimes in 43 “Shall Issue” Jurisdictions will be tolerated so long as they do not offend the core of the Second Amendment right. And even there, the Court said, “we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes.”That IS NOT an endorsement of licensing. Furthermore, the Court’s remarks, in dicta, categorically exclude “May Issue” regimes such as New York, which led to the Court’s review of New York’s licensing regime in Bruen, in the first place.Justice Kavanaugh’s remark on page 2162 of Bruen, which James also cites, reiterates the points appearing in FN 9 of the Majority Opinion.A complete analysis of the three seminal Second Amendment cases requires a perusal of Justice Scalia’s remarks in Heller.Scalia made clear that concessions made to State regulation of the Second Amendment do not mean the Court acknowledges an unbridled State right to license the exercise of a fundamental right.Scalia said this:“Apart from his challenge to the handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement respondent asked the District Court to enjoin petitioners from enforcing the separate licensing requirement ‘in such a manner as to forbid the carrying of a firearm within one's home or possessed land without a license.’  App. 59a.  The Court of Appeals did not invalidate the licensing requirement, but held only that the District ‘may not prevent [a handgun] from being moved throughout one's house.’ . . . Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not ‘have a problem with . . . licensing’ and that the District's law is permissible so long as it is ‘not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.’  Tr. of Oral Arg. 74-75.  We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance  of a license will satisfy respondent's prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement.”Keep in mind the last sentence: “We . . . do not address the licensing requirement.” In other words, the issue of the constitutionality of handgun licensing, per se, remains unsettled. It is certainly important, in fact vital. By pointing to it, Scalia suggests the issue will be taken up at a later time. That time is now.The Court cannot continue to evade the central issue: Is State Government licensing of a fundamental, unalienable, right Constitutional? This issue must be addressed and must be addressed soon, and it must be addressed clearly, comprehensively, and emphatically.Foes of the Second Amendment in the States and in the Federal Government are pressing ahead with their agenda aimed at eliminating the exercise of the right to armed self-defense before the 2024 U.S. Presidential election.It no longer behooves the U.S. Supreme Court to simply review this or that provision of a State handgun law. Doing so does not get to the heart of the matter. It only results, as we have seen, in countless more brazen attempts by State Governments to intrude on one’s exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense against animals, predatory men, and, worst of all, the predatory, tyrannical Government.The Founders of the Republic, the Framers of the Constitution, did not envision the kind of wholesale unconscionable intrusion into the sovereign citizens’ exercise of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms that Americans witness and suffer today. And they certainly wouldn't endorse this idea of Government licensing prior to exercising a fundamental right, that is prevalent in many jurisdictions.These unconstitutional, unconscionable actions by State actors must stop here and must stop now.The case Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, which the Government and the Second Circuit are presently sitting on, in defiance of Justice Samuel Alito’s admonishment to the Government to avoid delay, is likely, at some point, to be reviewed by the High Court.If or when the Court does so, it should not quibble or equivocate any longer on the salient issue of the day but should deal directly with the constitutionality of handgun licensing.That is the only way to impede the inexorable erosion of our Nation’s most important Right—the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms—in the absence of which preservation of a free Constitutional Republic is impossible, and Tyranny in all its horror is inevitable and unavoidable.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

PROGRESSIVE GAME PLAN: NEUTRALIZE THE SUPREME COURT AND DISARM THE CITIZENRY

The recent scurrilous attack on Associate Justice Clarence Thomas is part and parcel of the Political “Progressives”* attempt to neutralize the independence of the Third Branch of Government, the Judiciary, and its most ardent supporter of an armed citizenry.On April 9, 2021, two years ago to this day of posting this article on the Arbalest Quarrel, Joe Biden issued an executive order, forming the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, “to examine the Court’s role in the Constitutional system; the length of service and turnover of justices on the Court; the membership and size of the Court; and the Court’s case selection, rules, and practices.”The key phrase in this executive order is “the Court’s role in the Constitutional system.”The Commission’s purpose may seem benign. It is anything but benign. Almost a hundred and thirty years earlier, Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted the same thing. Both sought to sideline and neutralize the U.S. Supreme Court.Fortunately, for the Nation, the efforts of Roosevelt and Biden came to naught.But the Biden Administration’s Progressive Globalist agenda is more extravagant and elaborate than anything dreamed up by Roosevelt and the fabricators of the “New Deal.”The Progressives’ goal of a neo-feudalistic global empire requires neutralizing the High Court and erasing America’s armed citizenry.The U.S. Supreme Court remains the only Branch of the Federal Government today that recognizes the importance of an armed citizenry to resist tyranny.In three seminal case law decisions—Heller, McDonald, and Bruen—coming down in the last fifteen years, the conservative wing majority, led by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and the late Justice Antonin Scalia, made patently clear the right to armed self-defense is an individual right and a natural law right, the core of which Government is forbidden to interfere with.But these decisions are at loggerheads with the Progressives’ desire to neuter the right of the people to keep and bear arms.In a report on “progressivism,’ published on July 18, 2007, the Heritage Foundation has described the nature of and the aims of the political, social, and cultural transformation of the Nation, using the word, ‘Revolution,’ to describe it.Progressives have since made substantial strides in undermining the Constitution and transforming America beyond all recognition.But use of the word, ‘Revolution,’ to describe this transformation is inaccurate. Rather, this extraordinary and extensive push to remake American society, is not properly a Revolution because we had our Revolution—the American Revolution of 1776—when America’s first Patriots defeated the British empire.These Patriots constructed a free Constitutional Republic, unlike anything the world has seen before or since.Having thrown off the yoke of tyranny, the framers of the U.S. Constitution, created a true Republican form of Government.This “Federal” Government is one with limited and carefully delineated powers and authority. And those powers and authority are demarcated among three co-equal Branches.The Government comes to be not by Divine Right nor by Right claimed for itself by itself. Rather, it comes into existence only by grace of the American people, who are and remain sole sovereign.Since the people themselves created the Government, they retain the right to dismantle it when that Government serves its interests to the detriment of the people, devolving into tyranny.The natural law right to armed self-defense, a right that shall not be infringed, is the instrument of last resort through which the American people maintain and retain both the legal and moral right to resist tyranny that Progressives impose on Americans. See AQ article, posted on October 1, 2021.Progressivism is a thing openly hostile to and antithetical to the tenets and precepts of Individualism upon which the U.S. Constitution rests. See, e.g., article AQ article, posted on October 6, 2018.Adherents of this political and social ideology perceive Government as sovereign over the people, turning the Constitution on its head.Progressivism is an evil perpetrated on the American people, coming into being without the consent of the governed. It seeks a Globalist “Counterrevolution” in counterpoise to the morally good and successful “American Revolution.” See AQ article posted on October 26, 2020.It is in this that the arrogant and ludicrous attack on Justice Thomas comes plainly into view.Representative Ocasio-Cortez, a Progressive Democrat, has recently brought up the subject of impeachment against Clarence Thomas pertaining to “luxury trips and outings on yachts and private jets owned by Dallas businessman Harlan Crow, according to an investigation by ProPublica . . . .” See the article published in thehill.com.She adds, in her typical hyperbolic, rhetorical fashion,“‘Barring some dramatic change, this is what the Roberts court will be known for: rank corruption, erosion of democracy, and the stripping of human rights.’” Id.Impeachment of a sitting Justice does fall within the purview of Congressional authority, but it is impractical and almost unheard of in the annals of history.The House of Representatives impeached Associate Justice Samuel Chase, in 1804. He was acquitted by the U.S. Senate in 1805 and served on the High Court until his death in 1811. Another Associate Justice, Abe Fortas, resigned under threat of impeachment, in 1969. See the article posted in history.com.Impeaching Justice Thomas in a Republican-controlled House won’t happen.Progressives try a different tack.“Sixteen lawmakers led by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., sent a letter to Roberts on Friday requesting an investigation into ‘allegations of unethical, and potentially unlawful, conduct.’” See the article in Foxnews.com.Asking the Chief Justice to launch an investigation of his brethren is pompous, absurd, lame, and bogus.Roberts will do no such thing. And this will rankle Progressives.The Third Branch of Government remains constantly, aggravatingly, tantalizingly beyond the ability of Progressives to tamper with.Unable at present to sit more mannequins like Ketanji Brown Jackson on the Court, they continue to probe for weaknesses. As a last resort, these Democrat Progressives challenge the Court’s importance, independence, and role.Progressives employ like-minded attorneys to undercut the authority of the High Court.One such attorney is Barry P. McDonald, Law Professor at Pepperdine University. In an essay, posted on The New York Times, on May 26, 2016, McDonald writes,“The Supreme Court today is both political and powerful in ways that would be unrecognizable to the framers of the Constitution. They penned a mere five sentences creating a ‘supreme Court’ and defining its jurisdiction. The judicial branch was something of an afterthought for them, because they believed that in a democracy the elected branches would be responsible for governing the country.Judicial review, in its modern sense, did not exist. As the framers envisioned it, the justices appointed to the Supreme Court would mainly interpret and apply federal law when necessary to resolve disputes involving the rights of individuals. And though the framers’ views on the court’s role in interpreting and enforcing the Constitution are the subject of debate, it seems most likely that when disputes required determining whether a federal law comported with the Constitution, the court’s interpretation was supposed to bind only the parties in the particular case — not the legislative and executive branches generally.Over time, however, and especially from the mid-20th century on, the court’s vision of its role in our democratic system changed, from dispute resolver to supreme arbiter of all matters of constitutional law, so that elected branches of government at federal and state levels were bound to accept its interpretations. The American people largely went along with this accretion of power. But they surely never anticipated that eventually, many politically charged and contestable questions — for example, whether the Constitution guarantees the right to possess guns, to have an abortion, to allow gay couples to marry, or to allow corporations to spend money to help elect our political representatives — would be decided by one unelected justice who straddled political voting blocs on the court.This is democratic folly.”And, in a follow-up article posted in the Times, on October 11, 2018, Barry McDonald, writes,“When the founders established our system of self-government, they didn’t expend much effort on the judicial branch. Of the roughly three and a half long pieces of inscribed parchment that make up the Constitution, the first two pages are devoted to designing Congress. Most of the next full page focuses on the president. The final three-quarters of a page contains various provisions, including just five sentences establishing a ‘supreme court,’ any optional lower courts Congress might create and the types of cases those courts could hear.”McDonald claims the founders relegated the U.S. Supreme Court to a subservient role in our Three-Branch Governmental structure. This is not only an uncommon viewpoint among scholars, and legally odd; it is demonstrably false.In the Federalist Papers Alexander Hamilton made patently clear that, on matters of Constitutional authority, the Legislative Branch must yield to the Judiciary.“No legislative act . . . contrary to the Constitution can be valid.  To deny this would be to affirm that . . . men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.  If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions of the Constitution. . . . . It is more rational to suppose that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.”– Excerpt from Federalist Paper No. 78, written by Alexander Hamilton and published in 1788, part of the founding era’s most important documents explaining to the people the nature of the Constitution then under consideration for ratification. See the article in constitutionalcenter.org. The article also cites to one of the Barry McDonald articles for comparison and contrast.Hamilton’s essay in Federalist Paper No. 78 is an outright repudiation of  McDonald’s remarks about the U.S. Supreme Court. See citations, supra.U.S. Supreme Court Justice, John Marshall was certainly aware of Alexander Hamilton’s remarks in the Federalist, when he drafted his opinion in Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). The case is a mainstay of Constitutional Law, taught to first-year law students and one of the most important cases in American jurisprudence.The case lays out clearly and categorically the vital role played by the U.S. Supreme Court in our Three-Branch Federal Governmental system.In no uncertain terms, John Marshall, made definitely and definitively clear that it is for the Judiciary, not the Legislature, to determine the constitutionality of Congressional Statutes. We cite below a portion of  Justice Marshall’s erudite opinion.“If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution.Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?

This is too extravagant to be maintained.”

Progressives pretend the U.S. Constitution is capable of shapeshifting. It isn’t.That doesn’t bother them, though, because they intend to eliminate the Constitution. Referring to it now, as they must, just to destroy it, and creating something novel, more to their liking—a thing subordinated to international law or edict, and subject to change as whim or chance dictates—that's what they they have in mind.In the interim, they force it to cohere to their precepts, agenda, and goals, all of which are antithetical and anathema to the Constitution, as written.In the naked attempt to knead the Constitution as if it were a lump of clay, they show their hand.Trivializing the role of the Court because they can’t easily control it and going after a U.S. Supreme Court Justice they don’t like because he defends a natural law right they don’t agree with, Progressives proclaim to all the world their shameless contempt for Nation, Culture, History, Heritage, Constitution, Ethos, Ethic, and People.They dare disparage us. Yet, it is we, true American Patriots, who rightfully ought to visit derision on them.______________________________________________*The expression ‘Progressive’ as with the expression, ‘Liberal,’ (less so with the expressions, ‘Marxist,’ ‘Neo-Marxist,’ or ‘Classical Marxist’) do not have precise and rigid definitions, due in part, perhaps, to the ubiquity and popularity of the first two terms in the Democratic Party vernacular.Most Democrats, it is here presumed, prefer use of ‘liberal’ as applied to them. And some no doubt prefer the term ‘Progressive,’ as an acknowledged more extreme version of ‘Liberal,’ and they take the label as a note of pride. See article on the website, thisnation.com.But most, if not all, Democrats avoid the appellation ‘Marxist,’ at least publicly, even if that label is most in line with their ideological beliefs, social, political, and economic, and demonstrated in their actions. They might use that expression amongst themselves even if they dare not refer to themselves as ‘Marxist’ in public and would deny the description vehemently if the label is thrust on them by an outsider. For this article, we are staying with the expression, ‘Progressive,’ as it aligns most closely with the theme of the article and apropos of references made in it.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

CHRISTIAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CHILDREN UTILIZED AS CANNON FODDER AND AS A PLOT DEVICE IN AN “ASSAULT WEAPON” HORROR FILM PSYCHODRAMA, AIMED AT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC

School shootings are rare events. But they need not happen, and should not happen. But they do happen. And the reason why is no secret. And, NO, the reason for school shooting incidents has nothing to do with too many “GUNS” in society.The reason for school shootings, as with shootings anywhere else in the Country, has nothing to do with the quantity of guns or the types of guns circulating in America, notwithstanding the fuss and furor of Anti-Second Amendment forces in Government, in the Press, or in the greater public. The reason why is simple:Guns, of themselves, “DON’T CAUSE” violence.“GUNS DON’T CAUSE ANYTHING” because, like any other implement, “GUNS CAN’T CAUSE ANYTHING.” A FIREARM IS AN INANIMATE OBJECT, NOT A SENTIENT AGENT.A firearm, be it an antique black powder musket, or modern assault rifle or submachine gun—or “assault weapon” qua “weapon of war” (expressions concocted by propagandists and subject to constant fluctuation and expansion)—have no will of their own.These implements might sit for a million years in a military armory or in one’s private abode, and, left alone, nothing would happen. They won’t sprout legs and arms and go off on a shooting spree because they aren’t sentient beings. They have no “will” to act and no ability to act. Only sentient agents CAN ACT, are capable of action, for good or naught.Yet, to hear Joe Biden, for one, go on about guns, one would think that guns are the seminal cause of criminal violence in our schools and elsewhere around the Country—A “SCOURGE” OF THE COUNTRY AND OF “GUN VIOLENCE” he has long said—as if this AWFUL “SCOURGE” is independent of the SENTIENT AGENTS, the PSYCHOPATHS and LUNATICS that use guns, or any other implement, to commit their unspeakable acts. “Get rid of Guns,” so the illogical messaging goes, “and peace and harmony will reign throughout the Land.” Nothing could be further from the truth.And, THE TRUTH IS THIS:The overwrought, pensive, incessant dwelling on “GUNS” would dissolve into nothingness like the chimera it is and ever was if Government would spend less time, money, dwelling on guns, and spend more time, money, and effort “RIDDING SOCIETY OF PSYCHOPATHIC CRIMINALS AND DANGEROUS LUNATICS”—placing and then keeping serial violent criminals in prison and placing and keeping dangerous lunatics in asylums. Then, there would be no issue about guns as a “SCOURGE” on society.But, the SCOURGE IS NOT GUNS. It is, rather, the crazed individuals permitted, even encouraged, to run amok in our Nation to terrorize innocent Americans at will.This should be obvious. The Anti-Second Amendment Biden Administration and the Legacy Press prostrate themselves to “THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR IN SOCIETY,” (those elements of no use to society and of little, if any, use to themselves) who intrude upon and trample the natural law rights of the “THE HIGHEST COMMON DENOMINATOR IN SOCIETY: tens of millions of responsible, rational, ethically minded citizens, who are the most significant part of the polity.In fact, given the present state of affairs, in this strange cultural milieu of DEI, CRT, SEL, ESG, and LGBTQIA+, the public sees the community police departments themselves handcuffed and in leg irons, underfunded or defunded, and often demoralized, and unable to provide a modicum of protection for their communities. In such a society that America, under the Biden Administration, has become, the import of the natural law right to armed self-defense is unmistakable, becoming more acute, insistent, and emphatic with each passing day.And Americans DO FIND themselves compelled to resort to armed self-defense more frequently, and they do successfully ward off the threat to life, and often without having to fire a shot because the display of a firearm is enough to deter a hardened but by no means dull-witted criminal.If an aggressor is hopped up on illegal narcotics, and undeterred by the mere presence of a firearm, a couple of well-placed gunshots renders the most maniacal assailant compliant, whereas a whistle, or pepper spray (diluted for civilian use), or a stun gun marketed for civilians, or a rap on the head with a baseball bat, or a firm command (“stay the f**k away from me”) would only tend to enrage the assailant more.Yet, the Press deliberately underreports the utility of the firearm for self-defense, notwithstanding statistical evidence to support it. See, e.g., the August 10, 2022 article by John R. Lott, Jr., titled, “The ‘Good Guys With Guns’ the FBI Stats Omit,” on RealClear Investigations.See also the March 31, 2023 in Americangunfacts. These statistics don’t lie, but, also they don’t fit the narrative of the Anti-Second Amendment Biden Administration and its friends in the Press, so these statistics are never mentioned.But, when a lunatic goes into a schoolhouse and murders children, the Government and media perk up their ears. They zero in on it, magnify it, and talk endlessly and vociferously about it.But does the Government—this Biden Administration—do this because it really cares about the plight of school children? No! The Biden Administration doesn't care about the plight of the children.Rather, a school shooting incident is the kind of event the Biden Administration exuberantly awaits and yearns for. Regardless of what the Administration says, the lives of children are not sacred and inviolate to the Administration. The public takes from the words of Joe Biden what it wants to hear, and wishes to believe, but the public is naive. The words are empty; worse they are lies.Children are viewed by the Administration as CANNON FODDER, THEATER PROPS, a PLOT DEVICE to be utilized in service to an agenda: illegal confiscation of semiautomatic weapons—weapons that are in common use by and for millions of average, responsible, rational Americans. And these Americans utilize these weapons for many lawful uses—principally, among them—for self-defense and in defense of one's family against rabid, violent assault.The Biden Administration and news organs use psychological conditioning techniques to create in the psyche of Americans a phobic reaction toward GUNS—treating the entire sordid event—Childrens’ violent deaths at the hands of a Lunatic intent on destroying innocent life, and the Lunatic, in turn, meeting a violent death through the same mechanism of destruction—are cast as a singular horrific event to overload the mind.This is the sort of event the Biden Administration and other foes of the natural law right to armed self-defense salivate over because the overarching focus and central aim is to constantly constrain and eventually eliminate civilian citizenship ownership and possession of firearms, commencing with semiautomatic firearms, encapsulated in the inflammatory, political expression, “assault weapons.” Remember Emmanuel Rahm’s Law: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”That IS the mantra of the Biden Administration. And it WAS the mantra of the Pelosi's House of Representatives.The Government and the Press prey on the horror of innocent lives lost—the lives of children lost.This type of event helps them spin a narrative of the evils of “THE GUN” as the DESTROYER of innocent life rather than as PRESERVER of innocent life. There is something archetypal in this.The Biden Administration does not permit the American public to see firearms in a positive light. The KILLER and the WEAPON become “ONE ENTITY,” inextricably linked and bound: a SINGLE instrument of Death.The matter of news reporting of the recent tragedy that occurred in a small, private, Christian elementary school, “The Covenant School” in Nashville, Tennessee, demonstrates how news coverage has evolved into an elaborate theatrical production.

THE NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL THEATRICAL PSYCHODRAMA HORROR SHOW UNFOLDS

In the film, presented to the public, through carefully drawn video vignettes and an accompanying film script, the perpetrator of the violence, the psychotic maniac, Audrey (“Aiden”) Elizabeth Hale and her “assault weapons” serve as a “TROPE,” a thematic storytelling device that drives the plot forward.The INANIMATE OBJECT, THE “ASSAULT WEAPON” bound to the ANIMATE SUBJECT, an emotional wreck of a human Being, are, together, presented as the “CENTRAL ANTAGONIST” in a carefully scripted and presented horror psychodrama.Photographs of both the person and the weaponry are presented.See March 28, 2023 article in Newsweek with sharp graphics of the firearms Hale carried into and utilized in carrying out the murders. and in Independent.co.uk.The New York Post, on March 23, 2023, shows “stills” and video of Hale shooting out the doors of the schools and walking the corridors with rifle at the ready.And see articles published in nytimes.com, independent.co.uk and cbsnews.com.The rhetorical talking points are all in service to an agenda, creating a false narrative about “guns,” using the murder of innocent children as a “plot device” to achieve a goal: Gaining Public Support for A Wholesale Ban On “Assault Weapons.”And, like all good theater, there must be a CLIMAX TO THE FILM. And there is one, here.The Nashville Metro Police provided detailed bodycam footage of the search for and takedown of Hale by an officer (a Metro SWAT Team member, perhaps?) as he methodically removes his assault rifle from the trunk of his squad car, racking the slide of the rifle as he walks determinedly, if curiously not particularly hurriedly, up to the entrance to the school, and waits patiently as an unknown party opens the door with a key. Upon entering the school other officers lead him (to clear?) several rooms of the school, all of which are devoid of the shooter, students, and staff. Apparently, children and staff had been previously shepherded out of the school.As he (and we, the audience) hear shots fired at an upper level of the school building, the officer double-times up a couple flights of stairs where yet other officers guide him to a large lobby area. It is here that he confronts the shooter, Audrey Hale, and takes the shooter out. We are not privy to the shooting itself (due to careful post-production editing of the body camera footage, ostensibly to garner a PG Rating for the film).A second officer (another METRO SWAT Team member, perhaps?) performs the coup de grâce, shooting Audrey Hale four more times, with his handgun, while standing over the fallen shooter. The actual shooting scene, too, is cut, post-production.A final “still” shows the fallen ANTAGONIST, with head deliberately obscured, body visible and contorted on the floor.The entire video camera sequence does appear to have a refined, staged look.The two officers, as with the ANTAGONIST, are demonstrably and inextricably linked with the weapons they bear (one wielding a presumably “selective fire assault rifle,” and the second officer wielding a semiautomatic handgun). See, e.g., video provided by CNN.The two police officers, Rex Engelbert and Michael Collazo, the two PROTAGONISTS in this news PSYCHODRAMA, who had neutralized the shooter, are hailed as heroes. And that’s, that! Or is it?Dis Collazo need to kill Hale? Was she already mortally wounded from Engelbert’s shots? In any event, she no longer appeared as a viable threat.Would it not have been preferable to keep Hale alive, if possible, once incapacitated. She would have some explaining to do, and better to hear directly from her, her motivations, than try to glean them from a diary or journal, news organizations pretentiously refer to as the killer’s ‘manifesto.’ See Newsweek article for one.Collazo could have kicked her rifle away from her hands if she were still grasping it.Reuters recounts the following:“‘Shots fired, shots fired, move,’ Collazo says before joining Engelbert and the other officer in confronting the shooter.With the perpetrator on the floor, Collazo presses forward to take the final four shots, exhorting the shooter to ‘stop moving!’There is no response from the mortally wounded assailant, as Collazo says, ‘suspect down, suspect down.’” “‘Shots fired, shots fired, move,’ Collazo says before joining Engelbert and the other officer in confronting the shooter.With the perpetrator on the floor, Collazo presses forward to take the final four shots, exhorting the shooter to ‘stop moving!’ (all the while he simultaneously appears to be shooting her).There is no response from the mortally wounded assailant, as Collazo says, ‘suspect down, suspect down.’”We now come to the narrative epilogue that lays bare the purport of the film:The rhetorical talking points are all in service to an agenda, creating a false narrative about “guns,” using the murder of innocent children as a “PLOT DEVICE” to achieve a goal: GAINING PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR A BAN ON “ASSAULT WEAPONS.”But the public is left with a seemingly daunting incompatible view of “ASSAULT WEAPONS”:THEY ARE BOTH GOOD (OR NEUTRAL) AND EVIL, DEPENDING ON THE CAMERA’S VANTAGE POINT—THE PARALLAX:ASSAULT WEAPONS IN THE HANDS OF AVERAGE CITIZENS ARE AN EVIL THAT MUST NOT BE TOLERATED; INVARIABLY LEADING TO DEATH, DESTRUCTION, AND UNMITIGATED HORROR FOR EVERYONE; BUT,ASSAULT WEAPONS IN THE HANDS OF AGENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT, POLICE OFFICERS, ARE PERCEIVED AS “GOOD” (OR, PERHAPS, AS “NEUTRAL”) PROMOTING THE PRESERVATION OF INNOCENT LIFE AND DEATH (BUT ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, AS FOR EXAMPLE WHEN AN OFFICER GOES TO THE ASSISTANCE OF SCHOOL CHILDREN, THREATENED BY A KILLER.Thus, resolution of the incompatibility of “ASSAULT WEAPON” (EVIL) VERSUS “ASSAULT WEAPON (GOOD OR OTHERWISE, AT LEAST, NEUTRAL) demands a magician’s trick, a feat of legerdemain.The messaging conveyed in the Coventry School Psychodrama is subtle—below the threshold of conscious awareness, residing in the subconscious mind.It is that GUNS qua “ASSAULT WEAPONS” are an EVIL, sometimes unadulterated, pure evil—at such time when “THE SENTIENT AGENT (A MANIACAL KILLER) murders children.But, GUNS qua “ASSAULT WEAPONS” are a (GOOD (OR AT LEAST NEUTRAL)) “NECESSARY EVIL” where another SENTIENT AGENT (THE TRAINED, CAPABLE, AND DETERMINED POLICE OFFICER) uses his WEAPON to KILL the KILLER.In other words, it takes a “SHOOTER” TO KILL A SHOOTER.” But isn’t that what armed self-defense is all about? And, if that is a commendable act for a police officer, why should that act be any less commendable if performed by the average civilian in defense of his or her life and that of one’s family?The Head of The Covenant School in Nashville, Katherine Koonce, whom one news account attributes with saving the lives of many of the school children, but at the cost of her own, as she ran directly toward the killer, Audrey Hale, had undertaken, according to the source, “active shooter training,” but the nature of that training was not provided. The author of the article, Billy Hallowell, writing for faithwire.com said he “cannot” (or would not) provide details.

THE ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND THE ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT DEMOCRAT-PARTY ESTABLISHMENT THAT INCLUDE THE LEGACY PRESS ARE FIXATED ON DENYING AMERICANS’ NATURAL LAW RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE

The Biden Administration and other Anti-Second Amendment elements treat the common people as random bits of energy that, at any time, can go off the deep end, and their tendency for violence, i.e., “GUN VIOLENCE,” must therefore be constrained.The notorious American Federation of Teachers (AFT), a politically connected organization tightly aligned with the Biden Administration, posits:“A diagnosis of mental illness does not predict gun violence,”—a true statement—but the AFT, then uses that statement to declare, “Gun control can help prevent gun violence,” implying that, because no can know for certain who will one day go off on a killing spree, the better course of action dictates disarming the public, beginning with a ban on “ASSAULT WEAPONS”—i.e., all semiautomatic firearms.Recall that Biden’s first nominee to head the ATF, David Chipman “. . . believes those tens of millions of semi-automatic rifles should be reclassified as machine guns, which would require registration with the government and the payment of a $200.00 tax stamp for every legally purchased and possessed firearm, with the potential of a 10-year federal prison sentence for those who simply kept their guns without registering them under the National Firearms Act.” See the article in bearingarms.com, posted on May 21, 2021.

WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON HERE?

The United States has this—an Armed Citizenry—both a FACT and an IDEA. The FACT and the IDEA are A Reality: insistent, resilient, and tenacious, not easily ignored or dismantled.Getting guns out of the hands of the citizenry is a physical matter—difficult enough. But, to force the public to forfeit an idea requires the Biden Administration to get inside the mind of Americans and, once inside the American psyche, to reshape it in such a way, that the psyche would willingly turn away from and forsake its natural law, eternal rights.Self-preservation is innate in all living creatures. Americans have a strong desire to protect “self” and to protect one’s offspring. Self-defense is a natural law, fundamental, eternal right. And armed self-defense is not a difference in kind. The natural law right to armed self-defense simply means that an individual has the unalienable right to utilize the most effective means available to ensure his or her life. And for hundreds of years the best means of ensuring one’s life is with a firearm.The propagandists working with and through both the Biden Administration, the Legacy Press, social media, and galvanizing a base of supporters, seduced by the fallacious rhetoric, have devised a stratagem to cajole more and more Americans to turn away from the natural law right to armed self-defense.The stratagem involves psychically weakening, fracturing the idea of “GUNS” as a mechanism for one’s self-preservation by focusing on the murder of young children by gun-wielding maniacs.But the stratagem embodies a fatal flaw that undermines one’s confidence in the seriousness of the effort.If the Biden Administration’s concern for the life and well-being of children, while attending school were truly forthright, earnest, and sincere, then the Administration would be duty-bound to encourage implementation of all measures that would best ensure the physical safety of the children while in school.What would that mean? It means the Biden Administration would encourage officials of public and private schools to harden their schools against armed attack. There are specific measures that, once implemented, would prevent an aggressor from entering a school, and possibly deter that aggressor from contemplating an attack on a hardened school. This isn’t a supposition. It’s fact.The New York Post reported that,“Police said Hale was equipped with at least two assault weapons and a handgun, and in searching her family home in Nashville, officers found detailed maps and a manifesto of the attack.‘We have a manifesto, we have some writings that we’re going over that pertain to this day,’ Nashville Metropolitan Police Chief John Drake said about the discovery.He added that Hale was ‘prepared to do more harm than was actually done,’ and that she had drawn up plans to attack another school in the area, but backed out of them because the school was too secure.” See also article in Newsweek.“Drake told reporters that ‘there was another location that was mentioned, but because of threat assessment by the suspect, too much security, they decided not to.’”Drake also said, as reported in newsweek,“. . . that Hale had come with ‘multiple rounds of ammunition’ and ‘prepared to do more damage than was actually done,’ having been stopped from carrying out further bloodshed after being fatally shot by responding officers.”We can infer from these synopses, that Audrey Hale had meticulously planned out her murder of children, and that she considered and deliberately avoided attempting to penetrate any school that she knew as secured against assault.The Police Chief points out that the quick actions of his Officers had prevented Audrey Hale from murdering more children. But, that raises the question: “Suppose well-armed resource officers, or off-duty or retired police officers, had been employed to patrol the Coventry School corridors and school grounds, would utilization of armed personnel not have prevented the killer from gaining entrance to the School, or, would they not, otherwise have stopped the would-be killer immediately had she succeeded in gaining entry into the School?Did Joe Biden get the message? Apparently not. He never mentioned the need to harden schools. It wasn’t on his radar, not in this instance or in any prior instance. And so school shooting recur. There is an immense and disconcerting disconnect between Biden's ostensible concern over school shootings, as seen through the florid language he employs, and a resolute stance AGAINST implementing measures to curtail these horrific school shootings from reoccurring from time-to-time, as inevitably they do. After the Coventry School tragedy, Biden said this, as reported in usnews.com.“It’s sick. It's heartbreaking . . . a family's worst nightmare,’ Biden said in brief remarks at the White House before beginning a planned event on women-owned small businesses.‘We have to do more to protect our schools so they’re not turned into prisons. You know, a shooter in this situation reportedly had two assault weapons and a pistol, two AK-47. So I call on Congress again to pass my assault weapons ban.’”Apart from the gaffe pertaining to “two AK-47”, Biden’s point about not turning schools into prisons alludes directly to his absolute refusal (and that of his Administration) to entertain securing schools from armed attack. (Biden doesn't know a damn thing about firearms but he would ban all of them if he could). The words, “We have to do more to protect our schools” are both telling and vacuous. They are telling because the term, ‘children,’ is noticeably absent from the declaration. It is children that need protecting, and hardening the schools against attack, serves to protect the lives and well-being of the children. And Biden's declaration is hollow and vacuous because he isn't serious about protecting children. His concern, and the concern of his Administration is directed solely to confiscation of firearms from the hands of millions, nay tens of millions, of Americans, the commoners. That one-dimensional view of school shootings is the beginning and the end of the matter for Biden and his Administration. And he rails against Congress. The Hill reports, on March 3, 2023,“President Biden on Tuesday argued that he can’t do much more to curb gun violence other than plead with Congress to act, blaming lawmakers for their lack of legislation to ban assault weapons following another deadly school shooting — this time in Nashville.”The Biden Administration won't even give lip service to hardening schools against aggressive armed assault. The Administration vehemently opposes that. And, such vehement opposition to securing schools against armed attack is particularly alarming, because securing schools against armed attack does work. In fact, as noted supra, the Nashville, Tennessee Police Chief, John Drake, pointedly asserted that Audrey Hale intentionally avoided attempting entry at another school, after consideration, precisely because she was aware that this second school was impenetrable. She was a homicidal maniac, sure. But, unlike Joe Biden, and the other puppets in his Administration, she wasn't a colossal idiot.“In Thursday's White House press briefing, Karine Jean-Pierre made the Biden administration's clearly partisan position clear regarding legislation aimed at making schools and students safer: Biden won't consider anything other than a ban on ‘assault weapons.’As Townhall reported earlier on Thursday, Republican Senators Marsha Blackburn and Bill Hagerty of Tennessee introduced the SAFE Act, a $900 million grant program to help public and private schools harden their physical security and hire veterans and former law enforcement officers as additional security and as a deterrent to assailants.But the White House, according to Karine Kean-Pierre, isn't interested in taking steps to make schools safer for the students who attend them by making it more difficult for assailants to enter the premises, introduce trained individuals who could defend schools and the students within them, or create more deterrents that could dissuade a would-be assailant from targeting schools in the first place.” See townhall.com.And there you have it: “Biden won't consider anything other than a ban on ‘assault weapons.’” This means either that Joe Biden and his Administration don't give a damn about the life of an innocent child while in school, as that child is completely dependent on a school's administration to provide for that child's physical safety and well-being, OR that Joe Biden and his Administration see that the death of a child HAS UTILITY — THAT IT Serves a useful purpose.COLDLY AND CALLOUSLY INDIFFERENT TO THE LIFE OF AN INNOCENT CHILD, OR COLDLY AND CALLOUSLY CALCULATING, PERCEIVING THE DEATH OF AN INNOCENT CHILD AS USEFUL TO SECURING AN OBJECTIVE: GAINING PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR A WHOLESALE CIVILIAN CITIZEN BAN ON "ASSAULT WEAPONS," I.E., A WHOLESALE BAN ON SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS—IN FURTHERANCE OF A GOAL: SUBJUGATION OF THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY AND DESTRUCTION OF A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC TO PAVE THE WAY FOR A NEO-FEUDALISTIC WORLD EMPIRE.THE ONE POSSIBILITY IS HORRIBLE AND HORRENDOUS TO CONTEMPLATE. AND THAT IS BAD ENOUGH. BUT, THE SECOND IS MIND-NUMBINGLY HORRIFIC, THE VERY CRUCIFIXION OF SANITY, AS THE SANCTITY AND INVIOLABILITY OF THE LIFE OF A CHILD AND THE LIFE OF ANY AMERICAN IS CONSIDERED TO BE WORTHLESS. Logically, one or the other position is the case. There is no getting around this, given WHAT JOE BIDEN AND HIS ADMINISTRATION SAYS AND WHAT THEY DO!SUCH IS THE MINDSET OF THE COLLECTIVIST—AN ACOLYTE OF AN IDEOLOGY THAT IS COMPLETELY ANTITHETICAL TO THE TENETS OF INDIVIDUALISM UPON WHICH THE BLUEPRINT OF OUR NATION, THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, IS CONSTRUCTED.This refusal to even consider hardening schools is inexplicable if Biden and his Administration are serious about protecting a child’s life. But, THEY AREN'T. That fact is clear and inescapable.The lack of empathy for the life of an innocent child is an inference to be derived from present and previous assertions made by both Biden and his Press Secretary, and those assertions put the lie to any claim that anyone who supports Trump might say: that he cares one whit about the the death of children and the heartbreak that the death of a child causes parents.The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively both about this and about the basic strategies that schools can and should implement to protect their students and staff.  See, e.g., AQ articles posted on March 13, 2018, November 17, 2022, January 30, 2023, February 9, 2023, and February 23, 2023.Biden only talks about banning firearms—those, by the way, “in common use”—those held by millions of average, responsible, and level-headed Americans. It is these firearms he refers to by the false pejorative, “weapons of war.”And from yahoo.com, we have this,“President Joe Biden said Tuesday in the wake of the latest US school shooting that most Americans think owning the types of military style rifles regularly used to carry out such massacres is ‘bizarre.’‘The majority of the American people think having assault weapons is bizarre, it's a crazy idea. They're against that,’ he told reporters at the White House when asked how to respond to the incident in Nashville, where a heavily armed former student gunned down three children and three staff before being killed by police.”What is this “majority” of Americans is Biden talking about? The only thing “bizarre” here is Biden’s comment about “AR-15 Style Rifles.” See article in Business Insider.“Around 19.8 million AR-15 style rifles are in circulation in the US, a nationwide tally that's surged from around 8.5 million since a federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004.The more recent estimate comes from a November 2020 statement by the National Shooting Sports Foundation. In the statement, its President and CEO Joseph Bartozzi called the AR-15 the ‘most popular rifle sold in America’ and a ‘commonly-owned firearm.’”See also article in Forbes. Even an attempt at a ban is ludicrous on many levels.Perhaps Biden would like to see a little Civil War? The attempt to institute a comprehensive ban on semiautomatic rifles would do just that.But more to the point, apart from this fixation of “GUNS,” why does Biden oppose securing the schools? A desire to ban firearms in the general population, while ludicrous, is not inconsistent with securing schools from an armed lunatic desirous of gaining entry for the purpose of murdering children. Yet, Biden opposes securing schools. What can possibly explain this?We can draw only one inference—one that is horrific to consider but the only plausible one that is consistent with a single-minded FIXATION ON A NATIONWIDE “ASSAULT WEAPON” BAN and “ABSOLUTE REFUSAL TO COUNTENANCE SECURING SCHOOLS FROM ARMED AGGRESSION.”Joe Biden, and his Administration and the Press, and the Democrat-Party machinery see school children as useful cannon fodder in support of an agenda: the destruction of a free Constitutional Republic and a sovereign people. And exclaiming that loss of children to “GUN VIOLENCE” is awful, but relishing the utility of their death in service to their agenda makes their disingenuous words even more noxious.The Biden Administration and other Anti-Second Amendment interests know that nothing stokes the public more and tugs at the heartstrings than the senseless death of a young child. If anything can encourage more Americans to get onboard with mass confiscation of a popular firearm for self-defense, it is the senseless death of a child from a lunatic who murders a child with the instrument the Government wants to preclude the common man from possessing.The cold and callous Biden Administration knows this and uses the public's moral conscience against itself. School shootings will therefore continue because the Administration wants them to continue. The Administration is fixated on only one thing: disbanding the Armed Citizenry, the one mechanism that alone can ably resist Tyranny. Until it gets what it wants, a wholesale civilian citizen ban on semiautomatic weaponry, the Biden Administration will allow for, even encourage, school shootings to continue. The Biden Administration will do nothing to curtail school shootings. Killers get the message and willingly, gleefully, oblige Joe Biden and his Administration.And why is the Biden Administration so fixated on “semiautomatic weapons?”The Administration is fixated on those weapons precisely because they are popular with the public — See article ingunsandammo.com, — and they are useful instruments, in fact, highly effective tools for the purpose of self-defense, against creature, against an aggressor, and, most importantly (in the mindset of the Biden Administration), against Government Tyranny.The Armed Citizenry will never permit a free Constitutional Republic to fall. The Armed Citizenry has both the means and the will to resist a Government, this Government, from destroying the sovereignty of the American people over Government. That fact makes this caretaker Government and the secretive agency behind it apoplectic with rage.The life of an individual, child or adult means nothing to a TYRANT. A Tyrant’s goal is the accumulation of power in HIM or ITSELF. An armed citizenry is the bane of all Tyrants.Is the Biden Administration A Tyrant? No. Biden and those making up his Cabinet and other high offices are too stupid, inept, and craven to be considered a Tyrant. They aren't TYRANTS themselves, but they are compliant, base, and corrupt, and lust for the trappings of power, while not actually wielding power. Biden and the rest are compliant, obedient, servile tools in the employ of formidable, powerful, wealthy, malevolent, forces that are the true TYRANT.The Biden Administration is in league with these secretive, powerful, ruthless interests, operating both here and abroad. And Biden and his Administration pay homage to these forces and swear allegiance only to them.The Biden Administration is best perceived as a Governor-General in service to powerful interests that utilize the Administration, as their willing servant, to gain control/mastery over the Republic and the American people. These ruthless interests control the currency of the Nation, and are intent on confiscating the weaponry of the citizenry. With the collapse of the economy and the Nation's institutions, a new neo-feudalistic world empire can emerge. The empire envisioned has many names. The ones recently utilized are the “Liberal Rules-Based International Order,” which Anthony Blinken has referred to, and the (SOROS) “Open-Society.” If there is doubt about any of this, just focus on the recent and most formidable, disheartening, and alarming outrage:THE IMPENDING CRIMINAL INDICTMENT OF DONALD TRUMP, PAST UNITED STATES PRESIDENT, AND FRONT-RUNNER IN A 2024 SECOND-TERM BID.  A GEORGE SOROS-CONTROLLED TOADY, ALVIN BRAGG, A CRASS AND CRAVEN OPPORTUNIST WHO LIKELY HAS BEEN PROMISED THE NEW YORK GOVERNOR’S MANSION FOR SERVICES RENDERED TO HIS SECRET WEALTHY BENEFACTORS HAS BROUGHT PSEUDO-CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST TRUMP. BUT IT IS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE TRUE PATRIOTS, WHO ARE, BY EXTENSION, PERCEIVED AS CRIMINALS, WITH TRUMP.THE CRIME? FAILURE TO FORSAKE THEIR CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS, AND SOVEREIGNTY OVER GOVERNMENT, AND WILLINGLY ACCEDE TO THE REALITY OF A POST-NATION-STATE WORLD. ____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK’S “SENSITIVE PLACE” RESTRICTION IS A TRAP FOR UNWARY HOLDERS OF CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSES

In an article published in Ammoland Shooting Sports News, the NRA-ILA asserts,“Since the District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008, gun control advocates have parsed every word of Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for ways in which to continue their campaign against the Second Amendment. Relying on creative interpretations of dicta, these activists try to twist the landmark gun rights ruling into an endorsement of their anti-gun policies.An example of these efforts is on display in the NRA-supported case New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The case concerns the validity of New York’s discretionary carry licensing regime, where law enforcement is tasked with determining if an applicant has “proper cause” to carry a firearm for self-defense.”That article came out on March 7, 2022, about four months before the U.S. Supreme Court came out with Bruen.The NRA-ILA is correct. Anti-Second Amendment activists do twist legal opinions.Heller held, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”Attempting to secure a loophole, the City of Chicago said the Heller ruling serves as a limitation on the Federal Government, not the States.McDonald shot that idea down, holding “the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.”Did Anti-Second Amendment zealots accept defeat? No. It just invigorated them, even enraged them.They argued the right to armed self-defense in the home does not extend to the public arena, and energetically pushed that idea, frustrating Americans who sought to exercise their right to armed self-defense wherever they happened to be. Note: there is nothing in the Second Amendment that so much as suggests that the natural law right to armed self-defense is confined to one's home or to some specific place. The natural law right to armed self-defense goes with the man wherever he happens to be. That is basic common sense. The right of self-preservation is not meant to be applied to this or that place, but, rather, it applies to all places and at all times. The right to armed self-defense simply means that a person has the right to use the best, most effective means available to defend his life and that of his family when the need arises. And for the last several hundred years the most effective means available to defend one's life is that provided by a firearm. No one can rationally dispute that. In fact, those activist groups, individuals, and governments that rail against civilian citizen armed self-defense implicitly acknowledge the efficacy of a firearm over any other implement. It works! Compare a firearm to any other instrumentality: knife, bat, golf club, bow and arrow, bullwhip, pepper spray, mace, whistle, air horn, cowbell, arms and legs, stun guns, taser, baton, self-defense keychain, proficiency in martial arts, et cetera. Nothing else comes close in immediate effectiveness for the average person, trained in the use of a firearm for self-defense, and prepared to use it when the need arises.Associate Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, made clear:“The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’ We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.”Looking for loopholes in High Court Second Amendment rulings and reasoning has become progressively more difficult for activist Democrat-Party-controlled Governments, true. But they are a creative, resourceful, and crafty bunch.Like the Devil, they always attempt to outmaneuver and outwit the U.S. Supreme Court.The result is a constant dizzying merry-go-round of government action infringing the core of the right.And that, in turn, leads inevitably to challenges to the governmental action and to U.S. Supreme Court rulings striking down an unconstitutional action.What follows is yet more governmental action, looking for loopholes in the Court rulings that might allow for constraints on the exercise of the natural law right, and on, and on, and on. . . .In Bruen, the Hochul Government placed a ‘bug in the ear’ of the High Court.In its Brief in support of the State’s “Proper Cause” requirement, the Hochul Government mentioned the need for “Sensitive-Place”   restrictions even though, at the time, curiously, the Consolidated Laws of New York never made mention of such “Sensitive-Place” restrictions.Was this use of the expression ‘Sensitive-Place’ restriction, in the Government’s Brief, a “motif” for salvaging the State’s concealed handgun carrying regime in anticipation of a negative U.S. Supreme Court ruling?If so, did the Court see through this and hope to get the upper hand on it, or did it fall into a stratagem devised by the Hochul Government that intended to use, and did make extensive use of, this ‘sensitive-place’ motif? It isn’t clear.Justice Thomas made much of it, opining, on behalf of the Court’s majority, “Although we have no occasion to comprehensively define ‘sensitive places’ in this case, we do think respondents err in their attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a ‘sensitive place’ law. In their view, ‘sensitive places’ where the government may lawfully disarm law-abiding citizens include all ‘places where people typically congregate and where law-enforcement and other public-safety professionals are presumptively available.’ It is true that people sometimes congregate in ‘sensitive places,’ and it is likewise true that law enforcement professionals are usually presumptively available in those locations. But expanding the category of ‘sensitive places’ simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of ‘sensitive places’ far too broadly. Respondents’ argument would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense that we discuss in detail below. Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a ‘sensitive place’ simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.”This did not stop the Hochul Government. On the contrary, the Government included it in the CCIA.“Sensitive-Place” restrictions, along with a bolstered “Good Moral Character” requirement (that the Court did not address), are a mainstay of the “Concealed Handgun Improvement Act” (“CCIA”), amending the State’s Handgun Law.It would seem the Hochul Government, predicting a challenge to the CCIA, intends to reiterate the need for “Sensitive-Place” restrictions.Further, the Government plans on arguing that the CCIA’s “Sensitive-Place” prohibition complies with the U.S. Supreme Court’s concerns. But does it?One thing is clear: The Hochul Government would expect to see a sharp increase in filings for a State concealed handgun carry license, and the “Sensitive-Place” restriction provision is meant to lessen the impact of issuing a substantial number of concealed handgun carry licenses—unheard of prior to Bruen—thereby weakening the State’s Handgun Licensing regime.In fact, as of August 2022, just two months after the Bruen decision came down, The New York Times reported a 54% increase in applications for concealed handgun carry licenses.New Yorkers desirous of obtaining a concealed handgun carry license do feel they are much more likely to have their applications approved after the Bruen decision than at any time prior to Bruen.In theory that’s true, assuming they can contend with the bolstered “Good Moral Character” requirement the Court did not address, and assuming they don’t mind waiving their right under the Fourth Amendment’s freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures clause.Do applicants really believe that the acquisition of a concealed handgun carry license is a godsend? Likely they do. But is it, really?There’s a catch. There’s always a catch, and the catch now rests on this notion of ‘Sensitive-Place’ restrictions.The licensing of concealed handgun carry goes to the heart of New York’s licensing regime—going all the way back to the Sullivan Act of 1911 that started the thing.The New York Government has no intention of allowing the defeat of the machinery of handgun licensing that's been in place for well over a century—much less being itself the agent of the New York licensing regime's own destruction. The agenda of the New York Government is to make the acquisition of concealed handgun carry licenses increasingly more difficult and onerous, as time goes on, not less so. The U.S. Supreme Court rulings fly in the face of that effort. The Hochul Government zealots will not allow the U.S. Supreme Court to waylay the State's singular campaign against—and, in fact, obsession directed to thwarting—civilian citizen exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense, in New York. That explains the Hochul Government's brazen defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court along with its visible contempt for the Court's conservative majority.New Yorkers who think they now see a new golden era emerging in New York gun law matters with the publication of the Bruen decision, may be sadly mistaken. They should be a little less cheerful and gullible, and a little more watchful and reflective, regarding their expectations. In their exuberance to acquire a concealed handgun carry license, first-time applicants don’t see potential problems. But they will unless the ‘Sensitive-Place’ provision in the CCIA is struck down. At the moment the CCIA is active, and that includes the ‘Sensitive-Place’ provision. But for a couple of minor ‘Sensitive-Place’ suspensions, the CCIA is enforceable, and the Hochul Government IS enforcing it. Acquisition of a concealed handgun carry license may leave much to be desired. License holders may find that a seemingly unrestricted concealed handgun carry license is very much restricted, offering much less than what was anticipated and what was sought, and leaving the licensee vulnerable to arrest if he isn't very, very careful and mindful of where he happens to be carrying a handgun while out in public. And he must be extraordinarily careful of displaying it, always asking himself if, one, a threat to life is genuine and imminent and, two, if he is presenting a gun in a designated, non-sensitive place. At the end of the day, the licensee may be left asking himself—— “What’s the point of acquiring a license to carry a concealed handgun if I face severe constraints on where I can lawfully carry it for use in self-defense, as the need arises, and if the need is real enough to satisfy a Court of law.” In a State plagued by a high incidence of random violent assaults—especially in New York City—the need for an effective means of self-defense, a handgun is acute. See the March 27, 2023 article in the New York Post. But, when residing and/or working in a jurisdiction that abhors firearms and that maintains a jaundiced view of the armed civilian citizen, Courts will demonstrate leniency toward the depraved criminal, and throw the book at the average, responsible, rational, law-abiding citizen. Such is life and justice in New York's major cities. That explains the reason for escalating violence and the irony. The criminal remains undeterred, even encouraged to commit violence. And the innocent victim of random, violent crime, is often resigned to his fate—hoping the odds play in his favor, that someone other than him will be the victim of random violence—or trusts that his concealed carry license, if he does acquire it, will provide him, at last, the ability to avoid being the victim. But the Hochul Government is doing the licensee no favors.The New York Government may issue more concealed handgun carry licenses, sure, but licensees are now severely hampered in where they can carry it and, therefore, where they can lawfully use it if the need should arise.This means that the era of issuance of true New York “unrestricted” concealed handgun carry licenses is, at this moment in time, at an end, for all civilian citizens whether applying for a new license or for the renewal of an existing license. The impact of the issuance of more licenses serves only to dilute their utility.There is no “grandfathering in” of issuance of true unrestricted carry licenses for those holders of licenses acquired under the old “Proper Cause” standard. Every licensee is in the same boat.The holder of a freshly minted State concealed handgun carry license, under the CCIA, would do well to talk to those individuals who have heretofore held valid “unrestricted” concealed handgun carry licenses under the “Proper Cause” standard. Those days are over as long as the CCIA remains in effect.  And it remains to be seen how the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will decide Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, which involves a major challenge to the CCIA. New York has become, under the CCIA, a massive patchwork quilt of designated restrictive ‘Sensitive-Places.’ A licensee will need to carry a map, demarcating all those areas in New York where he can and cannot lawfully carry a handgun. Worse, “Sensitive-Place” restrictions are subject to amendment which means “subject to constant expansion.”This is more than problematic. It’s potentially unnerving for law-abiding New Yorkers who have newly minted concealed handgun carry licenses—especially for those New Yorkers residing and/or working in New York City. See the article in the world population review. New York City's 2023 population stands at 20,448,194, hardly an insignificant number.“Nearly 43% of New York state's population live in the 305 square miles that comprise New York City. The next largest city in the state of New York is Buffalo, with just over 250,000 residents. This means New York City is over 33 times larger than the second largest city in New York.” 

RURAL COUNTY SHERIFFS ARE NO LESS IN A BIND THAN MUNICIPAL POLICE IN COPING WITH THE CCIA

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is presently reviewing a challenge to the constitutionality of “Sensitive-Place” restrictions and other provisions of the CCIA, in the parent post-Bruen New York case, Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, and related cases.The U.S. Supreme Court, having lifted the stay on enforcement of the CCIA that the lower U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York had granted, has allowed enforcement of the CCIA during the Second Circuit Court’s review of the merits of the case.The Second Circuit had reversed the District Court’s stay of enforcement.The High Court agreed to the lifting of the stay, not because it thought the District Court was wrong in having issued it, but out of deference to the Second Circuit, as the High Court acknowledged in its Order.*Major portions of the CCIA are unconstitutional: in particular, the “Good Moral Character” requirement and the “Sensitive-Place” restriction designations. There’s no doubt about any of this. The District Court made a convincing argument for this. That was the basis for the Court’s issuance of a preliminary injunction—which is no easy thing for a party to obtain given the requirements for convincing a Court to grant one.If the Second Circuit, on review, fails to strike down those unconstitutional provisions, the Plaintiffs will appeal that negative ruling to the High Court. And the High Court will take that appeal up, as it must since the CCIA not only infringes the core of the Second Amendment, but it is a blatant affront to, and contemptuous of, the Bruen rulings.But what happens when law enforcement sees the CCIA colliding with the Bill of Rights, during the pendency of the Antonyuk case?That may not concern the State Police and major city police officers, but it does present a problem for New York’s County Sheriffs, like Fulton County Sheriff Richard Giardino. See the Arbalest Quarrel article posted on our website on March 15, 2023, and reposted in Ammoland Shooting Sports News, on March 20, 2023, we explored how Sheriff Giardino contends with a conundrum.After all, the CCIA may be “THE LAW OF THE STATE” since 2022, but the “BILL OF RIGHTS” is “THE LAW OF THE LAND and it has been so since 1791.The CCIA must take a backseat to the stricture of natural law, as codified in the Bill of Rights.Where there is a conflict, Sheriff Giardino will always follow the dictates of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, not State law. But doing so amounts to chancing to incur the wrath of the Governor. What can she do against perceived recalcitrant Sheriffs?Governor Hochul has no authority to remove rural Sheriffs, at will. For they are elected by and are therefore beholding to the people of the County that elected them.But Hochul may, pursuant to the consolidated laws of New York, bring a civil suit against a Sheriff who refuses to comply with the CCIA, claiming malfeasance in office. Such an action will bring to bear a clash between a Sheriff’s duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution versus a duty to uphold State law as ordained by the Governor._____________________________

THE “SENSITIVE PLACE” PROVISION OF NEW YORK’S CCIA IS A TRAP FOR HOLDERS OF CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSES

CONTINUATION OF INTERVIEW OF NEW YORK FULTON COUNTY SHERIFF RICHARD GIARDINO

PART TWO

Sheriff Giardino has repeatedly and pointedly asserted that when or if State law conflicts with the United States Constitution, his duty, as Sheriff, is to uphold the Constitution, which he has taken an oath to faithfully serve.He has not taken an oath to serve the interests of the State’s Governor, and there is no implicit requirement that he do so either.But then, is a given “Sensitive-Place” prohibition on lawful carry, inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution? How can a law enforcement officer know? That places the law enforcement officer in a quandary. And that is but one puzzling question to be resolved. The Sensitive-Place prohibition on the carrying of a concealed handgun raises another more obscure question.There are nuances and fuzzy areas connected with “Sensitive-Place” restrictions.In some cases what may at first blush seem to be a place where a holder of a valid concealed handgun carry license may lawfully carry his handgun turns out, on analysis, to be a “Sensitive-Place,” where a person cannot lawfully carry a handgun, after all.This places County Sheriffs in a quandary and under considerable strain.No less so it places the holder of a license in a precarious situation.That person is in danger of being cited for carrying a handgun in a “Sensitive-Place” even if this occurred innocently, and inadvertently.He then faces revocation of his license. He must surrender his handgun and any other firearms, rifles, or shotguns he may happen to possess. And he faces a serious misdemeanor charge.Sheriff Giardino’s observation provides an apt example of the problem.Although he wouldn’t take such drastic action against a person for engaging in an inadvertent slip-up, a person facing scrutiny in New York City would likely not be so fortunate.Sheriff Giardino says,“We’re not going to just arrest someone who carries concealed into a barbershop he has been going to his entire life. We’ll inform the person what the law now says and then we’ll focus our resources on actual criminals.” About carrying a handgun into a barbershop, Sheriff Giardino isn’t jesting.The ubiquity and ambiguity of New York’s Handgun Law carries over into the operation of other New York laws—creating entanglements that the average licensee wouldn’t be aware of. And many law enforcement officers may not be aware of the intricacies of the laws, either.We know. We delved into this. This is what we found——The notion of ‘Sensitive-Place’ as a legal restriction means the holder of a valid concealed handgun carry license cannot lawfully carry his handgun in a “Sensitive-Place” under the Handgun Law, codified in NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (19): “Prior to the issuance or renewal of a license under paragraph (f) of subdivision two of this section, issued or renewed on or after the effective date of this subdivision, an applicant shall complete an in-person live firearms safety course conducted by a duly authorized instructor with curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, and meeting the following requirements: (a) a minimum of sixteen hours of in-person live curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, conducted by a duly authorized instructor approved by the division of criminal justice services, and shall include but not be limited to the following topics: (i) general firearm safety; (ii) safe storage requirements and general secure storage best practices; (iii) state and federal gun laws; (iv) situational awareness; (v) conflict de-escalation; (vi) best practices when encountering law enforcement; (vii) the statutorily defined sensitive places in subdivision two of section 265.01-e of this chapter and the restrictions on possession on restricted places under section 265.01-d of this chapter; (viii) conflict management; (ix) use of deadly force; (x) suicide prevention; and (xi) the basic principles of marksmanship; and (b) a minimum of two hours of a live-fire range training course.”The expression, ‘Sensitive-Place’  as mentioned in NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (19)(vii), is defined in a new section of the Penal Code: CLS Penal § 265.01-e. The expression, ‘Sensitive-Place’  is a legal term of art, not previously defined in New York law.Subsection CLS Penal § 265.01-e (2(b)) says, “any location providing health, behavioral health, or chemical dependance care or services” is a “Sensitive-Place.”Proceeding with our inquiry, further, we ask,“Is a barbershop considered a place “providing health” services?” If so, then it comes under New York’s public health code, NY CLS Pub Health § 225. The Health Code section, NY CLS Pub Health § 225, includes all places subject to the Sanitary Code, and the Sanitary Code IS part of the Health Code.Subsection 5(A) of the Sanitary Code says, “The sanitary code may: (a) deal with any matters affecting the security of life or health or the preservation and improvement of public health in the state of New York, and with any matters as to which the jurisdiction is conferred upon the public health and health planning council. . . .”We must now determine whether New York barbershops are subject to the “Sanitary code.” They are.NY CLS Gen Bus § 436, governing barbershops exclusively, says,“All barber shops shall be maintained and operated in accordance with the provisions of the state sanitary code, except in the city of New York where the city health code shall apply, and all licensees or persons employed or engaged therein or in connection therewith shall comply with the provisions of such rules.”So, then, Sheriff Giardino is correct in his supposition/inference.Under New York law, the holder of a valid New York State concealed handgun carry license cannot lawfully carry his handgun into a barbershop. Carrying a handgun, or any firearm, rifle, or shotgun into a barbershop falls within the purview of the CCIA, even if the expression “barbershop” isn’t specifically mentioned in CLS Penal § 265.01-e (2(b)). Application of other New York State Code sections makes categorically and conclusively clear the prohibition on carrying a concealed handgun into a barbershop, notwithstanding that a person holds a valid concealed handgun carry license. A barbershop falls into the category of a restricted “Sensitive-Place.”A holder of a valid license carrying a handgun in a barbershop in Fulton County need not be concerned about an arrest, but what if that person is carrying a handgun into a barbershop in New York City, and an NYPD officer notices that? How many other little traps exist—a preponderance of “Sensitive-Places” that a holder of a valid concealed handgun carry license is unaware of and that many law enforcement officers may not be immediately aware of, also?These little snares can get a licensee in a whole heap of trouble.Sheriff Giardino knows this full well and these problems trouble him. Complex Gun laws are vexing. Often, problem areas aren’t perceptible until after these laws take effect. And, if they work against the individual who wishes to exercise his natural law right to armed self-defense, the activist Government finds that a pleasant surprise, and is perfectly content with it.The expression, ‘Sensitive Place,’ never appeared in the Consolidated Laws of New York, prior to the enactment of the CCIA. And now that it has become a fixture in the law—possibly, hopefully, subject to remedial Court action—it is something that becomes, for the Hochul Government, a useful instrument for defeating the benefit that having a valid concealed handgun license was intended to provide holder.Prior to the CCIA, holders of “unrestricted” concealed handgun carry licenses could carry their handguns in “Times Square,” but no longer because “Times Square” is now a “Sensitive-Place.”But how large is this area colloquially referred to as “Times Square?” What does the area encompass? The expression itself is now a legal term of art.NY CLS Penal § 265.01-e (2)(t) says this:“For the purposes of this section, a sensitive location shall mean: the area commonly known as Times Square, as such area is determined and identified by the city of New York; provided such area shall be clearly and conspicuously identified with signage.”So, Mayor Eric Adams and the City Government determine the size of the area—expanding it or reducing it at will, like an accordion.The CCIA is designed to keep the holder of a valid concealed handgun carry license off-balance.And, once again, an activist government’s unconscionable, unconstitutional Anti-Secondment action is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. A fourth seminal Second Amendment case is in the making with Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, and it is not likely to be the last.If the High Court is going to get a handle on this gamesmanship of activist Governments—Federal, State, or local—it must end or severely constrain government licensing. This won’t, of course, stop further attempts by Anti-Second Amendment zealots to constrain the natural law right to armed self-defense. But it’s a good start.The Court has heretofore been hesitant to take on handgun licensing schemes directly and aggressively.In Bruen, the Court began to look at New York’s unconstitutional handgun licensing regime by striking down the “Proper Cause” requirement. But that at best was merely a half-hearted attempt, likely attributable to the actions of Chief Justice John Roberts, and with the urging or connivance of the Court’s liberal wing.The Court’s conservative wing must now exert its will.Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli is likely to come before it after the Second Circuit issues its final, appealable order.Associate Justices Thomas and Alito must exert maximum pressure on John Roberts, if the opportunity presents itself, to review New York’s Handgun licensing regime straightforwardly, unswervingly, and aggressively.The Court cannot just tinker around the edges as it has done in Bruen. That only emboldens activist Governments as we have seen.The fundamental, unalienable right to armed self-defense is not subject to negotiation. The U.S. Supreme Court has a duty to give effect to the Bill of Rights as the framers of the Constitution intended.We are at a pivotal juncture in our Nation’s history. The Biden Administration has made inroads into the High Court’s independence by seating Neo-Marxist Ketanji Brown-Jackson on the Court.Her aim is that of her sponsors: to eliminate the exercise of our natural law rights. It is not to strengthen them.Do we really want to see Merrick Garland joining her on the Bench at some point—and others like those two? That could happen.What then becomes of our sacred rights and liberties in this seemingly “free Constitutional Republic.”____________________________________

*FURTHER BACKGROUND OF PARENT CASE, ANTONYUK VERSUS NIGRELLI, ON APPEAL TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Major portions of the CCIA are unconstitutional: in particular, the “Good Moral Character” requirement and the “Sensitive-Place” restriction designations. There’s no doubt about any of this. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, made a convincing argument for this in Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, which the Hochul Government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal concerned the District Court’s issuance of a preliminary injunction, staying enforcement of the CCIA, pending resolution of the case on the merits. It is is no easy task for a party to obtain a preliminary judgment under any circumstances, given the rigorous requirements that must be met before a Court will grant a preliminary injunction. The fact that Plaintiffs, present holders of valid New York concealed handgun carry licenses, were able to convince the District Court of the necessity for a stay on enforcement of the CCIA, attests to the strength of Plaintiffs’ suit against the Hochul Government and the likelihood of success on the merits. The Second Circuit reversed the District Court, that had stayed the preliminary injunction, thereby allowing the Hochul Government to continue to enforce the CCIA during the Second Circuit’s review of the case. Plaintiffs appealed the adverse decision of the Second Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court. As an interlocutory (non-final) decision of a Federal Circuit Court, it is rare for the High Court to consider a matter. But it did so here. In its issuance of an unusual non-order “request,” the High Court inquired whether the New York State Government would like to respond to Plaintiff concealed handgun carry licensees opposition to the lifting of the stay of enforcement of the CCIA. Realizing the necessity to respond, the Attorney General for the Government, Letitia James, filed a formal response, contra Plaintiffs’ opposition to the lifting of the stay. The arguments were weak, but any response, apparently, was all that the High Court needed to see. In its order, drafted by Associate Justice Alito, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the stay of the preliminary injunction to continue, asserting that this was done in deference to the Second Circuit, notwithstanding the merits of the lower District Court’s granting of the preliminary injunction in the first instance. But, the High Court cautioned the Government not to dawdle, as it would be inclined to do. The Government knows full well that the CCIA is inconsistent with the Bruen rulings and is likely to be struck down by the High Court if the Second Circuit finds for the Government, prompting the Plaintiffs to appeal a final adverse decision of the Second Circuit.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WHO IS SHERIFF RICHARD GIARDINO AND HOW IS HE DEALING WITH NEW YORK’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LAW?

[NOTE TO OUR READERS: THIS ARTICLE IS A WORK IN PROGRESS AND WILL BE EDITED AND EXPANDED UPON IN THE DAYS AHEAD]

MULTIPART SERIES

PART ONE

FULTON COUNTY SHERIFF RICHARD GIARDINO STANDS FIRM AGAINST NEW YORK’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL HANDGUN SCHEME

In the March 2023 issue of the NRA publication, “America’s 1^st Freedom,” the Arbalest Quarrel, in its daily review of publications, came across an article titled, “Shooting Straight with Sheriff Richard Giardino,” by Frank Miniter, Editor in Chief of the magazine.The NRA published the article in the form of a straightforward question-answer interview.The NRA contacted Sheriff Giardino to get his take on a pressing matter affecting law enforcement in New York: the impact of the Hochul Government’s amendments to New York’s Handgun Law, the deceptively named “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (“CCIA”), and its impact on policing.That was what NRA’s Frank Miniter wanted to know. That is what we wanted to know.The NRA said this about Sheriff Giardino:“As an elected official, Sheriff Giardino doesn’t mind being in front of the cameras. But I [the NRA Editor in Chief, Frank Miniter] also found him to be a serious and humble official. He listens. He thinks of the people first. He next thinks of his deputies and the other employees he manages. Finally, he responds based on his long experience. And he does have a lot of legal experience. Sheriff Giardino graduated in 1984 from Albany Law School. While in college and law school, he served as a part-time police officer. After law school, he was hired as an assistant district attorney in Nassau County, N.Y. In 1986, he returned to Fulton County as an assistant district attorney and, in 1991, he was elected to be the second-youngest district attorney in the state. In 1996, he was appointed by New York’s governor to be a county court judge. In this role, he was a local licensing official for concealed-carry permits in what was then a ‘may-issue’ state, but he behaved as if he was in a “shall-issue” state. He served 18 years as a judge. In that time, he tried over 200 cases, including over 40 murder or attempted-murder cases.Of course, as with anyone we interview, Sheriff Giardino’s opinions are his own. I [Frank Miniter] point this out because, as he is a county sheriff in a state run by a governor who sees the Second Amendment as a problem, Giardino does find himself in some uncomfortable legal positions. He has to abide by the state laws, but he also raised his right hand and swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and lately—again, thanks to officials such as Gov. Hochul—those two things have come into conflict. This conundrum puts him—as well as many other law-enforcement officials and citizens who simply want to exercise their rights in various states and jurisdictions around the country—in some legally problematic situations.”The “Leader-Herald” newspaper, in a January 23, 2023 article, added this about Sheriff Giardino:“Giardino, a 64-year-old Republican, first ran for countywide office in 1991. He is the only person in New York state history to have served as a county district attorney, county judge and county sheriff, having won eight consecutive countywide elections.” These articles by the NRA and the Leader Herald newspaper whet our appetite to learn more about this intriguing, and highly learned man. And so, we got in touch with Sheriff Giardino.Thinking that we intended to employ a basic question/answer interview approach, as the NRA did, we instead pointed out that we wished to engage Sheriff Giardino in an informal, open-ended conversation, as that would be less constraining and, we felt, more productive.We spent substantial time talking to him, gaining insightful knowledge from the perspective of a man who deals, on a daily basis, with the practical problems associated with the CCIA and with the problems attendant to policing.This article segment and the segments to follow are a distillation of our talks with Sheriff Giardino, presented in the context of our own work, apropos of the Arbalest Quarrel’s raison d’être: to preserve, protect, and defend the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution from all threats to it from forces both here and abroad aligned against the sovereignty of the American people.We learned a lot about and from this man, and he, in turn, learned a lot about and from us at the Arbalest Quarrel.Sheriff Giardino’s philosophy pertaining to the import and purport of the Bill of Rights, and his socio-political attitude and stance apropos of the threats that face our Country today, are on all fours with our own.Sheriff Giardino’s adoration for our Constitution—especially for the natural law right to armed self-defense as codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is the cornerstone of a Free Constitutional Republic, the foundation of the sovereignty of the American people over Government, and the source of our Nation’s greatness, strength.Through what the NRA and the Leader Herald newspaper say, we add a point derived from our own conversations with Sheriff Giardino.The Sheriff’s service to the Fulton County community means service to the U.S. Constitution. And what Sheriff Giardino means by “service to the U.S. Constitution” is no small matter.Service to the U.S. Constitution is what his job is all about. And the Rights contained in it are not to be dismissed.Those Rights are not—as many politicians argue, and as the legacy Press echoes—to be construed as some sort of archaic, mutable appendix to the Articles, to be constrained, modified, abrogated, or ignored because, to some, those rights don’t cohere with the current fad or fashion.The Bill of Rights is a codification of natural law.The Rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution are not man-made constructs. These Rights are not subject to modification, alteration, abrogation, obliteration, or perfunctory dismissal. These Rights are not attendant to a particular time and place. They are eternal, and they reside in man, as bestowed on man by the Divine Creator. That is how the framers of the Constitution understood them and that, in fact, is what they are.That is our position and that is Sheriff Giardino’s position.It is the very sanctity, strength, and enduring power of the Bill of Rights that drives the would-be Destroyers of our Country to mount an incessant and aggressive campaign against it. Without the exercise of these cherished rights and liberties, our free Republic would cease to exist. But then, that is the aim of those ruthless forces that intend to eliminate their exercise of them: to dismantle a free Constitutional Republic and the sovereignty of the people. These malevolent forces intend to create a completely different sort of socio, political, economic, and juridical framework—one antithetical to the Government the framers of the U.S. Constitution created for themselves and for their descendants. It is one where the people are seen as subservient to the Government, not the masters of and over the Government.Of all the fundamental, unalienable rights, the right of the people to keep and bear arms—the right to armed self-defense against lowly creatures, aggressive men, and tyrannical Government—is absolutely essential to the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic and the supremacy of the American citizenry over Government.Without the force of arms, this Country, as an independent, sovereign Nation-State and free Republic, could not exist; nor can our Republic persist through time if the citizen is denied access to firearms and ammunition.The conservative wing of the U.S. Supreme Court knows this to be true. Sheriff Giardino knows this to be true. And we know this to be true. Yet, many Americans in the Federal and State Governments, including the New York State Government do not know this to be so, or, otherwise, choose to ignore Truth, because it is counter to their running narrative and to their agenda. They, therefore, deny the TRUTH, outright.And, that has placed Sheriff Giardino and others in law enforcement, in a bind: Either uphold recent law that contradicts the Bill of Rights or uphold the Truth of the Bill of Rights and incur the wrath of “woke” leadership.This isn’t an academic matter. It is playing out now, and most acutely, in New York.The Hochul Government has placed Sheriff Giardino like his fellow Sheriffs in a difficult position.How does law enforcement chart a course between a transitory, ill-conceived man-made handgun law, the CCIA on the one hand, with man’s fundamental, unalienable, unalterable, eternal, immutable, natural law right to armed self-defense, codified in the Second Amendment?How does Sheriff Giardino “square that circle.” That question was the focus of our conversation with him, and it raised a host of questions and concerns that we dealt with in depth during our conversations with him.___________________________________________

“DISCRETION” IS THE MECHANISM NEW YORK FULTON COUNTY SHERIFF RICHARD GIARDINO UTILIZES TO DEAL WITH NEW YORK’S INTRACTABLE CONCEALED CARRTY IMPROVEMENT ACT (“CCIA”)

PART TWO

The CCIA is the Hochul Government’s response to the June 23, 2022, U.S. Supreme Court decision in NYSRPA vs. Bruen.The Hochul Government fabricated the CCIA to defy and defeat the High Court rulings in Bruen that reinforce the natural law right to armed self-defense.How does a law enforcement officer square enforcement of the CCIA when that enforcement conflicts with the language of the Second Amendment and U.S. Supreme Court rulings?This is what we wanted to obtain Sheriff Giardino’s thoughts on, as did NRA’s Editor in Chief of the NRA publication, “America’s 1st Freedom,” that preceded our own conversations with Sheriff Giardino. What we learned from the interview that NRA’s Editor in Chief conducted with Sheriff Giardino became the springboard for further explication of the Sheriff’s thoughts on the CCIA, the U.S. Constitution and Second Amendment, U.S. Supreme Court rulings, attacks on police, and violent crime in New York.In his interview with Sheriff Giardino, NRA’s Frank Miniter asked the Sheriff point blank: “Will you enforce New York’s concealed carry restrictions?”Without pause and in no uncertain terms, the Sheriff responded, “I raised my right hand to uphold the constitution. Now the governor of New York wants me to break that oath. Law enforcement has been placed in an untenable position of enforcing laws that we might believe are unconstitutional. As a former judge and district attorney, I still have my law license. My legal experience tells me that many provisions of this new gun-control law are unconstitutional. So, given all of that, I see the law here in a state of flux and we have a tremendous amount of discretion as to what we enforce. So, we’re going to use our discretion. We’re not going to just arrest someone who carries concealed into a barbershop he has been going to his entire life. We’ll inform the person what the law [CCIA] now says, and then we’ll focus our resources on actual criminals.”The issue of police “discretion” is something the NRA glossed over, perhaps given time constraints or publishing restrictions. Yet, to our mind, the point of “discretion” in light of the CCIA is of paramount importance to a consideration of the daily dilemma law enforcement officers are confronted with, especially when they must make a split-second decision.The NRA interviewer did not pursue what Sheriff Giardino meant by   “discretion” and Andrew Waite, a columnist for the Daily Gazette newspaper, whom Sheriff Giardino also spoke with, misconstrued what Sheriff Giardino meant by the term.The use of discretion in policing does not give carte blank authority to law enforcement. And Sheriff Giardino is not saying here or implying that he can do whatever he wants.The columnist for the Daily Gazette, Andrew Waite, incorrectly interpreted Sheriff Giardino as inferring, erroneously, that,“The sheriff is absolutely entitled to choose how to enforce just about any rule.”No! Sheriff Giardino is not saying or suggesting that. Rather, he is pointing to a confounding box the CCIA places him in and the way—the only way—he can extricate himself from it without offending the U.S. Constitution. Sheriff Giardino took an oath to enforce the U.S. Constitution. He did not take an oath to enforce the CCIA.The CCIA is codified in State Statute, Section 400. That is the State's handgun law. It is therefore a component of the Consolidated Laws of New York.A State Statute is not in any manner to be construed as part of the U.S. Constitution. In fact, a State Statute doesn’t stand on the same footing as a State Constitution.The New York State Constitution stands above State Statute in prominence and authority. And, the U.S. Constitution stands above both State Statute and State Constitution, except where the doctrine of Federalism gives the States complementary power or powers that reside exclusively with the States that the Federal Government is not permitted to intrude upon.Sheriff Giardino is told to enforce New York law, but he must also enforce the Constitution of the United States, consistent with his oath. And where the two collide, the U.S. Constitution dictates his actions. That is an unalterable, inescapable TRUTH.Where the CCIA conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, Sheriff Giardino says he must adhere to the Constitution.Where the CCIA doesn’t make clear his duties or where there doesn’t seem to be a clear conflict with the Constitution, then he will use his discretion to chart a proper course, guided, all the while, by the Second Amendment guarantee.That is the import of Sheriff Giardino’s assertion, that——“I see the law [the CCIA] here in a state of flux and we have a tremendous amount of discretion as to what we enforce.”The CCIA is a logical, legal, and logistical mess, a quagmire, manufactured by the Hochul Government to serve an agenda, one antagonistic to the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a right that shall not be infringed. And, since all or part of the CCIA will, at some point in time be overturned either by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit or by the U.S. Supreme Court, as litigation is ongoing at this time, that is the “state of flux” that Sheriff Giardino is referring to.Law enforcement officials, like Sheriff Giardino, cannot extricate themselves easily from this morass but must contend with it.The application of “broad discretion” to deal effectively with a multiplicity of contingencies and complexities is necessitated by the inherent illegality of the salient portions of the CCIA. Further, the inscrutability of some of its sections, and internal inconsistencies along with inconsistencies with other portions of New York law and inconsistencies with the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, apart from the CCIA’s inherent inconsistency with the Second, abound. That is why we call the CCIA a mess.Sheriff Giardino’s actions must therefore be nuanced. But, where conflict is clear, i.e., where illegal constraints on the exercise of armed self-defense are acute and blatant, then he will enforce the U.S. Constitution, not the CCIA.As Sheriff Giardino says,“The fact that there are currently more than a dozen State and Federal Lawsuits at various stages in the litigation process in New York, over the new CCIA, can be very confusing, especially to those people who presently hold valid concealed handgun carry licenses.* And this confusion will continue to exist until, ultimately, the US Supreme Court decides, supports, and defends my decision to exercise broad discretion in favor of law-abiding citizens.”Adding to this awful burden there is a bitter irony.Sheriff Giardino points out that “on any given weekend, criminals, who can’t lawfully possess firearms, use firearms and, especially handguns, to commit dozens of robberies, murders, and attempted murders. Bear in mind that the chances that a holder of a valid concealed handgun carry license will use that handgun or any firearm in a crime is less than 1/6 of 1%, based on national studies.” So, ask yourself: ‘how many criminals will be adhering to Hochul’s new CCIA?” And to add insult to injury, Sheriff Giardino exclaims, “‘The Concealed Carry Improvement Act’ criminalizes conduct that, under the original New York handgun law, the law in place prior to September 1, 2022, the day the CCIA took effect, was legal.”The CCIA is simply a clever ruse——

• The CCIA is a scheme designed to further the Government agenda while giving lip service to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Bruen.
• The CCIA further constrains the average law-abiding, responsible, rational citizen, who happens to reside and/or work in the State, from exercising his natural law right to armed self-defense.
• The CCIA does nothing to curb the misuse of firearms by the psychopathic criminal element running amok throughout the State, most noticeably in New York City.

The Daily Gazette columnist Andrew Waite doesn’t weigh in on any of this because he doesn’t truly understand the nature of the issues, or, otherwise, he doesn’t even begin to perceive a problem.Like most newspaper reporters and columnists, Waite sees “gun rights” vs. “gun control”/“gun safety” as a legitimate issue because politicians and news people manufacture that issue. But it has no substance. It is a fabrication, an illusion, a makeweight.There is the natural law right to armed self-defense. That is a fact. But those who abhor firearms and who fear and detest Americans who keep and bear them and who wish firearms and the right to keep and bear them would just go away, perpetrate and perpetuate a phantom issue, and thrust that specter on the public.These same people also deny the existence of natural law rights. They see the Bill of Rights as man-made artifices, no different than any other law, and therefore subject to modification or abrogation like any other law when whim dictates.They see people like Sheriff Giardino as driving a wedge between those Americans who desire to exercise their natural law right to armed self-defense and those who wish to severely constrain the exercise of the right or eliminate it.Yet, Sheriff Giardino is doing no such thing.Andrew Waite infers, oddly, that application of police discretion is less the result of a failure of the Government to acknowledge the right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of self and in defense of innocent others, and to guard against the tyranny of Government, and more a personal predilection that causes consternation among those who abhor firearms and who hold disdain toward those Americans who do choose to exercise their natural law right.He says, in his article, supra: “But even gun-rights advocates who support Giardino’s positions on this issue should be worried about the ways in which a local sheriff’s discretion may only serve to further drive us apart.”Who are these “gun-rights advocates” that Waite refers to? Waite doesn’t say.Anyway, his remark is irrelevant, even discordant.It’s a logical red herring, introduced by unscrupulous politicians, and echoed by those in the legacy Press and social media, whether knowingly or not, to confound the public.Andrew Waite is right in the groove, reflexively singing a refrain piped into his psyche and then transmitted to millions of Americans.It is all projection, the product of an elaborate campaign of psychological conditioning, disbursed on an industrial scale, touching every part of the Country.Waite’s remark also shows a misunderstanding of the salient duty of all law enforcement officers.As Sheriff Giardino stated clearly, succinctly, and categorically in the Daily Gazette article, and as he has reiterated for those who do not understand:The duty of a law-enforcement officer is to “uphold the constitution.” That is the oath law enforcement officers swear to. That is and must be the predicate basis for and guiding principle for all his conduct in the field.Yet, in a Nation where the U.S. Constitution is routinely ignored, dismissed, deliberately misread, or even slammed and denigrated, there is, in that, for many, explanation enough explanation.That is how something as poisonous as New York’s “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” comes to be conceived, drafted, passed, and signed into law, and then, exalted as a fine, proper, and good thing.In a Country turned upside down and inside out, law enforcement officers like Sheriff Giardino must perforce contend with a situation that Government throws him into. It isn’t one of his own makings, but that of Hochul and the Democrat-Party-controlled Legislature in Albany, and the secretive powers behind both that have engineered the destruction of our Country.Is Andrew Waite even aware of this?The reporter for the Daily Gazette falls into the very trap that many reporters and columnists fall into, viewing fundamental, immutable natural law rights as a matter of public opinion and failing to grasp that some rights are not a matter of natural law, but are merely man-made constructs.The public’s reaction to the Dobbs “abortion” case is a prime example of this.Andrew Waite writes,“With diametrically opposed laws and individualized interpretations of how to enforce those laws, it can be hard to know which way is up, and which way is down. Amid the confusion and the divergent standards, we become even more divided, and our positions can become even more extreme.”A person becomes lost when he is unaware of or fails to follow the proper guideposts. Such is the case presented above.In the matter of fundamental rights, a person’s guide is the U.S. Constitution. It has always been thus, and must always be so.The Dobbs case is inapposite because “abortion” isn’t a fundamental right. It isn’t natural law. It is a man-made artifice, a judge-made right, fabricated as a matter of convenience, because the U.S. Supreme Court was, at the time, apparently, too afraid to acknowledge that the issue of abortion is not a Federal Constitutional issue. It is merely a matter for public debate, and as such, it should be left to the States to determine how each wishes to treat abortion. And, no the U.S. Supreme Court has done just that. It leaves the matter to the States to work out.But many Americans don’t see this. The Press doesn’t allow them to see this, but, disreputably, stirs up conflict as does Congress. The public gets caught up in a maelstrom of confusion, anxiety, and rage deliberately fomented by politicians and vociferously magnified by the Press, relying on incessant sloganeering and messaging, at once vacuous and malevolent.Many Americans fall for the garbled nonsense visited upon them by unscrupulous politicians, and then amplified through social media and the Press. The results are dangerous, reverberating throughout the Nation, causing discord, social instability, and violence, none of which is unanticipated, but all calibrated to attain the end goal:The annihilation of an independent sovereign Nation, a free Republic, and a free and sovereign citizenry.____________________________________*The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively on both the parent U.S. Supreme Court case, NYSRPA vs. Bruen, and on Post-Bruen New York cases and we are keeping track of the progress of the litigation. To date, we have published over 40 articles on these cases.See, e.g., our article, posted on the AQ website on October 22, 2022, pertaining to the New York Government's interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting the High Court to lift the Stay on enforcement of the CCIA during the pendency of the lawsuit in Antonyuk vs. Hochul.The Antonyuk case was subsequently recaptioned, Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli when the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed Governor Hochul from the lawsuit.Steven Nigrelli is the new “Acting” Superintendant of the New York State Police, appointed by Governor Hochul. Steven Nigrelli replaces both the Governor and Kevin Bruen, as the principal named Party Defendant, the latter of whom was the previous Superintendant of the New York State Police, appointed by Kathy Hochul's predecessor, Governor Andrew Cuomo.  See the AQ article posted on January 2, 2023.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

A CONGRESSIONAL ACT CALLING THE AR-15 RIFLE THE NATIONAL GUN OF THE UNITED STATES IS A SENSELESS GESTURE, HAVING NOTHING TO COMMEND IT AND MUCH TO FAULT IT, ON MANY LEVELS

DISCUSSION OF H.R. 1095

PART THREE

In our initial article on H.R. 1095, Part One, posted on the AQ website, on February 26, 2023, and reposted on Ammoland Shooting Sports News on February 28, 2023, we pointed generally to problems with H.R. 1095, a bill declaring the “AR-15 Rifle the National Gun of the United States.” In Part Two, posted on the AQ website, on March 2, 2023, we looked at flaws with this bill from a basic pragmatic/practical perspective.In this article and in the final article, we deal in depth with flaws in the bill, from three other perspectives: logical, legal, and Congressional procedural/mechanical.In this article, Part Three, we look at the principal problem with the bill from a logical standpoint.By “logical” we mean both “reasonable/rational” in a layman's sense, as well as “logical” in the academic, philosophical sense. From the reasonable/rational, commonsensical standpoint, does the bill have any positive feature or features to commend it? And, if so, do those positive features outweigh the negative aspects? And, what are those negative aspects? What works against it? Many things.Some comments by Ammoland readers of our first article on H.R. 1095 suggest there is nothing wrong with a bill declaring the AR-15 to be the National Gun of the United States and, that, if nothing else, the bill serves as “pushback” against those elements in our Country that rail against guns and bemoan the ubiquity of the AR-15 and bemoan the popularity of semiautomatic weapons generally among Americans.  Undoubtedly, the sponsor and co-sponsors of H.R. 1095, fed up with this endless assault on guns, and sanctimony, sought, through this bill, to goad these antigun fanatics.Anti-Second Amendment propagandists, providing fodder for members of the Press and leftist media sites and leftist Cable and Broadcast news anchors and commentators, incessantly and uniformly refer to the AR-15 as “a weapon of war,” an “assault weapon,” a “military-style rifle,” “a weapon having no use in a civilized society”—and so on and so forth. Constantly parroting each other, the public gets a daily dose of the same simplistic, noxious message, droning on endlessly, hypnotically. Public policy propagandists and psychologists create and then drill these viral memes deep into the psyche of Americans. These engineers of mind control hope to inculcate into the psyche of most Americans a pathological fear of firearms, a rabid abhorrence of them, and contempt toward those Americans who exercise their natural law right to keep and bear them. It is in this climate that Americans who are inured to the seduction that has worked its charm on so many, wish to fight back. But, is H.R. 1095 an effective mechanism upon which to resist? Is it not akin to lobbing ping-pong balls back at those who throw grenades?  Another Ammoland reader asserts in his comment to our article of February 28, “The sponsor of the AR bill [Representative Moore] was simply making the statement that the AR is here to stay! Because there’s plenty of people that seem to think it’s temporary.”Those are two points raised by some readers as criticism of our article. But, there is a third, not mentioned, although it might have been raised as a rebuke to our criticism of H.R. 1095.We had hazarded a guess that Moore didn't just happen to come up with the idea for H.R. 1095 out of the blue but probably got the idea from articles appearing in the January and February issues of America’s 1^st Freedom, an NRA publication we refer to in an earlier article on H.R, 1095, posted on AQ on February 26, 2023. Id., supra. If so, isn't this a good thing—an argument favoring the enactment of H.R. 1095? No, it isn't.The authors of the articles mentioning the popularity and utility of the AR-15 among Americans in their NRA essays didn’t assert, or suggest the need for a Congressional Statute, declaring the “AR-15” the National Gun of the United States.One is therefore left to ponder whether the authors would favor such a Congressional Declaration if they were asked. The bill does nothing tangible to strengthen the Second Amendment. It simply enrages those on “the Left” who detest firearms and who visit contempt on those who cherish the natural law right to armed self-defense, codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.And if the bill enrages those who hate guns, inviting retribution, then that is hardly a constructive reason to introduce a bill.Further, if the bill is merely innocuous, not inviting attention good or bad, then why waste time, money, and effort on it?This bill isn’t a good idea, and it isn’t simply innocuous. It is deleterious to the import and purport of the natural law right to armed self-defense.It was a bad idea in the inception. It was worse yet when Representative Barry Moore introduced it in the House.The bill spurred the Press and Anti-Second Amendment politicians, such as New York Governor Kathy Hochul, to use it as a cudgel against the Second Amendment, proclaiming the bill to be an “insult to those people killed and wounded in mass shootings and their families.” See the article in Newsday.See also the article by Steve Benen, MSNBC Columnist, and producer of the Rachel Maddow Show. One need only look to bills that Anti-Second Amendment Congressional Democrats fashion to see what a properly tailored bill includes.The recent House bill, H.R. 698, “Assault Weapons Ban of 2023,” introduced by David Cicilline, Democrat, Rhode Island, on February 1, 2023, provides an example.This bill has one, a stated purpose and rationale; two, a definition, explaining precisely what the sponsors and co-sponsors of H.R. 698, intend to ban; and three, a description of where it is to be placed in the United States Code if the bill were enacted into law.Then there is H.R. 1095. It is vacuous. If the sponsor and co-sponsors of H.R. 1095 intended to enact a law to counter the Democrats’ push to ban “Assault Weapons,” (Semiautomatic Weapons”), H.R. 1095 doesn’t do that.It has no text, and Barry Moore, the sponsor of it, evidently never intended for the bill to include text. It is a naked, empty declaration. What clarification could he give? What content could there be that might otherwise give weight to a bill that serves merely as a declaration of something that Americans already know: that the AR-15 rifle, particularly, and semiautomatic weapons generally, are in “common use.”On cursory musing, a person knows that semiautomatic weapons are a national emblem of a sort. No Congressional declaration of that is required to make emphatic something that is common knowledge.Had Representative Moore introduced a bill that sanctions, approves, entitles, and “legalizes” civilian citizen use of semiautomatic weapons, including the AR-15, or, had Moore introduced a bill that excludes all semiautomatic firearms from State and Federal regulation, such a bill would have a substantive, positive effect.Such a bill would be a marked improvement over a banal declaration that does nothing to secure Americans’ right to use such weaponry but merely taunts Anti-Second Amendment proponents and fanatics. If that were the intention of the sponsor and co-sponsors, they succeeded in the endeavor.But the H.R. 1095 makes light of the legislative process. The bill is bratty and puerile if all that its sponsor and co-sponsors expected it to do, and if all that its sponsor and co-sponsors intended for this bill to do, was to provoke, goad, and tease supercilious legislators on the other side of the aisle, along with a dementia-riddled President and his arrogant Cabinet, members of the legacy Press and of leftist cable and broadcast news shows. And that is the only thing, as written, that this bill is capable of doing. And the sponsor and co-sponsors of it appear remiss in not giving this bill more thought before putting pen to paper and affixing their names thereto. Better it would be had they done nothing.Neither H.R. 1095 nor Democrats’ H.R. 698, though, has any chance of passage, anyway. But that is beside the point. H.R. 1095 is senseless, whether enacted or not, but H.R. 698 is dangerous to the sanctity of the natural law right to armed self-defense if enacted.But suppose both did pass the House. Is that theoretically possible? It is. That points to a logical flaw in the bill from an academic standpoint.Logically, BOTH bills can exist side-by-side. They can both be given effect: one as a declaration the AR-15 Rifle is the National Rifle of the United States—a blanket and bold assertion with no impact—and the other positing a ban on civilian citizen ownership and possession of that rifle, a bill that, if enacted, would have a decisive and negative impact on the sanctity and inviolability of the Bill of Rights.The enactment of a wholesale Congressional ban on AR-15 rifles is consistent with the enactment of a law declaring the AR-15 to be the National Gun of the United States.So, calling the AR-15 Rifle the National Gun of the United States does not mean the “gun is here to stay” contrary to the assertion of one Ammoland reader.One can yell it till the cows come home, and all the while there could still be enacted a bill, or ATF ruling, or, perhaps, an executive decree that no civilian citizen can lawfully own or possess an AR-15 Rifle. So, a mere declaration that the AR-15 is the National Gun of the United States does not mean that the AR-15 is here to stay. That is false even if H.R. 1095 was passed by both Houses of Congress and signed into law by the U.S. President. And, that illustrates the vacuousness of asserting or acknowledging the AR-15 is the National Gun of the United States. It comes to naught.A declaration to that effect, enacted into law, is a meager reward to those who cherish the fundamental, unalienable right codified in the Second Amendment. And it is no reward at all, if, at the end of the day, Americans cannot lawfully own and possess that rifle.

• The AR-15 is the National Gun of the United States. [Republican sponsored Statute]; and
• The AR-15 is banned. No civilian citizen can lawfully own and possess the AR-15. [Democrat-sponsored Statute]

So, then, the AR-15 remains the National Gun of the United States and IT IS still outlawed. Wonderful. What, then, is one to make of the claim that the AR-15 Rifle is our “National Gun?”  Side by side, with the two bills enacted into law, the silliness of H.R. 1095 becomes painfully obvious. Anti-Second Amendment Democrats would get a good chuckle over that. In fact, that might be reason enough for Democrats to urge Biden to sign the thing into law just to illustrate the idiocy of a declaration that becomes a National joke if, at the end of the day, no civilian citizen can legally own and possess this “National Gun of the United States.”  Now, suppose Congressional Republicans had drafted H.R. 1095 as the obverse of H.R. 698. That means only one or the other bill would pass and could be given effect. The one is incompatible with the other, as a matter of ice-cold logic.A Congressional Statute that proscribes, i.e., makes illegal ownership and possession of the AR-15 Rifle contradicts a Congressional Statute that prescribes, i.e., legalizes the ownership and possession of the AR-15 Rifle.Of course, at the moment, fortunately for a free Constitutional Republic, no federal ban on ownership and possession of the AR-15 Rifle, or of any other semiautomatic firearm exists.And this is so even as several States do ban ownership and possession of AR-15 Rifles and/or many other kinds of semiautomatic handguns, rifles, or shotguns, or otherwise, stringently regulate civilian citizen possession of such weapons.But, if Republicans did control both Houses of Congress and the U.S. Presidency, then Americans could see a law passed by Congress and signed into law by a Republican President, sanctioning civilian citizen ownership of all semiautomatic firearms.Such a law would prevent States from banning ownership/possession of such weapons.Congress would have to repeal such a statute as a condition precedent to a ban on ownership/possession of such weapons.The point of our remarks here is that Congressional Republicans should carefully think through their actions before spending time, effort, and tax-payer dollars on fruitless enterprises and escapades that do nothing to preserve our free Constitutional Republic and that fail to strengthen our Nation’s Bill of Rights. That didn't happen with this bill.What remains of H.R. 1095 is something that seems, at first glance, to offer gun owners some comfort, but, on balance, doesn’t have a pretense of that either.H.R.1095 does nothing from a practical/pragmatic standpoint or from a logical/reasonableness standpoint to commend it.In our concluding article, we look at the procedural/mechanical problems of H.R.1095, and, most importantly, its legal flaws.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

THE “AR-15 NATIONAL GUN OF THE UNITED STATES” BILL IS A BAD IDEA FROM THE GET-GO

DISCUSSION OF H.R. 1095

PART TWO

FOR PRAGMATIC REASONS ALONE, THERE IS REASON TO VIEW H.R. 1095 AS AN AWFUL BILL

We always read with interest comments of readers that spend time reviewing, thinking about, and responding to our articles. And we take readers’ comments to heart. This is in reference to our article posted on Ammoland Shooting Sports News on February 28, 2023.We surmised that some readers might disagree with our position on H.R. 1095, a bill introduced on February 17, 2023, by Representative Barry Moore, Republican, Alabama, and co-sponsored, originally, by three other Republicans, Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, and George Santos of New York. See the article in Forbes.Marjorie Taylor Greene subsequently added her name to the bill as the fourth co-sponsor.Had we thought H.R. 1095 simply unproductive but benign, we wouldn’t have written about it. But we feel the bill isn’t merely unproductive and benign. It does harm, and on both pragmatic grounds and legal and logical ones.In this article, we look at the harm this bill does to the cause of preservation of the Second Amendment, on pragmatic grounds.First, in the mere assertion of the AR-15 as the National Gun of the United States the bill undercuts, if unintentionally, our natural law, God-Given right to armed self-defense.The bill is harmful to the preservation of our Second Amendment because it merely offers the public a slogan, nothing more. The slogan gains unwarranted gravitas as a bill.It would do better service as a bumper sticker. H.R. 1095 trivializes the natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms.Second, the bill alludes to something we believe untrue and harmful to the sanctity of the right: namely the false notion of America as a “Gun Culture.”One source attributes the creation of the phrase ‘Gun Culture’ to the American historian Richard Hofstadter, who wrote an article for the periodical “American Heritage,” titled, “American As a Gun Culture.” That was back in October 1970. See also articles in Boston Review, genius.com, and compass.The phrase, ‘Gun Culture,’ has since dominated Anti-Second Amendment literature and Anti-Second Amendment activism, along with expressions such as, ‘Gun Violence,’ ‘Gun Control,’ and ‘Gun Safety.’ Messaging is a major component of social conditioning.Third, a bill that would talk about this or that “gun” as the “National Gun” of the United States gives Anti-Second Amendment proponents and fanatics another reason to demonize and ridicule Americans who cherish their natural law right to armed self-defense.We do not need to give ammunition to those who abhor firearms and who demonize, ridicule, and heap contempt on those Americans who insist on exercising their God-Given right to keep and bear them.Fourth, the bill directs the public’s attention to firearms generally, and to semiautomatic weapons, particularly.The armed citizenry is as much needed today as the armed colonists were needed back at the dawn of our Nation’s birth. Back then, the first Patriots fought against tyranny to create a free Constitutional Republic, one devoid of noblemen and kings where the common man was deemed sovereign over his Government and sole master of his fate.Today, America’s armed Patriots are needed as a counterweight to those people in service to a new tyranny, one that seeks to destroy our Nation, selling the remains off to interests that aim to create a world empire. Yet, the empire envisioned today is vaster and more treacherous, and more dangerous than that of the British Empire under George III and of the nascent Rothschild Banking Dynasty.Fifth, Americans don’t need a bill to declare this or that firearm to be a National Gun. It isn’t “The Gun” per se that is the source of our Nation’s FREEDOM AND LIBERTY. A firearm is just a tool. It is, rather, the notion of the SANCTITY and INVIOLABILITY of the INDIVIDUAL and of the importance of the COMMON MAN who wields that firearm: the “ARMED CITIZEN.” It is the wielder of a firearm, then, not the firearm itself, that is the foundation OF FREEDOM AND LIBERTY. And it is in the COMMON MAN’S WILL and of his ability, THROUGH FORCE OF ARMS, to resist THE TYRANT who would dare crush his mind, body, and spirit, that our Nation’s GREATNESS derives and thrives.Sixth, A bill to enact a law that simply denotes something as a “NATIONAL SYMBOL” is unnecessary.Such symbols often become the target of aggression when attention is directed at them.Recall flag-burnings. Does this Country need or want to see the mass destruction of “GUNS” if this or that GUN is designated a national symbol?Yet, to raise the AR-15 to the status of “NATIONAL GUN OF THE UNITED STATES” merely taunts Anti-Second Amendment fanatics, nudging them to do just that: a call for the destruction of all AR-15 Rifles.Do we really want to see H.R. 1095 serving as the catalyst for public displays of the destruction of firearms across the Country?Just undertake some cost/benefit analysis. What is gained from this bill? A trifle? Anything? And what is the cost? Much!Further, national symbols have historical roots. If some Congressional Republicans wish to raise a particular firearm to recognition as a ‘national symbol’ we have better candidates: namely those that hearken back to the American Revolution.There is the “BROWN BESS” smoothbore flintlock musket. It would serve us better. First, it draws attention, but in a good way, to our great history—something the Neo-Marxist Internationalists and the Neoliberal Globalists loathe and wish to erase.The “BROWN BESS” is connected to the American Revolution. If we are going to draw out a debate, then let us compel these ruthless forces to call out the American Revolution as a bad thing, if they dare.Let us talk about our Nation's history and point to the ARMED CITIZEN to whom we owe our FREEDOM and LIBERTY.So, far, those who would destroy us, only tinker around the edges, using ANTIFA and BLM, and many unthinking college students as storm troops to burn buildings, deface art, and destroy statues and monuments.But it would be very difficult for the Federal Government to attack our history and artifacts directly: our HISTORICAL BATTLE FLAGS for example, even as the Government attempts to do just that, obliquely—claiming that those who cherish our history and its emblems are “MAGA” REPUBLICANS, “WHITE SUPREMACISTS” “CHRISTIAN NATIONALISTS,”—presumptively, all of us “HINTERLAND HICKS.”If Republicans want to draw the ire of the Anti-Second Amendment fan base in an uproar, we don’t need to give these fanatics another reason to go after firearms by taunting them with this nonsensical bill. And that is all this bill does. It is meant as a colossal tease. But it is, rather, a colossal blunder.Seventh, H.R. 1095 does nothing concrete. The bill’s title says everything a person needs to know about it. And, while there are those who support it, (note very few Republicans have signed on to it), there are many people and interests in this Country that do not.And those who do not are especially irate over civilian citizen ownership and possession of firearms they refer to as “ASSAULT WEAPONS,” like the AR-15 Rifle. And they voice their anger vociferously, vehemently, endlessly, tying the “AR-15” to “mass shootings,” particularly at schools.“The AR-15 was used by the school shooter last year in Uvalde, Texas, to massacre 19 elementary school children and two teachers. It was used during the 2019 shooting in Parkland, Florida, to murder 17 students and educators. Of the roughly 24 guns that the 2017 Las Vegas shooter brought to the deadliest mass shooting in modern history, in which he massacred 60 people and injured hundreds, over a dozen were AR-15s.The effects of AR-15 style guns are brutal. The AR-15 is a weapon built for war, designed and manufactured to shred human flesh. During the Vietnam War, the AR-15 left bodies of Vietnamese fighters looking as though they had been hit with an explosive, much like the bodies of the children killed in Uvalde, some of whom first-hand witnesses said were only identifiable through the clothing left intact on their ripped-apart flesh.The bill [H.R. 1095] is the latest Republican display of the party’s worship of guns and its attempts to normalize the violence the right is often associated with.” See the article on the radical left website, truthout.org. No, contrary to the remark of the author of the above yellow journalism article, those who cherish the right codified in the Second Amendment do not worship guns. Those Americans worship the Divine Creator. But they recognize the utility of “guns” for self-defense and to resist tyranny.But, that is how the H.R. 1095 comes across: AS WORSHIPING GUNS, IN ADORATION TO A “GUN CULTURE.” In a nutshell, that explains why this bill is wrong-headed.Consider the remarks of New York Governor Kathy Hochul:“‘The governor, a Democrat, told Newsday in an interview Thursday that Santos' proposal is an insult to those people killed and wounded in mass shootings and their families.‘That is so abhorrent,’ Hochul said, ‘especially from a representative from New York, especially from a representative from Long Island, which is home to one of the victims of the Parkland shooting.’” See the article in Newsday.Hochul is not entirely wrong. We wouldn't say H.R. 1095, is “abhorrent,” but it is absurd. It was not well thought out.The aforementioned news and media reports prove our point. The bill is a bad idea because it draws volatile and unnecessary attention to the Second Amendment. The bill stirs up a hornet’s nest but does nothing to strengthen the Second Amendment. The only thing it does is give those who detest the Second Amendment, another reason for eliminating the exercise of the right in it.Perhaps that was the sponsor's salient purpose in drafting the bill up, and then introducing it in the House.* Perhaps that was the only purpose for the bill. If so, the sponsor and co-sponsors of it accomplished their aim. They got their wish.But, if it doesn’t strengthen the right of the people to keep and bear arms, then why bother with it if all it does is simply antagonize the opposition, drawing unnecessary attention to a firearm? It surely does nothing positive to secure the right, without which this Republic is well lost.In the next article in this series, we look at the legal and logical flaws associated with H.R. 1095.____________________________________*It is odd that many news reports tie H.R. 1095 to George Santos. He isn't the sponsor of the bill. He is only one of four co-sponsors. Perhaps it is that Santos generates so much antipathy among so many people, that they blindly tie a poorly drafted and poorly considered House bill with a sorry excuse of a person, an inveterate liar.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

AMERICANS DON'T NEED A LAW DECLARING THE “AR-15” THE “NATIONAL GUN OF THE UNITED STATES.”

DISCUSSION OF H.R. 1095

PART ONE

CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS CAN DO BETTER THAN ENACT A LAW DECLARING THE AR-15 RIFLE THE NATIONAL GUN OF THE UNITED STATES. RATHER THE NATION NEEDS RECOGNITION OF THE RIGHT TO CARRY A HANDGUN, FOR SELF-DEFENSE, THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES.

Readers of Ammoland Shooting Sports News are probably aware of a House of Representatives Bill (H.R. 1095) introduced by Representative Barry Moore (Republican, Alabama) that “seeks to declare that an “AR-15 style rifle chambered in a .223 Remington round or a 5.56x45mm NATO round . . . the National Gun of the United States,” according to a summary of the legislation.” See New York Post article, published February 23, 2023.American Military News, in an article also published on February 23, 2023, adds this:“The bill’s [two] Republican co-sponsors include Georgia Rep. Lauren Boebert and New York Rep. George Santos. AR-15s and similar rifles are the most popular in the U.S., with more than 24.4 million in circulation, according to trade group data reported by The Reload. The rifles are often targets for gun control because they have been increasingly used in mass shootings over the last decade, as reported by USA Today.”‘The anti-Second Amendment group won’t stop until they take away all your firearms,’ Moore said in a statement reported by Al.com. ‘One rule to remember: any government that would take away one right would take away them all.’After bringing forward the bill for the AR-15’s national recognition last week, Moore stopped at a gun shop in Troy, Alabama on Tuesday to make the case for its passage. He said the AR-15 has been ‘a cornerstone of American culture for over 60 years,’ according to video taken at the event.’”Moore introduced the bill on the Floor of the House on February 17, 2023. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Introduction of a bill and referral to the bill are the first two actions in the legislative process, turning a bill into a Congressional statute. See the article in congress.gov, discussing this process.Often a bill languishes in Committee. This occurs when the House Speaker—or, if a bill is introduced in the Senate, the Senate Majority Leader—intends to kill it.Recall the ill-fated bill, H.R. 38, “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017,” “a bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State.”An amended version of the bill passed the House after two Roll Call votes, on December 6, 2017, and went on to the Senate for action. Paul Ryan was the Speaker of the House, at that time. We were hopeful.Americans had their best shot at the passage of this bill since, at the time, Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress and the Executive Branch under U.S. President Donald Trump. But our wishes were soon dashed when we saw the bill languishing in a Senate Committee.In an AQ article posted on November 28, 2018, we wrote,“Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC) introduced the bill [H.R. 38] on January 3, 2017. The bill passed the House by Roll Call Vote of 231-198, on December 6, 2017. It was sent to the Senate one day later, where it was read twice and then referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. President Trump supports it. The NRA supports it. And rank and file law enforcement officers support it too. But there has been to date no further action on it. The bill sits in limbo. Its prospect of passage is, at present, low. Why is that?What is the U.S. Senate waiting for?”In answer to our own question, we learned the reason for the wait. Mitch McConnell wanted the bill to die in Committee. And it did die there. McConnell deliberately killed it. We had a window of opportunity. And that window is gone.With fortitude but little fanfare the author of the 2017  “constitutional carry” bill, Richard Hudson reintroduced the bill on January 4, 2021. Nothing came of it.That, incidentally, was sixteen days before the forces that Crush entire Countries placed the irredeemably corrupt and spineless, dementia-riddled, emotional and physical wreck of a man, the Great Betrayer of our Nation, Joe Biden, in the Oval Office. He has all the hallmarks of a useful puppet. He is someone who would obediently serve them, not us, the American people, accountable only to them, and not us. And, so, the puppet masters pushed him on the public and, having manipulated both the public psyche and the electoral process, making sure that he, Joe Biden, and not Donald Trump, would bear and wear the title, “Chief Executive.” The bill went nowhere.  It was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, on March 1, 2021, And there it died.On February 20, 2023, the “constitutional carry bill” was “re-reintroduced,” and, this time, in the Senate. John Cornyn sponsored it. Press coverage of it is sparse, essentially nonexistent. But, a trade group NSSF did reference and commend it. Yet, the bill is a dead letter in a Senate led by New York Democrat Chuck Schumer. In contradistinction to the “Constitutional Carry” bill of 2023, the “AR-15 National Gun” bill has received a lot of Press attention, most of it negative.There is a curious thing about the mechanics of the legislative process concerning that bill, though. The bill’s text has yet to be published. News accounts report this, but none of them hazard a guess as to why there is no accompanying text. Usually, if not invariably, a text immediately accompanies an announcement of a bill. One would expect a text for a bill. Right? Apparently, there wasn't one for H.R. 1095, though. And why might that be? Why would H.R. 1095 be introduced in Congress, sans text? Probably for the reason that there is nothing to be said about it that isn’t in the title of it.Be that as it may, there is nothing in the title that would suggest the bill accomplishes anything. H.R. 1095 is a vacuous exercise in conception, having no purpose other than to rile Anti-Second Amendment members of Congress, the Press, the Biden Administration, Governor Kathy Hochul of New York, and many others that loathe firearms and Americans' exercise of their right to keep and bear them. The bill has no useful purpose that we can see. It is counterproductive, the conception of it shallow and superficial, and the sponsor and co-sponsors of it, callow, thinking they are accomplishing something worthwhile through the presentment of it. They aren't.As explained on the senate.gov website:“Bills deal with domestic and foreign issues and programs, and they also appropriate money to various government agencies and programs.Public bills pertain to matters that affect the general public or classes of citizens, while private bills affect just certain individuals and organizations.”But what does this bill [H.R 1095] do beyond a vacuous declaration, whether true, in some sense, or not, to ascribe to the notion that the “AR-15 is [or should be designated] the National Gun of America?” Nothing positive that we can see. And in the blanket declaration, what does it accomplish? Nothing to strengthen the Second Amendment guarantee if the bill were somehow to become law, and much to harm it. And it is in the harm caused by the mere introduction of it in Congress, that there exists the principal problem with it.As a cursory note, the idea implicit in the bill—the notion of a declaration of a “NATIONAL GUN,” isn’t even original. The sponsor and co-sponsors of it likely didn't even come up with the idea.The sponsor and the co-sponsors of the bill likely didn’t brainstorm this but got the idea after perusing recent issues of the NRA publication, “America’s 1^st Freedom.” We perused those issues too. The idea is prominently displayed on the covers of both the January 2023 and February 2023 magazines.The cover story of the January 2023 issue is “This is My Rifle,” subtitled, “AR-15 is America’s Rifle,” by Serena Juchnowski. The cover story of the February 2023 issue is emblazoned, “America’s Rifle,” and it is subtitled, “What the Gun-Control Crowd Doesn’t Want You To Know About AR-Type Rifles,” by the Constitutional Law expert, and author of several seminal textbooks on the Second Amendment, Stephen P. Halbrook. The articles and Stephen's books are well worth a read.One thing implicit in both articles is the fact that Americans have an unalienable right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, close friends, and family, and they have a right to keep and bear arms in defense of the security of a free state, from the tyranny of Government.But, there is nothing in either account of the two lead stories in the NRA that suggests the need for a Statute declaring, or that it would be a good idea to declare, the AR-15 rifle, “the National Gun of the United States.”  The reason why is plain.Americans do not need an Act of Congress to tell them the AR-15 rifle or any other kind of firearm should be designated “THE NATIONAL GUN OF THE UNITED STATES.” Even the construction of the language of the bill is faulty.The use of the phrase “United States” in the bill alludes clearly and unmistakably to the Nation’s “standing army,” not to the civilian citizenry. Of course, the military doesn't use the AR-15 Rifle, anyway. The military versions today are the M4 and M16 assault rifles, which should be available to the sovereign armed citizenry as the final fail-safe against tyranny.And the word ‘Gun’ is a poor choice of terminology as it is a colloquialism and a slang word for ‘Firearm’ or ‘Weapon.’The drafters of the bill would have done better to use language such as, “AR-15 IS THE WEAPON OF CHOICE OF THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY.” This phraseology is preferred as it avoids ambiguity and a negative characterization that the informal verbiage of the actual bill, H.R. 1095 conveys. But this is quibbling. The bill is patently unnecessary at best and, at worse, it weakens the natural law right to armed self-defense that exists intrinsically in man. It isn't the sort of thing that Government bestows on man. Therefore, it isn’t the sort of thing that Government can rescind, or deny to man.The bill was wrong-headed from the get-go, for many reasons. Worse than unnecessary, the mere introduction of it is counterproductive. The passage of it, unlikely though that is, would do nothing to secure our fundamental, unalienable right to armed self-defense were passage of it to occur.We discuss the many serious failings and shortcomings of this bill in the next article.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY SHOOTING INCIDENT DIDN’T HAVE TO HAPPEN. HERE'S WHY!

ANOTHER “MASS SHOOTING” BECAUSE THOSE WHO “HATE GUNS” REMAIN PERENNIALLY BLIND TO THE OBVIOUS ANSWER TO THESE TRAGEDIES

MULTISERIES ON THE ISSUE OF SCHOOL SAFETY

PART FOUR

Mass shootings need not happen but continue to happen because of ineffective security measures.Video footage shows the assailant, Anthony McRae, walking through an unlocked door with a handgun.Yet, security officers didn't stop him.  A “mop-up” operation occurred after the fact, much too late to save lives.Mass shooting incidents don’t occur at our airports or in federal courts and office buildings because they are “hardened” against criminal violence.But the Biden Administration and the “woke” community oppose “hardening” schools and universities. Instead, they focus attention on futile gestures, like trying to discern a lunatic’s motive and decrying “guns,” “gun violence,” “far-right extremism,” and the Second Amendment.Such topics satisfy the predilections of some. They also deflect discussion away from solving a root problem and direct it toward reinforcing a narrative—one in service to an agenda. And the agenda is aimed at achieving a long-sought goal: erasing the exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense.The Country is not served well by this. The MSU tragedy was senseless but, unfortunately, predictable.Places of learning remain both “soft targets” and desirable targets. Sadly, “mass shootings” will recur. That is a dead certainty.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

PRIORITIZING CHILDRENS’ SAFETY WHILE IN SCHOOL SHOULD BE THE AIM OF ALL SCHOOL DISTRICTS, BUT IT ISN’T

CHILDREN ARE PAWNS IN A DANGEROUS GAME PLAYED BY THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND BY MANY STATE GOVERNMENTS*

MULTISERIES ON THE ISSUE OF SCHOOL SAFETY

PART THREE

SUBPART ONE

The Nation’s public schools exist for one salient purpose: to sharpen logical-thinking skills in our Nation’s youths so they become confident in their abilities and productive members of society.Something hinders the effectuation of that purpose: school shootings.Board members, administrators, teachers, support staff, and children cannot concentrate on the core purpose of education when they fear the next school shooting incident.There were four major, widely reported tragic school shooting incidents (K-12) in the past 20+ years:**Columbine in 1999, Sandy Hook in 2012, Stoneman Douglas in 2018, and, most recently, Robb Elementary in 2022.These incidents were devastating, profoundly affecting both the children and adults directly involved and the Nation.Each incident is unacceptable. Yet, all were preventable.What are the States doing about this? Some States are doing much; many others little to prevent the next school shooting. See the ecs.org report. States generally, but not invariably, delegate the responsibility for developing and implementing school security plans to the school districts and many have enacted statutes dictating policy in that regard. Id.There are 13,349 School Districts in the Country, and 731 are in New York.The largest School District in New York and in the Nation is the New York City School District, and it has an enrollment of 1,007,610 (K-12 Public Schools) as of June 30, 2021. The New York City School District has 1,400 schools, one-third of all the public schools in the State. The United Federation of Teachers (UFT) is the sole bargaining agent for teachers, non-supervisory educators, and paraprofessionals for the City School District. A rational person would think that given the size of the NYC School District (the City is divided into 32 geographic districts and 2 Citywide districts), and given the severity of violent crime in the City, and a host of related societal problems, the District would be a leader in “hardening,” (fortifying) schools against armed attack. But that isn’t true. See articles in the New York Post, the Washington Times, and the National Review.The UFT, taking its cue from the Biden Administration and from the National Education Association (NEA), adamantly opposes implementing the “hardening” of schools, claiming that it doesn’t work. Yet, this notion is at loggerheads with the position of the New York State Legislature that passed, in 2018, a bill funding schools specifically to use armed personnel “To strengthen security and help keep students safe.” The view of the Huntington School District, on Long Island, aligns with that of the State’s Legislators in Albany. The view of the UFT does not.See the Arbalest Quarrel companion article, posted on January 30, 2023. The Huntington School District has implemented a school safety program that makes use of armed staff to protect children, teachers, and staff. See the article in Newsday, and wshu public radio. The use of armed guards has stoked resistance even though such use of armed guards is authorized “on school grounds” but not “in the school.”  That has done nothing to placate deep-seated antipathy on the part of some parents and teachers who oppose all use of armed guards, notwithstanding that the armed school resource officers (SROs), not police officers.But what explains this strong resistance? There is a reluctance, even a hysterical reaction, to the use of armed police or armed school resource officers (“SROs”) at schools even as their effectiveness in protecting students, teachers, and administrative officials from aggressive armed assault is clear. See the article from the rand corporation.  This is a disturbing trend. And it is illustrated both in the New York City School District, and some of the other largest school districts in other areas of the Country.This reluctance must be attributed to a concerted attack on “guns” generally, by groups always opposed to guns, and a hyped-up fear of armed police and armed school resource personnel, particularly.Although the UFT is adamantly opposed to any armed personnel in the City's schools, apparently the District cannot prohibit NYPD from entering the schools in pursuit of their lawful police functions. This has led the ACLU to provide guidance to students when interacting with the police, suggesting a strained relationship from the get-go. See the article, titled, “How to Interact with the Police in New York City Public Schools.”The Legacy Press, itself, abhorring guns and contemptuous of those who choose to exercise their natural law right to keep and bear them, does nothing to alleviate the public’s phobic reaction toward guns. Instead, the Press exacerbates that irrational fear, exploiting shooting incidents—especially those taking place inside schools or outside, on school grounds, involving harm to children. Stoking fear of and concomitant hatred of guns furthers a political agenda. It is an agenda aimed at weakening and eventually eliminating the fundamental, unalienable, natural law right of the people to armed self-defense. The Press uses the alarmist expression “epidemic of mass shootings” to stoke public anger and rage toward guns, suggesting, falsely, that “mass shootings” are commonplace. They are not. See the article in the City Journal. And the term ‘epidemic’ when tied to shootings falsely alludes to a public health emergency. It is not.Criminal conduct involves public safety, not public health. The implement used by a sociopath, or psychopath, or lunatic to commit mayhem doesn’t define the event.  A sentient agent’s use of a gun to commit a crime does not convert that act, a public safety matter, into a public health matter. Similarly, an epidemic or pandemic, like the outbreak of the Spanish Flu, the Bubonic Plague, or the recent CCP Chinese Coronavirus (COVID-19) doesn’t transform a public health matter into a public safety matter. Society doesn’t place a “virus” on trial for a crime. And Society doesn’t place the “gun” in a hospital because it, “the gun,” is deemed “ill.” That is discordant. Yet, the public doesn’t stop to think about the irrationality of the messaging so caught up it is in the cacophony on display.Publications like Time show no reluctance in treating a criminal matter as a health issue when that criminal matter involves guns. See the article in Time.One would think the medical community wouldn’t fall for this. Not so. Many medical practitioners and medical organizations are happy to shoehorn the misuse of guns, a public safety issue, into a presumptive public health issue, and even a public health epidemic. How can this be? Many in the medical community, apparently, are blinded by their own loathing of guns and therefore fail to perceive the irrationality of the presumption. Still, some medical practitioners, realizing the problem, try to make a case, nonetheless:“Advocates believe a public health approach is warranted not only because of the aggregate numbers of death and injuries, but also because epidemiological analysis suggests gun violence may share features with communicable diseases; exposure to gun violence can predict other incidents, and gun violence often diffuses like a contagion through connected social networks. Physicians also are being asked to step up. Various medical groups including the AMA and the American Academy of Pediatrics have issued policy statements calling for greater physician involvement in combating gun violence.” “Physicians’ Elusive Public Health Duties,” 99 N.C.L. Rev. 923, May, 2021, by Richard S. Saver, Arch T. Allen Distinguished Professor, UNC School of Law; Professor (Secondary Appointment), UNC School of MedicineThis is sophistry. The author of the above article equates “gun violence” with “communicable disease” or “contagion” because he mistakes his metaphor for a literal representation. If “gun violence” were really “like” a “communicable disease,” then this would mean that guns, as “viruses,” or “contagions,” would transform all people who happen to come into contact with a gun as having within them the seed of pathological criminal violence. That’s not only patently false, it’s also nonsensical. But, in fact, many in the medical community ascribe to this. And politicians and the legacy Press run with it. Many in the medical community, therefore, contribute to this hysteria over guns, rather than being a voice of reason. And a half-hearted debate over the matter does nothing to allay the tendency to hysteria. See Tulane University article.The desire to treat “guns” per se as a health matter informs all subsequent discussions on the matter. The result is disastrous public policy decisions. Fortunately, not all members of the medical community have jumped on the bandwagon. They do not treat “gun violence” as a public health matter, let alone a public health emergency. They perceive this notion as wrongheaded and illogical. See the website Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership.On the matter of guns, the Press, politicians, and many in the medical community are not serving the best interests of the Nation, least of all the best interests of and safety of our children.Children have become useful pawns, sacrificial lambs, in a high-stakes game, where the survival of the Nation as a free Constitutional Republic is at stake.____________________________

A GENERAL ANTIPATHY TOWARDS GUNS MEANS TREATING CRIMINAL USE OF GUNS AND LAWFUL CIVILIAN CITIZEN USE OF GUNS FOR SELF-DEFENSE AS A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE

SUBPART TWO

The refusal of many school districts to consider utilizing police or armed resource officers as a necessary part of an effective school safety plan arises from both an antipathy toward guns, culminating in an outright phobic reaction toward “guns.”   An irrational abhorrence toward guns has pervaded the Country. It has not come about by chance. It is all part of an elaborately conceived and orchestrated campaign aimed at disarming the American public. In this effort to affect the desired outcome, a child is viewed as a useful pawn, whose life is deliberately placed in mortal danger. This says everything an American need to know about the value the legacy Press, and many school districts, including the New York City School District and the Biden Administration place on the life of our Nation’s children. It is just a matter of time before another tragedy that need not occur will occur in a school. The usual cast of characters will piously declare how horrific that is and why it is that civilian citizen possession of guns must be drastically curtailed. This will do nothing to prevent another mass shooting incident to occur in a school or outside it. In fact, the contrary will ensue. A mass shooting incident is guaranteed to occur, demonstrating once again, ever again, that the goal of ending criminal violence with guns is not, and never was about guns.Consider the ubiquity of the hyper-alarmist expression “gun violence.”New York Governor Kathy Hochul incessantly goes on about this thing “gun violence” and “hypes” her package of restrictive gun legislation to “fight gun violence epidemic.” See the article on her website. But few people stop to reflect on her lengthy, convoluted package of gun legislation. They should. The legislation has nothing to do with stopping criminal conduct. It has everything to do with repressing the ability of average, responsible, rational, law-abiding Americans to own and possess a firearm—the only truly effective means available to safeguard one’s life against a violent, vicious aggressor. Such random, unprovoked attacks have increased exponentially in recent years, in New York, as reported by the New York Daily News, and the City Journal Magazine. Violent Crime is surging in major Cities, including New York, as reported by the New York Post. Back in January 2022, New York City Mayor Eric Adams declared, “Gun violence is a public health crisis that continues to threaten every corner of our city” and he claimed to have the plan to deal with it.Do you remember: “The Blueprint to End Gun Violence.”How well is that working? Strange, the Mayor has said little to nothing about it since he rolled it out with great fanfare early last year.The answer to violent crime, as the legacy Press and the politicians explain is to constrain and eventually curtail the natural law right of the citizen to provide for his own defense. That is their answer. That is their only response. And why is that? Apparently, the law-abiding citizen gun owner is an easy target and a useful one. And, the Press and politicians point to the many guns in the hands of the law-abiding citizen. So? So, what?Conflating guns held by law-abiding gun owners with those held by violent criminals, the seditious Press and duplicitous politicians make a pretense of serving society, while stepping all over the Bill of Rights. Gun owners are perceived as “the other”—not representative of true law-abiding Americans.Although not expressly stated, the rationale, is this——Restricting the exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense of the former, the average law-abiding citizen, will serve to distract from the problem of misuse of guns by the latter, the rampaging psychopathic and psychotic killer.Through this sleight of hand, the Destroyers of a free Constitutional Republic can methodically whittle away at the natural law right codified in the Second Amendment. This, of course, is and was their primary aim all along: erase the natural law right to armed self-defense ostensibly for the well-being of the greater society. It is all a ruse. But, it plays well.Thus, the more often that violent crimes occur—preferably through the use of guns—the more likely the public will be to embrace a policy whose end goal is a “Gun-Free” America. That is to say, the elimination of the lawful possession of firearms by civilian citizens. That, of course, has no impact on the criminal. But, witnessing the casual way in which many City Governments treat crimes and criminals today, tackling crime isn’t a matter of concern for them; disarming the average, honorable, rational, responsible civilian citizen is._____________________

A GENERAL ANTIPATHY TOWARDS GUNS MEANS TREATING CRIMINAL USE OF AND LAWFUL CIVILIAN CITIZEN USE OF GUNS FOR SELF-DEFENSE AS A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE

SUBPART THREE

All this focus on guns has affected the way much of the Country views the discussion of and treatment of guns, including, most despicably, how many school districts treat their charges. A life that has value only as a commodity in service to a higher aim: But the refusal even to consider a school safety policy using armed resource officers may place the lives of children, while in school, in mortal danger. Is not the lack of a truly effective school safety policy stark evidence of the lack of value that the Government, today, places on the life of a child—the lack of value that the Government places on the life of the average American citizen in our Country?But the refusal even to consider a school safety policy using armed resource officers may place the lives of children, while in school, in mortal danger. We had pointed this out in an Arbalest Quarrel article, posted on November 17, 2022, writing about this stubborn attitude of the New York City School District, we said,“The UFT isn’t interested in hardening the City’s schools. And it is particularly resistant to employing trained and armed resource officers in the schools.This stubborn stance is an ominous sign of bad things to come. This lax attitude invites school shooting incidents. It may be only a matter of time before a New York City school suffers this horror.I hope it never happens but, given the sheer size of the NYC school district and given the amount of criminal violence afflicting New York City, coupled with a casual attitude toward crime, demonstrated by New York Governor, Kathy Hochul, and New York City Mayor, Eric Adams, I am fearful that it is just a matter of time before a tragedy, at the hands of an armed lunatic, visits a City school.” Less than two months after we wrote this, our prognostication, unfortunately, came true. A Charter School in New York City, East-Williamsburg in Brooklyn was the site of a shooting incident. The New York Post writes,“Three people — two of them students — were shot outside a Brooklyn high school on Wednesday afternoon, police and law enforcement sources said.Bullets flew just past the 2 p.m. dismissal time after a fight erupted outside the Williamsburg Charter High School at 198 Varet Street, cops said.A 15-year-old girl was shot in the right leg and a 17-year-old boy was shot in the left thigh, cops said. A 37-year-old man — a security guard at the school — suffered a graze wound to the neck, according to police.The students were taken to Bellevue Hospital, and the staffer to Elmhurst General, all in stable condition.This started as a dispute, a physical fight,” down the block from the school, near White Street, NYPD spokesperson Lt. Paul Ng said in a press briefing.About 15 men got into the melee, and one of them whipped out a 2×4 stick — which is when the shooter opened fire, according to Ng.”We would be remiss not to point out that, although Williamsburg Charter High School is located in New York City, it does not come under the purview of the New York City School District and the UFT.The Guide to Charter Schools in New York State, says, in part,“Charter schools are completely independent of district school boards. What allows a charter school to provide education to the public is a “charter,” a type of contract, between the school’s board of trustees and a chartering entity (also known as an authorizer). According to the terms of the charter, a school agrees to meet rigorous academic, operational, financial, and legal standards. The authorizer oversees each charter school to ensure it is meeting the terms of its charter.”Yet, despite their independence from district school boards, “charter schools must follow the same health and safety, ci rights, and student assessment requirements as other public schools, but they are exempt from all other laws and regulations, except for Article 56 of the Education Law. v 6” Id.The Safety program appears to be one-dimensional, though, essentially limited to the use of metal detectors to scan for weapons. And “School Safety Agents” appear to be limited to being versed in the use of scanning techniques. Nonetheless, the school safety program falls under the auspices of the NYPD. But, there is nothing that we can decipher from the material we perused to suggest that NYPD officers or armed safety personnel are utilized.In a document involving “A Collaboration Between the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and the New York City Department of Education,” effective July 21, 2016, school safety seems directed to and limited to scanning for weapons coming into the school:“Since the late 1980’s, metal detectors have been used in New York City public schools in order to maintain a safe and secure school environment and prevent weapons from being brought into the schools. The scanning program continues to be a vital security initiative and significant deterrent to weapons and violence. Furthermore, when weapons are found, schools can implement appropriate supports, interventions and follow up measures to reduce the chance of recurrence and address underlying factors that affect the safety and security of the school community. In accordance with established procedures and protocols, including Chancellor’s Regulation A-432 on Search and Seizure and the NYPD Patrol Guide 215-18 on Search Protocols for School Safety Agents, all students and visitors entering a school facility where scanning takes place are subject to scanning. School staff may enter the building at a non- scanning entrance designated by the principal/designee, which is monitored by school safety agents. NYPD personnel who conduct the scanning are trained to respect students’ rights and to ensure that scanning occurs in the least intrusive and most respectful manner possible. A principal or his/her designee must be present whenever scanning occurs. Scanning is only conducted at High Schools or Middle Schools which includes grade levels 6 through 12. When an Elementary School is present in a Middle School or High School where scanning occurs, a separate entrance will be provided for Elementary level students to enter the building without being scanned. . . .The Role of School Safety Agent School Safety Agents are trained to treat all individuals entering a school facility with courtesy, professionalism and respect. School Safety Agents overseeing scanning in a school must: • Properly set up/dismantle equipment and test the scanning equipment daily to ensure it is in proper working condition. • Greet students and provide them with clear, concise instructions in a professional manner • Be aware and alert to the walk-through metal detector signals and correctly utilize the hand-held metal detector while carefully observing, interpreting, and reviewing the x-ray machine screen for any suspicious objects Conduct sweeps (searches) for weapons, contraband, and other prohibited items periodically throughout scanning operations each day on the perimeter of the school site. • Adhere to the established methodology for scanning procedures . . . .”Obviously, the shooting incident that occurred on Wednesday, February 8, 2023, involving multiple shots fired and several individuals being shot, on the school grounds of Williamsburg Charter School, suggests serious deficiencies in security, on many levels. That incident may be replicated in any other school in New York City and could lead to more severe consequences. It is just a matter of time.______________________________

THE VALUE OF THE LIFE OF AN AVERAGE AMERICAN IS NOW REDUCED TO ZERO! WELCOME TO “THE NEW LIBERAL WORLD ORDER”!

SUBPART FOUR

What is evident today in New York City in the mammoth New York City School District and in many School Districts across the Country that develop deficient school safety protocols grounded on the biases of the Biden Administration and the NEA are disasters in the making. The crassness is quite remarkable. We reported on this before, in our AQ article posted on November 17, 2022, and it bears repeating:In a May 2022 Press Briefing, reported in the New York Post, prompted soon after the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, Biden’s Press Secretary pointedly said:“ ‘I know there’s been conversation about hardening schools, that is not something he [Joe Biden] believes in,’ Jean-Pierre told reporters at a White House press conference. ‘He believes that we should be able to give teachers the resources to be able to do their job.’” This wasn’t a mistake by the Press Secretary. The next month, on June 2, 2022, as reported in Breitbart, Joe Biden, himself, confirmed he doesn’t support hardening school buildings.“President Joe Biden delivered a 20-minute prime-time address about gun violence on Thursday in which he mentioned a litany of gun control policies without mentioning the need for hardening school security . . .” [and] nowhere throughout his speech did he mention the need to place armed security guards on school campuses or bettering school security overall.”Since the Biden Administration is adamantly opposed to the use of armed security officers in public schools and explicitly discourages the application of any steps to harden school buildings to protect children, this serves to dissuade the UFT leadership from pursuing “hardening” as a solution for New York City schools. And, many other school systems across the Country follow the Biden Administration’s policy.One is left to ponder the forces at work in this Country who have little if any regard for the life and well-being of the average American: whether man, woman, or child. The Biden Administration is merely a reflection of the monstrous claim that these shadowy, powerful forces have over our Country and its people.The goal of these forces with their toadies in the Biden Administration and in several State Governments across the Country is control over the Country and over the American citizenry. Gaining control over the Country and its people requires capturing the weaponry of Americans to affect absolute control over the populace. Propaganda plays a critical role in that endeavor. Capturing weaponry in this Country requires first capturing the minds of the majority of the people. The lives of Americans, and especially children, count for nothing to these ruthless forces. Rather, loss of life, through criminal misuse of guns, plays a central part in that effort. Regardless of what the politicians and the organs of the Press and media spout, it is control over thought and control over firearms that is essential to the dissolution of a Sovereign, Independent, Nation-State; essential to the dissolution of our Free Constitutional Republic; and essential to the subjugation of a sovereign and proud people. That is the endgame.The Biden Administration and much of Congress, and many of those in State Governments, have no reason for existing other than to carry out the will of their benefactors. And those benefactors have lavished money and power on their toadies to secure their compliance and their loyalty. And they have served their masters well. And what of we, the commoners, the sovereign people of a once Great Nation? We are destined for the yoke if we don't demand an accounting, long past due, of those scoundrels who have sold us out. For the sake of our children, for the founders of our Republic, the first Patriots, and for the many Americans, down through the years, decades, and centuries, who placed their lives at risk, and for those who paid the ultimate price to secure our freedoms, we owe it to all of them to make a stand. Otherwise, all that came before was in vain.___________________________________*This article updates and complements our article posted on January 30, 2023.____________________________________**AQ has corrected an earlier account of school shooting incidents where we stated that there were four school shooting incidents in the past thirty years. We wish to clarify that remark. An astute reader of this article explained to us, on February 9, 2022, that the assertion is inaccurate. We stand by the salient point but acknowledge its vagueness. Therefore, we add this clarification: There were four major, i.e., widely reported school shooting incidents (K-12), from 1999 through 2022; one from the last decade of the Twentieth Century, then two through the first two decades of the Twenty-First Century, and, at this moment in time, one during the third decade of the Twenty-First. The website, Statista, does report many more “mass shootings,” overall, from the time frame, of 1982 through January 24, 2023. Also, we note that the site Statista does not formally define the phrase, ‘mass shooting,’ saying only that “Mass shootings happen when there are several injuries or deaths from a firearm-related violence.” Id. What, then, is a “mass shooting”? The newspaper, USA Today, which has a clear Anti-Second Amendment left-wing bias, writing about it in an article published on June 11, 2022, and that is upfront concerning its abhorrence of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, calling for the outright repeal of it in a subsequent article, published one month later, on July 11, 2022, allows itself, unbidden, to proffer its own non-legal definition: “There's no single consensus on the definition.The Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit research group, defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people are shot or killed, not including the shooter. In contrast, Everytown currently defines it as a shooting in which four or more people are shot and killed, again excluding the shooter – but Burd-Sharps noted that they are moving toward expanding the definition to also include four or more injuries in the future.The Federal Bureau of Investigation doesn't have a mass shooting definition. Instead, the FBI defines "mass murder" as an incident where four or more people are killed, which can include gun violence.USA TODAY defines a mass shooting as an incident where at least four people are hit with gunfire, even if there are no fatalities. Mass killing refers is an incident in which at least four people are killed.”The organization, The National Mass Violence Victimization Resource Center (NMVVRC), whose mission, as stated, is directed to serving victims of “mass violence” points to a plethora of definitions for similar expressions, in an article, “Definitions of Mass Violence Crimes.”  AQ refuses to be pigeonholed, focused on terminology cunningly devised by propagandists. The use of argot designed by propagandists ensnares a person, traps him, and compels him to adopt a particular viewpoint, even a philosophy through which to view the world. Expressions, like ‘assault weapon,’ ‘gun violence,’ ‘gun culture,’ and ‘mass shootings,’ to name a few, direct a person to view firearms and anything associated with them, including, and most especially, the fundamental, unalienable, natural law right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to a particular and decidedly peculiar way of thinking, a way of thinking at once antithetical to our Nation's history, heritage,  cultural ethos, national identity, and to the philosophical underpinnings of a free Constitutional Republic.____________________________________**This article updates and complements our article posted on January 30, 2023.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WHY DO SOME SCHOOL DISTRICTS EMPLOY ARMED RESOURCE PERSONNEL IN THEIR SCHOOLS WHILE OTHERS DO NOT?

A PSYCHIC DISTURBANCE PERVADES THE THOUGHT PROCESSES OF MANY SCHOOL DISTRICTS: A SINGLE-MINDED, ABERRANT ANTIPATHY TOWARD AND FOCUS ON GUNS PREVENTS THESE DISTRICTS FROM INSTITUTING PROVEN SECURITY MEASURES THAT DO WORK AND, IF IMPLEMENTED, WOULD PROTECT CHILDREN FROM THE DANGER POSED BY VIOLENT ARMED AGGRESSORS

MULTISERIES ON THE ISSUE OF SCHOOL SAFETY

PART TWO

There are 731 School Districts in New York.But how many of these Districts have established an effective security plan?An effective plan incorporates armed resource personnel. The South Huntington School District (SHUFSD) knows this and has designed a plan for school security utilizing armed resource personnel. On Wednesday, January 25, 2023, updated on January 26, 2023, two reporters, John Asbury and Craig Schneider, writing for “Newsday,” a leading news source for Long Island and New York City, discussed this plan. They said, “Armed guards will be stationed outside all South Huntington school buildings by the end of the month, one of several Long Island districts making that choice as school shootings continue to be a terrifying national trend.” The reporters added, that, “[t]he South Huntington school board voted unanimously Wednesday to implement the new security measure.” In a follow-up “Newsday” article, published on January 28, 2023, the reporter, Craig Schneider, cited remarks of Dennis Callahan, who heads the South Huntington Teachers’ Union, writing,“The head of the teachers union for South Huntington schools said Friday that his members have strong but very different opinions on the district's decision Wednesday to use armed guards at schools.‘I have members who are thrilled about it and others who are vehemently opposed,’ said Dennis Callahan, who also teaches AP Spanish at Walt Whitman High School in the district.The South Huntington school board voted unanimously to spend $750,000 to hire an undisclosed number of armed guards, who officials said will be stationed outside the seven school buildings by the end of the month. School Superintendent Vito D'Elia pointed to the long string of shootings in school settings in this country.On Friday, Callahan said teachers supporting the move ‘say we are in an unsafe world, and we need to do everything in our power to ensure that when students come to school in the morning, they get home safe.’Those opposed, he said, worry that ‘bringing weapons into school opens the door to more violence.’”How can the utilization of armed resource officers “open the door to more violence”? The idea is more than a trifle vague. Let’s delve into this.Are teachers who oppose armed resource officers afraid the officers would themselves turn on the students and administrators and staff, developing or harboring violent proclivities and thereupon becoming violent? If so, what evidence is there of any such incident ever before occurring in a school that utilizes armed resource officers? These teachers proffer none because there is none. Nothing like that has happened. And there is no reason to suggest an incident of this sort would ever happen. The idea does not merit serious consideration. It leads one down a blind alley.What then can one make of the claim that utilizing armed resource officers would open the door to more violence? Perhaps, teachers who oppose a school security plan utilizing armed officers simply abhor the idea of guns in the school or on school grounds regardless of the benefits derived from having armed officers in the schools and thereupon conjure up an unlikely scenario. If so, there is, in the assertion, a note of hysteria, grounded on a neurotic phobic reaction to the very thought of “guns” and gun-wielding guards. We explore this idea, infra.Perhaps, as a sop to those teachers who suffer from an irrational fear of firearms, or, otherwise, in spite of that irrational fear of firearms felt by many within the District, the South Huntington Board of Education said armed personnel would be stationed outside school buildings, never inside the buildings.A school district that refuses to utilize armed resource officers cannot effectively “harden” schools against a dangerous armed threat. This should be obvious to everyone. Apparently, it isn’t since many school systems refuse to acknowledge this. A fanciful notion, devoid of demonstrative proof or logical validity, leads one down a blind alley. All the more horrific to consider that irrational feverish beliefs inform a school district’s policy decisions. And it is the children who pay the price.Consider: One of the largest school districts in the Country, the New York City School District (UFT), has opted out of using armed resource personnel.“Too many elected officials, school boards, and teachers’ union leaders propose solutions that don’t work.They aren’t interested in listening to parents who, increasingly, have little voice in the matter of their children’s education and no voice in the matter of their children’s personal safety while in school.Their solution to school shootings proposed boils down to one thing: ‘Get Rid of the Guns.’” See the Arbalest Quarrel article, satirically titled, “How to Guarantee Future School Shootings,” published, on November 17, 2022, by Stephen L. D’Andrilli, CEO and President of Arbalest Group, LLC.The failure of some people to recognize the difference between lawful uses for guns and unlawful criminal misuse points to the evident effectiveness of an elaborate propaganda campaign perpetrated on the public and vociferously and monotonously perpetuated for the last few decades.It is a campaign that involves many actors—news media, pundits, politicians, antigun activists, and powerful health organizations, like the “American Medical Association” (“AMA”) and the “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention” (“CDC”).These multivarious actors are all focused on and draft narratives around this thing, “Gun Violence.”Well, there are “Guns” in our society and there is “Violence” in our society, too. All that is true enough.But the words ‘Gun’ and ‘Violence’ aren’t synonymous. It is only thinking of the two as inseparably linked that would make it seem so.Conjoin two disparate words ‘Gun’ and ‘Violence’ and, voilà, the propagandist has, in that, a shorthand rhetorical device, ‘Gun Violence,’ a neologism—one in service to an insidious agenda, centered around a nefarious end, injurious to a free Constitutional Republic: the disarming of the American citizenry.The aim is the elimination of the natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of self and in defense of innocent others.Americans will not readily sacrifice their Bill of Rights. They must be urged to do so.It takes ingenuity and subterfuge to coax Americans to willingly forsake rights and liberties that no other people of any other nation on Earth possess.The phrase, “Gun Violence,” is a viral meme, infecting the psyche of the public. If the pursuit of public health and safety is the goal, the reduction of “Gun Violence” is the theme played and with little variation to get the public there. Or so the public is told. And many there are who swallow the lie.The American public is presented with the classic “false dilemma” fallacy narrative:TOTAL CIVILIAN DISARMAMENT AND A PEACEFUL, SAFE, WELL-ORDERED, WELL-ENGINEERED, HARMONIOUS, SOCIETY VERSUS THE WELL-ARMED CITIZEN AND CONTINUOUS, UNINTERRUPTED, SAVAGE, RAMPANT GUN VIOLENCE.THIS ONE OR THAT ONE ONLY: THE ONE OR THE OTHER, BUT NOT BOTH, AND NOT NOT EITHERBut the tension isn’t real. The armed citizen, which, in the context of schools, is the armed resource officer, does not aggravate the threat of criminal violence by virtue of being armed. This is contrary to the view of many teachers and board members. The officer mitigates and repels that armed aggressive threat. Similarly, the armed civilian citizen neither causes nor adds to criminal violence, but rather mitigates criminal violence.Many Americans fail to perceive this. Many simply cannot perceive this. But, perversely, many others have the desire not to perceive this.And, the UFT, for one, certainly cannot see this. That says much of the cunning of those who instigate this incendiary narrative of “Gun Violence” while being careful to omit any mention of “Criminal Violence.” There is a method to this madness.The propagandists emphasize the object “The Gun” while, at once, deemphasizing the agents of violence: “the Criminal” and “the Lunatic.”This false narrative has a profound effect on the policy choices that politicians see available to them. The policy choices made, invariably endanger, rather than safeguard, their respective communities.Similarly, this false narrative has a profound effect on the choices that school districts make when designing a security plan for their schools. Some districts eschew the “hardening” of schools altogether, single-mindedly focused, as they are, on their abhorrence of “Guns.” Focusing entirely on guns, they conclude that children cannot be safe until or unless all guns are eliminated from society. That is impossible, a ridiculous demand, and one that would not prevent rampant violence anyway, as long as criminals and lunatics run amok in society. And, they would continue to run amok. The forces that crush western nations and people realize the usefulness of sociopathic and psychopathic elements to destabilize nation-states if allowed to do so, and they are given free rein to do just that in the United States.Such absolutism compels one to believe falsely in the futility of securing schools from harm. But Progressives, who ascribe to this absolutism comprise the majority of these School Boards. They make all kinds of excuses for the behavior of the worst sort of deviant types, placating them, unable to comprehend that these same lunatics and psychopaths have no regard for the hand that feeds it, and will readily bite it off if given the chance. So, these Progressives, these smug do-gooders, vent their wrath on Americans who would dare exercise their right to armed self-defense to thwart the destructive elements allowed to pillage and destroy businesses, homes, people, and institutions, with abandon.  Progressives comprise the majority of these School Boards. They make all kinds of excuses for the behavior of the worst sort of deviant influences, placating them, unable to comprehend that these same lunatics and psychopaths have no regard for the hand that feeds it, and will readily bite it off if given the chance. Instead, these Progressive do-gooders, vent their wrath on Americans who would dare exercise their right to armed self-defense to thwart the destructive elements allowed to pillage and destroy businesses, homes, people, and institutions, with abandon.  These Progressives direct their energy against the average law-abiding, rational, responsible, gun-owners, and against the mechanism of their survival, the firearm, believing firmly, and nonsensically, that disarming the gun owner and destroying guns will safeguard society, secure the public schools, and protect the children. It will do no such thing.  Consistent with that belief system, Progressive members of School Boards believe safeguarding children is impossible where guns are prevalent in society. Knowing that they will not get rid of guns nor that they will be able to defeat the exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense, these Progressive school board members, disgruntled, and enraged, but refusing to acknowledge defeat, forsake designing, and implementing any security measures, hoping and trusting or simply desirous that the life of their charges will one day, in a Golden Age, be safeguarded once guns all disappear from the face of the Earth. Till, then, they will do nothing to protect the children in their schools. It is a kind of Nihilism that sweeps through these School Districts, pervading all thought, a sickness hidden in plain sight only because the highest officials and functionaries of Government suffer from the same ailment, a psychic disturbance wrought by those poor sorts that have inculcated the psychotic dogma of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, a dogma incompatible with our Nation's rational historical, political-philosophical creed, embodied in our natural law rights, emanating from the Divine Creator, that the new false secularism repudiates out of hand.These school districts hope the children in their care will be safe but believe they really won't be, and that, since nothing can be done, to prevent, in their mind, harm to their charges, they feel it is senseless to even try. So, they won't.This bizarre position emanates directly from the thinking of the repugnant Biden Administration itself. And, unsurprisingly, but no less unfortunate, many school districts, including the UFT, take their cue from this Federal Government. See June 6, 2022, report in Breitbart.And, since the public psyche is infected with the false notion that the existence of guns invariably threatens the physical and emotional health and safety of children, many public schools around the Country have opted out of employing armed personnel in schools.So it is, that some school districts, apparently so disheartened, disillusioned, and embittered as a result of their obsessive fear over the “proliferation” of guns and this thing, “Gun Violence,” have refrained from undertaking instituting any measures whatsoever. Consider, e.g., a 2007 report from the “National Institutes of Health” (“NIH”), that must bear some responsibility for this.A long-running campaign of psychological conditioning, undertaken by a plethora of organizations over a broad landscape of institutions, often operating in concert, and on an industrial scale, has succeeded in causing psychopathy in the minds of many Americans.And this elaborate propaganda campaign negatively impacts the decisions political leaders make: Governors of States, Mayors of Cities, and Members of School Boards.So powerful is this propaganda campaign that many Americans do not distinguish, indeed cannot distinguish, between criminal use of guns on the one hand, and non-criminal proper, lawful use of guns by average, rational, responsible, law-abiding people, on the other hand.The founders of our free Constitutional Republic would be puzzled indeed to consider that such a failure of reason could gain such wide currency.The founders of our Republic, the framers of our Constitution were acutely aware of the profound importance of firearms to both the creation of and maintenance of a free RepublicThey were certainly aware of the profound importance of firearms to the creation of and maintenance of a free Republic where the common man would stand and must stand sovereign over Government lest tyranny arise, as tyranny must, where good men have neither the will nor the means to prevent it.Guns are only a tool, inanimate objects, but necessary ones. Like any tool, a gun can be utilized for good or ill, dependent upon the nature of the sentient agent who wields it. A “firearm,” being insentient, is incapable of engaging in harm initiated by itself but listening to antigun zealots, one tends to hear them argue otherwise.The founders of our free Constitutional Republic certainly were aware of the importance of firearms as the most effective means to successfully safeguard human life from predatory creatures, predatory men, and predatory Governments. Our Country would not exist without the will and courage of these men, our Founders, and the means required to repel tyranny.Knowing this, one is left to ponder that——The failure of so many Americans to recognize the utility of firearms (“Guns”) as a source of positive good must be by design.The danger to the life, safety, and well-being of innocent Americans, especially children, is palpable.Sadly, there are powerful, ruthless forces machinating against the well-being of our Nation and its people, and they exert that influence on politicians at all levels of Government, and on businesses, media, the Press, and school boards across the Nation—with devastating effect. The felt impact of this, demonstrated by the money and time spent to undermine the natural law right to armed self-defense, is too much in evidence to be reasonably denied.Inducing in the psyche of a person a deep-seated phobia toward “the Gun,” such that a person finds nothing salvageable in it, suggests a dark and sinister intent of powerful forces to disarm the citizenry. That influence manifests in poor policy choices of Government officials, across the board, leading inevitably to rampant crime in our communities, lax security in our public schools, and the collapse of our sacred rights, and liberties, and institutions.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK’S SULLIVAN ACT OFFENDS THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND MUST BE STRUCK DOWN

POST-BRUEN—WHAT IT ALL MEANS AND WHAT ITS IMPACT IS BOTH FOR THOSE WHO SUPPORT AND CHERISH THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND THOSE WHO DO NOT; THOSE WHO SEEK TO UNDERMINE AND EVENTUALLY DESTROY THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT AND THOSE WHO SEEK TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN THE RIGHT BOTH FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS

MULTI SERIES

PART TWENTY-THREE

SUBPART A

NEW YORK HAS ENACTED MANY GUN MEASURES FOR WELL OVER A CENTURY, BUT THERE IS ONLY ONE GUN LAW: THE SULLIVAN ACT OF 1911

For well over a century, ever since the enactment of the notorious Sullivan Act of 1911, the New York Government has successfully weathered all challenges to it.Since then, New York has enacted many laws directed at guns and gun possession, but these laws, properly understood, are not standalone gun laws. They are all revisions or amendments to the archaic Sullivan Act.This means that, while New York has MANY “gun laws” (lower case), the State truly has only ever had ONE “GUN LAW” (upper case).It is important to understand this. As long as the Sullivan Act exists, Americans residing or working in New York who desire to exercise their fundamental natural law right to armed self-defense will face constant obstacles and hurdles, and even Government harassment that negatively impacts their enjoyment of the Second Amendment guarantee.The 2022 U.S. Supreme Court case NYSRPA vs. Bruen did nothing to diminish the impact of the Sullivan Act in practice. New York’s GUN LAW is as dictatorial and as oppressive now, as it was prior to Bruen.This became apparent once the New York State Legislature passed, and New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law, a new package of amendments to the Sullivan Act, titled, “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” of 2022, more often referred to by the acronym “CCIA.”The CCIA pays lip service to the Bruen rulings insofar as, and only to the extent that, the GUN LAW sheds the verbiage “PROPER CAUSE” from the Sullivan Act. That is the only concession made. Other than that, the GUN LAW is no less burdensome than before the passage of the CCIA, and in one major respect, worse.For, even with “PROPER CAUSE” struck from the GUN LAW, the “MAY ISSUE/GOOD CAUSE” requirement remains unscathed.The Government simply subsumed “PROPER CAUSE” into “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER.” The new standard is as subjective as the old one.Present holders of valid New York concealed handgun carry licenses must comply with a new set of requirements to carry a handgun in New York. They are placed in the same boat as new applicants.New York gun owners were not fooled by the CCIA. Challenges to the Constitutionality of the amendments came within days of the Government's passage of it. Those cases are ongoing.The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively on this and will stay on this. Readers are invited to peruse our comprehensive blog posts. And Ammoland Shooting Sports News has kindly reposted our articles. See, e.g., articles posted on January 20, 2023, January 9, 2023, January 6, 2023, January 5, 2023, and December 28, 2022—just to name a few.Unconscionable constraints on the exercise of the right to armed self-defense under the Kathy Hochul Government are no more relaxed than under the Government of her predecessor, Andrew Cuomo, and remain a top priority for her administration. The Sullivan Act of 1911 makes this possible.Suppression of the right of the people to keep and bear arms in New York continues unabated, with the infusion of more and more restrictive, repressive gun measures, inexorably whittling away at the natural law right to armed self-defense.Nothing will stop this juggernaut unless or until either one of two things occurs: The State Legislature repeals the Sullivan Act, or the New York  Federal or State Courts strike the Sullivan Act down.Neither one of these two actions will occur as long as the New York Government and the New York State and Federal Courts retain a mindset abhorrent of firearms and antithetical to civilian citizen ownership and possession of firearms. Neither the New York Government nor the U.S. Supreme Court has any illusion about this.The problem rests with the concept of “LICENSING OF HANDGUNS,” spawned by the Sullivan Act well over a century ago. The Sullivan Act introduced the formal handgun licensing scheme to New York.The New York Government knows that, as long as handgun licensing remains ostensibly “lawful,” the Government can and will continue to make incursions on the Second Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court knows this, too.“The current handgun laws of New York State and New York City trace their origin to the state Sullivan Dangerous Weapons Act of 1911. Proposed by Democratic State Senator and Tammany Hall leader Timothy D. ‘Big Tim’ Sullivan, who represented the slums of lower Manhattan, the Act made it a misdemeanor to possess a handgun without a permit and a felony to carry a concealed weapon in public. Whereas the Act designated judges as the licensing officers in much of the state, it gave the New York City police commissioner sole authority to grant or deny licenses in New York City, an arrangement that persists to this day. At least part of the motivation behind the Sullivan Act was a desire to keep firearms out of the hands of recent immigrants from Italy and Southern Europe—perceived to be prone to violence—by giving the New York Police Department (NYPD) the power to grant or deny permits. The NYPD's Licensing Division still handles all handgun license applications in the city. Today, it remains illegal to possess a handgun anywhere in New York State without a license. Section 265.01(1) of the New York Penal Law makes possession of a handgun an automatic class A misdemeanor, unless a person can qualify for one of the exceptions listed in section 265.20. For ordinary citizens, the only exemption that applies is possession with a license issued under section 400.00. . . . Today, it remains illegal to possess a handgun anywhere in New York State without a license. . . . As has been the case since the passage of the Sullivan Act, obtaining a license under Penal Law section 400.00 is the only lawful way for civilians in New York State to possess a handgun. . . .” “Pursued by a ‘Bear’? New York City's Handgun Laws in the Wake of Heller and McDonald,” 46 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 145, Winter 2012, by Matthew Bridge, J.D. Candidate 2013, Columbia Law.”New York holders of valid handgun licensees may not be immediately aware of an important fact. The handgun license acquired does not belong to the holder of it. The license is and remains the property of the licensing authority. Moreover, the conditions set by the licensing authority are terse, categorical, and blunt. For example, the holder of a handgun license issued by the New York City Police Department must surrender the license upon demand of the Police Department. That means his firearms must be vouchered as well. The reverse side of the license issued by the NYPD sets forth the following:“This license is revocable at any time. Upon demand of a police officer, a licensee must immediately surrender his/her license and handguns. Lost, stolen, confiscated, or surrendered handguns must be reported to the License Division immediately at 646-610-5560 or 646-610-5154.” [see discussion of NYPD handgun licensing procedures in AQ article, posted on October 19, 2015]The CCIA doesn't address this. But one should assume that such language will be incorporated in such new handgun licenses that a New York license authority happens to issue.When the High Court handed down the Bruen decision on June 23, 2022, the Court knew it was tinkering around the edges of a beast. It should have struck down the Sullivan Act, at that time, but it didn’t.Possibly, Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would have done just that. The Court certainly had an opportunity to attack the Sullivan Act head-on when the Court took up for review the New York Second Amendment case, NYSRPA vs. City of New York, 140 S. Ct. 1525 (2020). Little came of that.__________________________________

SUBPART B

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAD TWO OPPORTUNITIES TO CONFRONT NEW YORK’S NOTORIOUS SULLIVAN ACT HEAD-ON BUT IN BOTH INSTANCES THE COURT PUNTED

Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and the liberal wing of the Court would have none of that. They allowed the City of New York and past Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, to sidestep the unconstitutionality of the Sullivan Act, by amending both the New York City gun regulations and the New York State Gun Law to ostensibly cohere with the dictates of the Second Amendment.Justice Brett Kavanaugh, adding an odd Concurring Opinion, attempted to split hairs, writing,“I agree with the per curiam opinion’s resolution of the procedural issues before us—namely, that petitioners’ claim for injunctive relief against New York City’s old rule is moot and that petitioners’ new claims should be addressed as appropriate in the first instance by the Court of Appeals and the District Court on remand.I also agree with Justice Alito’s general analysis of Heller and McDonald. Post, at 1540-1541; see Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F. 3d 1244, 399 U.S. App. D.C. 314 (CADC 2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting). And I share Justice Alito’s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.”Justice Alito joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch saw the game the New York Government had played on New York’s gun licensees.The Chief Justice and other Justices permitted this. Perhaps they were pleased with it. But Associate Justices Alito and Thomas and Gorsuch would not stand for it. He set forth in detail his awareness of it, and his justified anger over it:“By incorrectly dismissing this case as moot, the Court permits our docket to be manipulated in a way that should not be countenanced. Twelve years ago in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783,   171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right of ordinary Americans to keep and bear arms. Two years later, our decision in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010), established that this right is fully applicable to the States. Since then, the lower courts have decided numerous cases involving Second Amendment challenges to a variety of federal, state, and local laws. Most have failed. We have been asked to review many of these decisions, but until this case, we denied all such requests.On January 22, 2019, we granted review to consider the constitutionality of a New York City ordinance that burdened the right recognized in Heller. Among other things, the ordinance prohibited law-abiding New Yorkers with a license to keep a handgun in the home (a ‘premises license’) from taking that weapon to a firing range outside the City. Instead, premises licensees wishing to gain or maintain the ability to use their weapons safely were limited to the seven firing ranges in the City, all but one of which were largely restricted to members and their guests.In the District Court and the Court of Appeals, the City vigorously and successfully defended the constitutionality of its ordinance, and the law was upheld based on what we are told is the framework for reviewing Second Amendment claims that has been uniformly adopted by the Courts of Appeals. One might have thought that the City, having convinced the lower courts that its law was consistent with Heller, would have been willing to defend its victory in this Court. But once we granted certiorari, both the City and the State of New York sprang into action to prevent us from deciding this case. Although the City had previously insisted that its ordinance served important public safety purposes, our grant of review apparently led to an epiphany of sorts, and the City quickly changed its ordinance. And for good measure the State enacted a law making the old New York City ordinance illegal.Thereafter, the City and amici supporting its position strove to have this case thrown out without briefing or argument. The City moved for dismissal ‘as soon as is reasonably practicable’ on the ground that it had ‘no legal reason to file a brief.’ Suggestion of Mootness 1. When we refused to jettison the case at that early stage, the City submitted a brief but ‘stress[ed] that [its] true position [was] that it ha[d] no view at all regarding the constitutional questions presented’ and that it was “offer[ing] a defense of the . . . former rul[e] in the spirit of something a Court-appointed amicus curiae might do.” Brief for Respondents 2. A prominent brief supporting the City went further. Five United States Senators, four of whom are members of the bar of this Court, filed a brief insisting that the case be dismissed. If the Court did not do so, they intimated, the public would realize that the Court is ‘motivated mainly by politics, rather than by adherence to the law,’ and the Court would face the possibility of legislative reprisal. Brief for Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse et al. as Amici Curiae 2-3, 18 (internal quotation marks omitted).Regrettably, the Court now dismisses the case as moot. If the Court were right on the law, I would of course approve that disposition. Under the Constitution, our authority is limited to deciding actual cases or controversies, and if this were no longer a live controversy—that is, if it were now moot—we would be compelled to dismiss. But if a case is on our docket and we have jurisdiction, we have an obligation to decide it. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote for the Court in Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 264, 404, 5 L. Ed. 257 (1821), “[w]e have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.”Thus, in this case, we must apply the well-established standards for determining whether a case is moot, and under those standards, we still have a live case before us. It is certainly true that the new City ordinance and the new State law give petitioners most of what they sought, but that is not the test for mootness. Instead, “a case ‘becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.’” Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U. S. 165, 172, 133 S. Ct. 1017, 185 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2013) (emphasis added). “‘As long as the parties have a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of the litigation, the case is not moot.’” Ibid. (emphasis added).Respondents have failed to meet this ‘heavy burden.’ Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater, 528 U. S. 216, 222, 120 S. Ct. 722, 145 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2000) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). This is so for two reasons. First, the changes in City and State law do not provide petitioners with all the injunctive relief they sought. Second, if we reversed on the merits, the District Court on remand could award damages to remedy the constitutional violation that petitioners suffered.”See also AQ two articles analyzing the “Gun Transport Case” posted on our website on April 27, 2020, and on May 8, 2020. Our April 27, 2020 article was reposted on Ammoland Shooting Sports News, on that same April 27 date. See also the AQ article posted on Ammoland Shooting Sports news on April 26, 2021. In that article, we remarked with satisfaction that the U.S. Supreme Court had agreed to take up a second New York gun case. In that case, captioned, NYSRPA vs. Corlett, 141 S. Ct. 2566 (2021), the High Court granted certiorari:“Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”The public would come to know this case as NYSRPA vs. Bruen, once Kevin P Bruen, the new Superintendent of the New York State Police replaced his predecessor, Keith M. Corlett.The matter discussed in NYSRPA vs. Bruen was of an order of magnitude greater than the earlier case, NYSRPA vs. City of New York, insofar as the Bruen case dealt more directly with the Sullivan Act—the Act that required Americans to obtain a license to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.Yet, as impactful as the Bruen case WAS and IS, the High Court didn’t strike down the core of the Sullivan Act.Chief Justice Roberts, and the liberal wing of the Court evidently realizing the possibility of this, consciously limited the issue on review.The Bruen rulings, handed down on June 23, 2022, although potent and compelling, nonetheless provided the Hochul Government a modicum of wiggle room. That wiggle room allowed the Government to slither around the rulings through the enactment of a plethora of amendments to the Sullivan Act.As implausible and unconvincing a response to the Bruen rulings, as these amendments are, they served a purpose: to waylay the full impact of Bruen. And that is exactly what Hochul and the State Government in Albany did._____________________________________

SUBPART C

NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL KNEW THE BRUEN RULINGS WOULD BE DAMAGING TO THE STATE’S GUN LAW, THE SULLIVAN ACT, BUT SHE WOULD NOT ALLOW BRUEN TO GET IN THE WAY OF HER AGENDA

Challenges to the amendments to the Sullivan Act, i.e., the CCIA, came at once. This wasn’t unexpected.The Hochul Government knew this would occur since the Government’s amendments didn’t alleviate New York gun owners’ justified concerns over the exercise of the right to armed self-defense. The measures Hochul signed into law weren’t meant to do that. Hochul’s attack on the Second Amendment continued unabated and, in fact, intensified.The Government had planned to proceed with its agenda to restrain and constrain the exercise of a Divine Natural Law Right ever since New York enacted its “GUN LAW.”Heller and McDonald didn’t stop New York and other similar jurisdictions from continuing to constrain the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And Bruen wasn’t going to constrain New York and these other jurisdictions, either.The Hochul Government hoped the Courts would dismiss the challenges to the CCIA.After all, the New York State and Federal Courts had more often than not acquiesced to the Government in the many years and decades since the passage of the Sullivan Act, and the Hochul Government had no reason to expect the Courts wouldn’t do so now.Striking the expression, “PROPER CAUSE” from the GUN LAW served as mere window dressing.The Government knew exactly what it was doing when Albany passed the CCIA and Kathy Hochul signed the CCIA into law, as did the Plaintiffs, who brought suit against the Government, intent on preventing the Hochul Government from defying Bruen.Placing the requirement of “PROPER CAUSE” into another fixture of the Sullivan Act, “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER,” that the High Court didn’t address, apparently seemed to both Kathy Hochul and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany, a convenient way to avoid the strictures of Bruen.Hochul and Albany simply had to convince the New York Courts to go along with the charade.But the lower U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York—the first Court called upon to deal with the CCIA—didn’t play along. This obviously surprised and puzzled and concerned the Hochul Government. The Federal trial Court imposed a stay on enforcement of the CCIA by granting the Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, during the pendency of the Plaintiffs’ suit on the merits.The Hochul Government immediately appealed the decision of the New York District Court to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the higher Court provided Hochul with some breathing room.The Plaintiff New York concealed handgun carry licensees weren't going to take this lying down. They appealed the adverse Second Circuit Court ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.The High Court deemed the case important enough to review a non-final interlocutory order, a rare occurrence.The High Court didn’t lift the stay imposed by the Second Circuit on the Plaintiff New York Concealed Carry Handgun licensees, but the result wasn't a complete win the Hochul Government might have wished for, either. The Hochul Government is able to breathe a sigh of relief, for a time at least. But the High Court made clear it will be watching closely to determine whether either the Second Circuit or the Government is dragging its feet on this. A day of reckoning is coming for the New York Government. And the Sullivan Act’s head is in the guillotine.Having grown visibly tired of seeing Heller, McDonald, and now Bruen waylaid by stubborn State Governments and their Courts, and by their brethren on the High Court as well, Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito will insist on attacking unconstitutional Government laws directly, and strenuously. With a no-nonsense legal mind like Amy Coney Barrett on the High Court, New York gun owners and Americans around the Country may finally see their efforts through the years and decades finally bearing fruit.Hochul and Albany know the Sullivan Act’s days are numbered. A gun licensing regime clearly designed to subvert the fundamental natural law right to armed self-defense is a thing that, long ago, should have been repealed by the State Legislature or struck down by the New York Courts, buried, and never again resurrected.Instead, this thing has not only lingered but has through time grown appreciably stronger. It is an affront to the Nation’s history and heritage, and inconsistent with our Nation's core beliefs, grounded as they are on the sanctity and inviolability of the individual Self over Government. New York's Sullivan Act is inconsistent with the import and purport of the Bill of Rights and contrary to the natural sovereignty of the American citizenry over the Government.The New York Safe Act of 2013, signed into law by Andrew Cuomo, and the Concealed Carry Improvement Act of 2022, signed into law by Cuomo’s successor, Kathy Hochul, are not to be perceived as models of a new era in America, but, rather as relics of an earlier time—a much earlier age—one harkening back to medieval feudalism.The U.S. Supreme Court must strike down the Sullivan Act. That will serve to send a strong message to the States that have similar Anti-Second Amendment regimes, and that will also serve to send a strong message to the Biden Administration, too.These so-called “elites” who machinate for a world empire in their meetings held in Davos and in the Government offices of Brussels and in the clandestine meetings of the Bilderberg Group and in other such secretive enclaves dispersed throughout the world are all throwbacks to and should be perceived as nothing more or other than throwbacks to medieval Europe.These “elites” seek a return to the world of the Middle Ages, a world of empire, consisting of legions of abjectly penurious serfs, the “preterite,” and a minute number of extravagantly wealthy and powerful royalty and nobility, the “elect.”The empire this new royalty and nobility envisions, and which is taking shape, is designed to embrace all of Europe, the British Commonwealth Nations, and the United States as well.Craven toadies like Hochul and Newsome and the brain-addled, corrupt Biden, have made clear that their interests are not our Nation’s interests nor those of our people. And their allegiances are not to our Nation, nor to our Constitution, nor to our people.Their aim is to incite ill will among the American people and to destabilize our cities, counties, states, and the entire Union, so that the whole may weaken and fall. These destructive forces then intend to merge the remains of our Country and its people into a grandiose neo-feudalistic world order that serves the interests and goals of their foreign, alien masters, not their Countrymen.Americans should resist all efforts, seductive or forceful, aimed to compel compliance.We can begin by making clear that we will not relinquish our Bill of Rights.We will not relinquish our duty and our ability to resist tyranny.We will not relinquish our natural law God-Given right to keep and bear arms.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

WHAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT’S ORDER TO THE HOCHUL GOVERNMENT IN ANTONYUK VERSUS NIGRELLI REALLY MEANS

POST-BRUEN—WHAT IT ALL MEANS AND WHAT ITS IMPACT IS BOTH FOR THOSE WHO SUPPORT AND CHERISH THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND THOSE WHO DO NOT; THOSE WHO SEEK TO UNDERMINE AND EVENTUALLY DESTROY THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT AND THOSE WHO SEEK TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN THE RIGHT BOTH FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS

MULTI SERIES

PART TWENTY-TWO

The Arbalest Quarrel anticipated the U.S. Supreme would respond quickly to the New York State concealed handgun carry license holders’ Application for Relief from the Second Circuit’s lifting of the Stay on the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction (“PI”). This was evident from the odd “request” issued by Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, on December 27, 2022, giving the Hochul Government four days to respond to the Plaintiffs’ “Application for Relief.” Realizing that the Court expected a response, the Government complied, filing its Response on January 5, 2023.The Plaintiffs filed their reply to the Government’s Response, on January 11, 2023.The High Court issued a terse order on January 11, 2023, denying Plaintiffs’ Application to vacate the stay on the Plaintiffs’ PI.This Order allows the Hochul Government to enforce the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) while the Second Circuit reviews the substantive merits of the Plaintiffs’ challenge.As pointed out by Duncan Johnson in an Ammoland article, posted on January 11, 2022, Justice Samuel Alito made clear to both the Government and the Second Circuit that the Court is not to dawdle.Justice Clarence Thomas joined Alito on this, so we should understand that Alito’s remarks are those also of Thomas.Alito and Thomas understood that the High Court’s refusal to lift the stay on the Plaintiffs’ PI gives Hochul and the Legislature in Albany breathing space. The Government can enforce the CCIA while the Second Circuit reviews the substantive merits of the Plaintiffs' handgun licensees' challenge.Time is on their side and the Government has everything to gain from drawing this case out for months if it can. And the Second Circuit would make sure this happens, as it is sympathetic to the Hochul Government's desire to constrain the exercise of the right to armed self-defense outside the confines of one's home or place of business. That is the salient purpose of Hochul's CCIA.Justices Alito and Thomas know this too and will have none of it.Moreover, the Government’s response to the Plaintiffs’ action for relief is so flawed we were surprised that the High Court didn’t reverse the Second Circuit. That it didn't do so but kept the stay of the PI in place should be construed as nothing more than a sop, an unwarranted gift given to the Second Circuit from the U.S. Supreme Court. Because of those obvious flaws, both Alito and Thomas want the Second Circuit and the Nation to know they would have handled this matter differently.These Justices would have reversed the Second Circuit, lifting the stay of the PI, and thereby suspending the operation of the CCIA, during the pendency of the Second Circuit’s review of the merits of the case. In our next article, we look closely at those flaws because they will crop up again in the Government's later Briefs filed with the Second Circuit.But, in this article, we unpack the meaning of the Associate Justice's remarks.Justice Alito chose his words carefully. Justice Thomas, having joined him, is in complete agreement with those remarks:“I understand the Court’s denial today to reflect respect for the Second Circuit’s procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case. Applicants should not be deterred by this Order from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal.” This is a warning, and in no uncertain terms, delivered to the Hochul Government and to the Second Circuit.Alito gave this warning twice—the second time asserting:“In parallel cases presenting related issues, the Second Circuit has likewise issued unreasoned summary stay orders, but in those cases it has ordered expedited briefing.”This is a not-so-subtle message meant to coax the Second Circuit into handling Antonyuk II as it has handled “parallel cases,” that is to say, do it quickly.But that isn’t all. Justice Alito also said this:“The New York law at issue in this application presents novel and serious questions under both the First and the Second Amendments. The District Court found, in a thorough opinion, that the applicants were likely to succeed on a number of their claims, and it issued a preliminary injunction as to twelve provisions of the challenged law. . . .”By affirming the Second Circuit’s decision, lifting the stay on the PI, and thereby allowing Hochul to enforce the CCIA, except for a couple of provisions, Justice Alito has subtly conveyed how this case is fated to turn out.As the Second Circuit reviews the substantive merits of the case, it matters not how the Second Court ultimately rules, because regardless of how it rules, the Hochul Government will lose. The CCIA will be struck down. For, if the Second Circuit doesn't strike down this blatantly unconstitutional, illegal Government Anti-Second Amendment measure, the U.S. Supreme Court will do so.Thus, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit faces a classic dilemma, a Hobbesian Trap from which it cannot extricate itself.There are two Scenarios.

SCENARIO ONE

The Second Circuit ultimately rules in favor of the Government. The Court strikes down the PI and dismisses Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli (Antonyuk II) with prejudice.Plaintiffs will immediately file their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. That is a dead certainty.And the High Court will take the case up for review. That, too,  is a dead certainty. The Court must accept the Writ of Certiorari. Why is that?If the U.S. Supreme Court demurs from hearing the case, it defeats the Second Amendment and weakens its prior holdings, Heller, McDonald, and Bruen. It makes a mockery of itself—slits its own throat and undermines the authority of the High Court, this Third Branch of Government. Obviously, it won’t do that.The CCIA is legally and logically inconsistent with the Second Amendment and an insult to the High Court’s rulings in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen.And the New York U.S. District Courts know this—all of them. And, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit surely knows this. And the Hochul Government knows this too, but the Government won’t acknowledge this because Hochul has an agenda, one promulgated by her shadowy benefactors. And that agenda doesn’t cohere with the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.Understand, Bruen is an extension of Heller and McDonald. It isn’t sui generis. An adverse decision on Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli (Antonyuk II) weakens the two prior seminal Second Amendment cases. So, the High Court must take the case up on appeal and must find in favor of the Plaintiffs.It is also important to keep in mind that Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli is the first major Second Amendment case to come before the Court since NYSRPA vs. Bruen. The High Court will overturn the CCIA in full or in substantial part. That, also, is a dead certainty, and the High Court may make inroads into bringing down the entire structure of New York’s licensing of firearms. More on that later.The High Court's rulings will strengthen the three prior seminal Second Amendment cases, adding a fourth seminal case. The Biden Administration, and those States in league with New York, will be apoplectic with rage. So, let them flail about.

SCENARIO TWO

The Second Circuit decides to rule in favor of the Plaintiffs, finding the CCIA in conflict with the Second Amendment and with U.S. Supreme Court precedent. What happens then? What will the Hochul Government do? In a word, 'Nothing!' Certainly nothing that would salvage the CCIA.The Hochul Government cannot obtain relief unless it seeks relief from the High Court. But Hochul won't do that. She won’t appeal an adverse ruling of the Second Circuit. The Court would never give her the relief she seeks. It would give her the opposite of what she wants.Thus, she won't appeal an adverse decision here because she can't, for the reasons above cited. But, if for some illogical reason, Hochul filed an appeal anyway, the danger to Kathy Hochul isn't that the Court wouldn't agree to review the case, but that the Court would take the case up for review. And, if it did so, Hochul would lose. That's a dead certainty. And the impact of a major loss at the level of the U.S. Supreme Court would extend beyond the confines of New York.So, then, whether an adverse final ruling emanates from the Second Circuit or from the U.S. Supreme Court, the CCIA will, in substantial part at least, eventually be struck down.Hochul will rant and rave and fume and lash out in rage. She will roll out a flurry of Press Releases and give endless Press Briefings, and will resort to bad-mouthing both the High Court and “Gun Lovers.” And she will go on about “Gun Violence,” and “Assault Weapons,” and “Large Capacity Magazines.” And she will share her grief and grievances with news anchors and commentators on CNN and MSNBC and will do an OP-ED, perhaps, with The New York Times, or The Washington Post.But, Hochul understands full well that she cannot do anything concrete other than comply with Court orders and rulings or go rogue.Hochul failed to comply once and it stirred up a hornet's nest. It was one that reached all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, via an interlocutory review. If she fails a second time to comply with Federal Court rulings, she admits the tyranny of the New York Government and invites an uprising.Hochul might make an “appeal” to the Biden Administration. But what can Biden do? Nothing—at least nothing that would be legal. But, as we know, neither the dictates of Congressional Statute, nor the Constitution, nor even simple common sense has stopped the Biden Administration in the past.The list of the Biden Administration’s illegal acts, these last couple of years, is legion and horrific, and analysis would fill many volumes of a textbook.For her troubles, Hochul hasn't strengthened the New York State handgun licensing edifice. Thinking that she would make New York's Licensing regime impregnable, and a model for the rest of the Country—her predecessor's pipedream—she instead has severely weakened the entire edifice. She has created a fault line that cannot be closed, one that threatens to topple the State's 113-year-old Sullivan Act.Neither New York nor other jurisdictions sharing the same abhorrence of the natural law right to armed self-defense will be pleased with Hochul. Indeed, Hochul, through her arrogance, may have unwittingly set in motion events that will lead to a fourth Seminal Second Amendment case.The best the Hochul Government can hope for here is simply to buy time. And it can’t do that either. Alito and Thomas have that base covered as well.Hochul has no one to blame here but herself. She shouldn’t have been such a smart-ass.But, there is one thing Americans do have to worry about: Will the High Court retain its independence, long enough at least, to prevent harm that would fracture Heller, McDonald, and Bruen?Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli (Antonyuk II) can become the fourth seminal U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment case, or it can, ironically, unwind Heller, McDonald, and Bruen. What do we mean by that?Consider: If Biden has an opportunity to make even one more nomination for a seat on the High Court, that nominee will be confirmed. Republicans won’t be able to stop that from happening this time. And we would bet dollars to donuts whom that nominee would be. Our guess is the nominee would be none other than the present Attorney General: Merrick Garland. Garland has been waiting in the wings for years for the opportunity. The Destroyers of our Nation are anxious to seat him up there. And, we all know what that portends.As Biden’s Attorney General, Americans have more than a hint of the disaster Garland is capable of unleashing on this Country. He is a man without moral scruples, and his political and social philosophy is alien to that of the founders of our Republic.What we have seen of Garland’s ignoble and unlawful actions thus far as the head of the DOJ would pale in comparison to his rulings as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Garland would be a major and negative influence on the Chief Justice, and his rulings would be written in stone. The Bill of Rights would be undone. No question about any of this.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.