Ukraine live briefing: West condemns staged referendums, calls Nord Stream explosions ‘deliberate act’      Bank of England moves to stabilize U.K. finances after pound crashes     As protests rage on, Iran carries out strikes against Kurds in Iraq     Ukraine live briefing: West condemns staged referendums, calls Nord Stream explosions ‘deliberate act’      Bank of England moves to stabilize U.K. finances after pound crashes     As protests rage on, Iran carries out strikes against Kurds in Iraq     E.U. warns of ‘robust’ response against sabotage after Nord Stream blasts     Kyiv slams staged referendum as Russian ‘propaganda show,’ vows retribution      Cuba suffers total electrical outage as Hurricane Ian roars through     Ukraine live briefing: West condemns staged referendums, calls Nord Stream explosions ‘deliberate act’      Bank of England moves to stabilize U.K. finances after pound crashes     As protests rage on, Iran carries out strikes against Kurds in Iraq     Ukraine live briefing: West condemns staged referendums, calls Nord Stream explosions ‘deliberate act’      Bank of England moves to stabilize U.K. finances after pound crashes     As protests rage on, Iran carries out strikes against Kurds in Iraq     E.U. warns of ‘robust’ response against sabotage after Nord Stream blasts     Kyiv slams staged referendum as Russian ‘propaganda show,’ vows retribution      Cuba suffers total electrical outage as Hurricane Ian roars through     

News of Otsego County

Second Amendment

Supreme Court strikes down NY gun law

U.S. Supreme Court strikes down New York’s ‘concealed carry’ limitations

In a significant victory for guns-rights activists, the Supreme Court of the United States on Thursday (June 23) struck down a New York gun law requiring people to demonstrate a particular need for carrying a gun in order to get a license to carry one in public.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al., stating, “Apart from a few late-19th century outlier jurisdictions, American governments simply have not broadly prohibited the public carry of commonly used firearms for personal defense. Nor, subject to a few late-in-time outliers, have American governments required law-abiding, responsible citizens to “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community” in order to carry arms in public.”

“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” his opinion states. “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.”

Nearby Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island have laws on the books similar to New York’s; experts anticipate those and other laws will now be challenged.

deBLIECK: Governed Also Can ‘Regulate’

Governed Also Can ‘Regulate’

To the Editor:

It is ironic that those who achieved an impressive education simultaneously lack the very basics of Constitutional study. Upon the current topic of the Second Amendment seems to illustrate this dichotomy quite well.

The notion that the word “regulated” applies only to that of the government is both taking words out of context and as completely ignoring the very function of the Bill of Rights in the first place.

To exemplify this, the Second Amendment states: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to secure a free state, the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

This can be split into two general parts. The former is by far the most commonly misinterpreted: “A well- regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.”

If one were to assume that “regulated” is deemed only to that of government, how can a government regulated (which is a method of control) secure a free state? Quite to the contrary, if a government evolved into a tyranny, what stops them from regulating the militia into virtual nonexistence and paralysis? After all, to regulate such in any manner would clearly be within stated
Constitutional grounding.

Current conversation that I have been seeing from our opponents is that such regulations are not even limited to the militia but also to the people themselves. One wonders why the latter portion containing “shall not be infringed” rings any bells.

It is pure nonsense to interpret the word “regulated” as only manifest from the government. To assume so renders the Amendment moot. For if it is permitted to allow government control of an armed populace, how then can such populace secure their republic free? The short answer is that it doesn’t.

The fact of the matter is that government is NOT the sole source of regulation. To the definition, to “regulate” is “to govern or direct according to rule.” Allowing government to control the Second Amendment is logically the same as allowing the prisoners to control the prison.

Rather, our Founders are concerned with a Militia being organized with a system of accountability, restraint, and method of function. All of which are well constituted without government intervention.

A logical parallel can be argued to that of organizational bylaws. Such bylaws form the lawful/unlawful order by which it functions. In other words, the rule is not by virtue of government, but rather to that agreed among the people of said organization.

Brought under this interpretation, the Amendment, as a whole, loses the contradictions and fully makes sense. By being separately regulated among the people from government control(s), the militia does indeed manifest the function to counter check the government if said government strays from the Constitutional Law and into despotism. Therefore, it secures a “free state”.

Further, by removing government controls and entanglements, there also is no longer the contradiction to the latter portion of the Amendment that “the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It serves proper advisement to the county representatives to heed Thomas Jefferson’s advice concerning Constitutional interpretation to rebuke such flawed arguments. For one to ignore the very purpose of our Bill of Rights and to ignore the innate contradictions in holding such flawed positions, only the uneducated would embrace such, and the fool to follow it.


deBLICK: Founder’s Goal: Individual Sovereignty

Founder’s Goal:

Individual Sovereignty

To the Editor:

Recent discourse has revealed an alarming ignorance concerning the Bill of Rights. It seems a prudent reminder that the origin of these listed Rights was, in fact, part and parcel to how America became a nation.

The foundation of our Bill of Rights comes directly from the Declaration of Independence. For the Declaration itself listed “certain unalienable rights,” which were transgressed by Great Britain. The Bill of Rights echoes some of those 27 listed within the Declaration.

Point being, such Rights are deemed “unalienable,” meaning that they cannot be taken away, but either embraced or transgressed.

Before adoption of the Constitution, championed by the Federalists, Anti-Federalists insisted the inclusion of these essential Rights to ensure Individual Sovereignty of the new American Republic.

Hence, the Bill of Rights had then become the expressed fabric of sovereignty of the individual, not any government.

It only makes sense. For years Britain transgressed the sovereignty of individual colonists; much as today in New York State, where the narcotic of gun control has been nonstop for decades. As stated within the Declaration:

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and provide new Guards for their future security.”

Likewise, in New York State, the lust for ever more gun control for decades has been unrelenting. The Safe Act, as constitutionally repugnant as it is, still does not satisfy Albany, which desires even more stringent controls.

A despot’s “Never-ending Story” if you will.

We of Otsego 2AS will say again and again: Enough is enough!

Yet, the lesson of the Bill of Rights does not stop there. The first few words of that historic document begin: “When in the course of human events…” This is a generalized phrase meaning human existence. We, now today, are living, still, “in the course of human events”.

So, within this “human existence”, to what authority do those stand when they put their chosen reverence to New York State law in knowing conflict of the Rights listed in our Bill of Rights?

It has been a curiosity where one pledges their oath upon the U.S. and state Constitutions when they are manifestly in conflict with one another.

Perhaps a politician’s dream to pledge an oath to both, placating a façade of dual reverence. This is
precisely where Constitutional Law breaks down to become, quite literally, a Banana Republic.

In essence, what value is our Bill of Rights, when each state maintains its own unbridled rejection of such? Each establishing their own esteemed preferences, Bill of Rights be damned?

Case in point is, if a politician feels it no issue to restrain and be accountable upon the fabric of Individual Sovereignty to which our country is founded, what trust that they too will adhere to anything?

That is exactly why our Otsego County representatives must be held accountable to their sworn oaths.

For no republic bearing Constitutional authority can exist when that very foundation is chosen to be rejected.


deBLIECK: ‘Right To Bear Arms,’ An ‘Unalienable’ Part Of U.S. Constitution

‘Right To Bear Arms,’

An ‘Unalienable’ Part

Of U.S. Constitution

To the Editor:

It seems writing this out shouldn’t be necessary. 2AS, spelled out is “Second Amendment Sanctuary.”

The word “sanctuary” meaning a place of safety, refuge and protection. The Second Amendment is one of 10 listed “unalienable” Rights written in our Constitutional Law. So, put together, it is a cause of protecting and safeguarding an American Right. So where is the problem?

Perhaps a proper start is identifying that the origin of the Bill of Rights is grounded on the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration lists 27 transgressions of Great Britain against the Colonies. These transgressions manifested by virtue of violating basic rights of the people. As the Declaration states, “…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”…” That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Therein lies the necessity of the Bill of Rights. Rights which function as what government is prohibited to violate.
If there is ever a word among all written within the Constitution, I cannot imagine any more actively ignored than “infringed.”

Taken straight from the Merriam-Webster dictionary; “to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.”

Enter now the nonstop obsession toward “gun control” laws. By their very definition, manifest as infringements. For decades, we have, as a people, generally permitted various gun control laws. But over the past few years in particular, it seems like the sun cannot set without some other invented form of gun regulation or prohibition.

The straw that broke the camel’s back has been the proposed draconian prohibitions, bans and ever more gun controls in the state of Virginia. This was compounded by various federal government politicians who removed their masks and called for outright gun bans. Further, Governor Cuomo has in mind yet another chain of regulations and prohibitions. The Bill of Rights be damned. We, of 2AS, stand united claiming, “Enough Is Enough!”

There seems so much that the “anti-gunners” do not understand concerning the function of the Second Amendment. One prime example is the phrase “no sanctuary for guns”. And another manifested as a statement decrying America embracing a “gun culture.” Whether these people were misinformed or deliberately deceived, they are clearly embracing what the Right isn’t.

This may come as a surprise to some, but the foundation of the Second Amendment is NOT about guns. It is about ensuring a balance of power “to the security of a free State.” Thomas Paine expressed it in this way, “The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute in arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside.”

In other words, if all firearms on this earth were to evaporate into thin air, would we still need a Second Amendment? The answer is yes, because arms of other forms (axes, knives…etc) remain. Imbalances of power can still exist. Human history is filled with examples where oppression, ages before any firearm came into existence, could have been avoided.

But firearms exist in the modern world. Therefore, a balance of power can only be achieved by virtue of equal firearm possession between the governing and the governed. This is less a “culture” than it is a free civilization necessity. Supporting gun bans will not make the guns disappear. Rather it creates a power imbalance. “Peace” exists only at the pleasure of the powerful. History teaches this a fool’s errand.


Posts navigation

21 Railroad Ave. Cooperstown, New York 13326 • (607) 547-6103