-->

Friday, March 27, 2020

The 2nd Amendment, Stephen Decatur & Me

Stephen Decatur
I didn't really want this fight.  When I moved to New York in 2016, I simply wanted to have my pistols for protection and work (I am licenced as a Nuisance Wildlife Control Operator and am legally obligation to "take", i.e. "kill", animals suspected of rabies for testing.)

But then I ran into New York's Pistol Licensing scheme and found it wanting in due process, equal protection and respect for the Second Amendment.  I wished I could just look away, but  . . . I couldn't.  So as few can afford to challenge New York and I do know how, it was off to the races.

Now, after waiting six hundred (600) days for a decision on my Application for a pistol license, I received that decision on March 9, 2020.  In that Decision, Licensing Officer (and County Court Judge) Watches rested his sole reason for denying my Application that: “[Sibley] has failed to demonstrate good moral character.” Notably, Licensing Officer Watches did not find that I had failed to demonstrate “good cause” for such a license.

Fortunately, it is not 1820 and I don't have to challenge Licencing Officer Watches to a duel ala Stephen Decatur to defend my Honor and Family Name as Decatur did 200 years ago almost to the day.  Instead, there is a Court system to address this slur and I look forward to vigorously pursing vindication.

To that end, I have recently filed a pleading which briefly (well, as briefly as a lawyer can) and indisputably demonstrates structural and systemic failures in New York’s pistol licensing procedures and seeks relief not only for me but system-wide reforms.  I have also asked the Court to "fish or cut bait" as my Fundamental right to self-defense in my home is at issue. 

The noted jurist and High Priest of U.S. Jurisprudence, William Blackstone said it best in 1769: “[Self-defense is] justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the laws of society.” 3 William Blackstone, Commentaries 139.  Yet, this is what New York has done to me . . . and 13 million other law-abiding New York Citizens.

Particularly now when the foundations of our civil society are being shaken, this need for self-defense is more pressing than anytime in our Country's history.

Read More...

Thursday, February 6, 2020

Trump should Pardon Pelosi Now


Image result for trump refuses to shake pelosi handAt the beginning of the 2020 SOTU address, President Trump handed to Vice President Pence as the President of the Senate and to Speaker of the House Pelosi his “State of the Union” address.  He was required to do so by Article II, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution which states: The President “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” 

When Nancy Pelosi ripped up that document, she committed a federal felony. Eighteen USC §2071(a) – “Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Likewise, 18 USC §2071(b) – “Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.  

Justice requires accountability for actions by public officers without color of law. If she is not prosecuted by the Department of Justice, then a hue and cry should rise up for she has laid: “Too rude a hand on English ways” thus requiring a “warning down from Runnymede!”

However, I suggest the best outcome is a pardon from President Trump as a gesture of good will towards her which she will be bound to reciprocate thus producing a more cordial atmosphere in our Nation’s Capital.  Or not. But at least President Trump will be the better “person” for the gesture.

Oh, and here is my favorite picture from last the SOTU address:

Read More...

Thursday, January 16, 2020

Over due update on Second Amendment Litigation



Image result for second amendment

I litigate like the Finnish approach the battlefield using the concept of Motitus -- a double envelopment manoeuvre, using the ability of light troops to travel over rough ground to encircle enemy troops on a road. Heavily outnumbered but mobile forces could easily immobilize an enemy many times more numerous.

The main thrust of my Second Amendment litigation is the argument raised in my  Administrative Application for a Carry Concealed licence proceeding that:

  • New York’s procedure for adjudicating applications to possess a handgun outside of the home violates federal procedural due process;
  • N.Y. Penal Law, §400.00.1 is void-for-vagueness, facially overbroad, violates the Equal Protection and Privileges and Immunities guarantees and encourages and permits, as in my case, prohibited arbitrary and discriminatory licensing.
On January 10, 2020, a hearing was held on those legal issues and my factual basis for requesting a license to carry handguns outside the home for purposes of: (i) self-defense and/or (ii) as part of my job-related duties as a New York licensed Nuisance Wildlife Control Operation to humanely “take”, i.e. kill, certain wild animals in certain situations for public health and/or safety reasons.  A decision from the Licencing Officer is pending.

However, employing the concept of Motitus, I have two other lawsuits pending in a bid to "encircle enemy troops" (the State of New York) all towards the end of crystallizing that which New York has intentionally kept legally indeterminate:  What is the required process due the termination or limitation on the fundamental right to self-defense inside and outside the home?

Of course, this arbitrariness of legal process has a historical precedent: 
The qualitative shift in the legal treatment of the Jews can also be described in terms of the decreasing basis for an expectation on the part of the Jewish subject that he or she would be subject to predictable treatment by those in power. That is, the assumption by the SS of jurisdiction over many aspects of Jewish life lent an atmosphere of potential, if not actual, arbitrariness to the administration of these measures. . . . Indeed, the policy of extermination that shortly followed belonged to an extra-legal world of SS directives that remained, at all times, contingent on the whims of those who had the power to issue them.  

THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF AN EXTERMINATORY LEGALITY: LAW AND THE HOLOCAUST, 59 UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LAW JOURNAL DOI: 10.3138/utlj.59.1.65

In New York, the licencing procedure rests solely upon the "whims of those who" have the power to issue carry concealed pistol permits.  Leaving aside the question (which I raise in these proceedings) whether New York has the authority to so limit carry concealed firearms, clearly that recognized right cannot be taken away so cavalierly.

Thus, I have filed a New York Freedom of Information Lawsuit (FOIL) to see who is and who is not getting carry concealed licences and why or why not.  That litigation is set for a Motion to Re-argue on January 27, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. before Judge Nasca in Bath, New York.

Second, I have also filed a federal lawsuit in Rochester, New York against His Excellency Andrew Mark Cuomo and others seeking a legal declaration by the Judge assigned, the Honorable Frank Geraci, that:
  • New York’s criminal ban on my handgun possession in my home and cane sword possession both in my home and in public on its face and as applied violates my (i) Fundamental rights and (ii) Second Amendment rights;
  • New York’s administrative handgun licensing procedure  as codified in N.Y. Penal Law §400.00 et seq. and N.Y. Admin. P. Act, §100 et seq. violates my rights; and 
  • The judicial review system of New York’s administrative handgun licensing procedure codified in N.Y. CPLR, Article 78  violates Federal and New York Due Process guarantees as failing to provide meaningful judicial review from an administrative process affecting Fundamental and Constitutional rights.
This suit is pending a response by the Defendants which should be filed later in January.

More, doubtlessly, will follow.  However, fuller background regarding these litigations can be found in the below Press Releases:

Press Release #1: Sibley Challenges New York State’s Handgun Law and Licensing Procedures in Federal Court

Press Release #2: Sibley’s Second Amendment FOIL/Red Flag Lawsuit Set for Hearing September 9, 2019, at Bath, N.Y.

Press Release #3: Sibley’s Second Amendment/Red Flag FOIL Lawsuit set for Hearing Monday, October 21, 2019 in Bath, New York

Press Release #4Judge Threatens to Hold Steuben County in Contempt at Sibley’s Second Amendment/Red Flag FOIL
Lawsuit Hearing

Press Release #5Is Steuben County Going to be Held in Contempt at Sibley’s November 18, 2019 Second Amendment/Red Flag FOIL Lawsuit Hearing?

Press Release #6Hearing on Sibley’s Pistol Permit Application set for Friday, January 10, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. *** Sibley Sues Governor Cuomo Challenging Criminalization of Handgun Possession in the Home *** Judge Ignores Sibley’s First Amendment Argument and Dismisses Sibley’s Red Flag/FOIL Lawsuit

***

Read More...