frontlines

Who is Going to Blink First? New York or the Supreme Court?

Supreme Court Second Amendment Decision in Bruen Regains Public Approval  by Dean Weingarten, Ammoland|Dec. 7th, 2022

Before the Supreme Court decision on Bruen, the average of the five polls was:

• Heard of and favor the decision: 65%

• Heard of and oppose the decision: 35%

After the decision, the average results of the two polls were:

• Heard of and favor the decision: 56.5%

• Heard of and oppose the decision: 43.4%

• Strongly favor 36%

• Somewhat favor 28%

• Somewhat oppose 19%

• Strongly oppose 16%

Opinion:

The Supreme Court decision made on June 22, 2022, restoring the protections of right to bear arms outside the home by the Second Amendment, has bounced back to what it was before the decision was announced.

On November 30, 2022, a Marquette University Law School poll was released showing the results of this question, from September of 2021 through September of 2022.

The question was:

Table 11: Favor or oppose ruling that Second Amendment protects right to possess a gun outside the home. Among those with an opinion.

There were five polls taken before the decision was released on June 22, and two taken after the decision was released, one during July 5-12, and one during September  7-14.

Marquette does not show any more polls on this question after September 14, 2022.

A new question was formulated and used in a Marquette poll for the week of November 15-22, five months after the Bruen decision. The heading for the category was: J2: Expand 2nd Amendment. The question was:

The new question was for all respondents, whether they had heard of the decision or not.  28% of 1004 respondents had not heard of the case. The question divides the response into four categories instead of only two.  Here are the results from the Marquette table:

The total in favor (64%) and total opposed (36%) are incredibly close to the opinions found before the decision (65%/35%). They are easily within the accuracy limits of the poll.

About twice as many people are in favor of the Bruen decision, which restored the Second Amendment protection of the right to bear arms outside the home, as are opposed to it. What happened in between? Why did the numbers briefly drop to 56.5%/43.5%?

The dominant media came out with a series of articles after the Bruen decision. The articles claimed the decision would lead to more violent crime. The Washington post published a “news”  article in the Outlook section by an advocate of arms restrictions, John Donahue, titled:

 The Supreme Court’s gun decision will lead to more violent crime

The Outlook section was discontinued in September 2022.

It seems likely the onslaught of negative articles about the Bruen decision swayed some people. This could account for the 8-9% swing in opinion against the decision.

Then, articles started appearing about the results of the decision. Articles showing lower courts using the decision to restore the right to carry on private property; the right to carry in public places; the right to bear arms for those under a mere indictment; or under a mere restraining order. Articles such as those might have had an effect.

It is possible those who had not heard of the decision were much more favorable than those who had heard of it. The latest poll included both those who had heard of the decision and those who had not.

The right to keep and bear arms is a popular right.  In a poll done in April of 2021, about 73-74% of those polled considered

“the 2nd Amendment is one of our most important and cherished civil rights in the U.S. Constitution.”

The Second Amendment costs residents of the United States very little. The effect on violent crime seems to be very small, for or against.  It mostly has an effect on the attitude of the people who exercise it. If a person has the means to protect themselves,their family, and their community, they feel substantially less dependent on the government.

Limited government power means they have the power of their own.

Nothing proves the government is limited by the Constitution like robust protection of the right to keep and bear arms.

With a mostly originalist/textualist Supreme Court for the first time in over 80 years,
the rights protected by the Second Amendment are being restored!

One thing that ties recent mass shootings?  Harassment

One thing I think we do a terrible job of when it comes to preventing mass shootings is trying to get a peek inside the minds of the killers.

People don’t just wake up one day and suddenly decide to slaughter people by the gross. That kind of pathology likely develops over time, which means it can be prevented from ever happening, preferably without a single restriction on any civil liberty.

In fairness, there have been looks at what mass shooters have in common. They found things like treatment for mental illness and broken homes as common themes.

Yet in looking at recent shootings, I found something else. A history of harassment.

I’m not talking about them necessarily harassing others, but instead being the victims of harassment.

Let’s start with the University of Virginia shooter. He allegedly killed three of the school’s football players after a field trip.

However, it also appears that he reported to his father that he was the victim of bullying.

The alleged killer at Club Q in Colorado Springs also dealt with harassment, and on a much larger scale. In fact, entire legions on the internet enjoyed harassing him.

In Chesapeake, the killer there left a note outlining his grievances, which included claims of being harassed by others.

That’s three recent killers who were either being harassed or felt as if they were, but they’re not the only ones.

In Uvalde, for example, the killer there had a history of being harassed, with some actually calling him a school shooter.

Now, understand that nothing about this is an attempt to excuse these killings. It’s not. There’s literally no valid reason to respond to harassment like this with homicidal action.

But if we’re ever going to uncover the roots of these horrific crimes, we simply have to discuss some uncomfortable things. That includes any potential role that harassment of these individuals might play in this.

It’s not an excuse and I’m not necessarily saying the harassers are responsible for these crimes. No, that responsibility rests on those who pull the trigger, as it always has.

Yet on the same token, if this is a unifying thread, then it’s a thread we as a society can work together to severe.

It’s one thing to be in the public sphere and receive harsh reactions to what you’ve offered up. I’ve been there myself and while it sucks, it’s the price you pay for playing in that sandbox.

But these cases appear to be different. These are people who were reportedly being harassed without that kind of action.

Now, I also have to admit that harassment may not be the issue, but a persecution complex. Maybe many of these people who reported being harassed really weren’t. It’s possible that they just thought the criticism they received was harassment when it was really nothing of the sort.

Sure, we know at least some were actually harassed and bullied, but it’s possible this isn’t a unifying thread among mass killers. I don’t think it is, necessarily, but I wouldn’t be intellectually honest if I didn’t concede the possibility.

Either way, this is something that the supposed experts should be looking at.

Too bad they can’t look beyond pushing for gun control.

By Tom Knighton | Bearing Arms  5:30 PM on December 02, 2022

When it comes to state’s new gun law, handwriting is on the (courthouse) wall
November 16, 2022'  Rod Watson,  The Buffalo News

buffalonews.com/news/local/rod-watson-when-it-comes-to-state-s-new-gun-law-handwriting-is-on-the/article_ce227920-6576-11ed-ae9b-af3d1d202a58.html

The advice is both timeless and priceless: When you’re in a hole, stop digging.

Of course, when taxpayers are handing you a gold-plated shovel and political ego is on the line, that’s easier said than done. Maybe that’s why the state appealed – and won a stay of – last week’s federal court ruling that eviscerated New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act.

Despite the stay issued Tuesday, the detailed rationale in last week’s ruling makes clear it’s time for Gov. Kathy Hochul and other state officials to pull the plug on their efforts to defend the indefensible. Whistling past the judicial graveyard is not a viable legal strategy.

Hochul pushed through the CCIA earlier this year after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York’s previous law requiring law-abiding gun owners to demonstrate “proper cause” to protect themselves with a concealed weapon outside the home. The state’s response – despite clear warnings in the high court’s decision – was the CCIA and its near-total ban on carrying a concealed handgun anywhere in the state.

But in a 184-page decision last week that was both thorough in its research and appropriately caustic in its dismissal of the state’s flimsiest justifications, U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby blocked enforcement of most provisions of the new law.

In the earlier case, the Supreme Court had laid down guidelines essentially saying that any restrictions on gun rights must be analogous to those in widespread use when the Second Amendment guaranteeing the right to bear arms and the 14th Amendment making that applicable to the states were ratified. Using that template, Suddaby blocked enforcement of the new law in parks, zoos, theaters, restaurants serving alcohol, public assemblies or protests and a host of other so-called “sensitive locations” where the state wanted to make self-defense off limits.

The judge was at times caustic in his derision, noting for instance, that public protests often move from one location to another. That means, he noted, that “under this vague regulation, a law-abiding responsible license holder … might suddenly find himself ... in the middle of a protest that has come to his location." His only alternative? "He would have to instantly flee lest the protesters render him a felon, which would appear to be a novel rule in America.”

He was similarly unsparing in striking down another ridiculous provision barring concealed carry on private property – including businesses – unless the property owner posts conspicuous signage allowing it. To justify that restriction, the state – in what can only be called a reach – cited 18th and 19th century anti-poaching laws meant to prevent people from taking game off of someone else’s property.

“Rest assured,” Suddaby noted, “none of the six Plaintiffs in this action has alleged that he has been injured by not being able to hunt turkey and deer (with his handgun) inside commercial establishments on privately owned property that is open for business to the public.”

Your subscription makes our reporting possible.

Such provisions involving “compelled speech” also run into First Amendment problems, the judge noted, as do other provisions requiring permit applicants to divulge their social media information. He also blocked enforcement of the law’s unconstitutionally vague “good moral character” requirement, as well as provisions mandating that permit applicants reveal the contact info of other adults living in the home.

In short, even while dismissing Hochul as one of the defendants because the governor herself does not have enforcement responsibility, he made mincemeat of almost all of the state’s arguments.

That bodes well for concealed-carry permit holders – who have already jumped through bureaucratic hoops including background checks and training requirements – once the stays are lifted and the case is finally decided on its merits.

Suddaby made clear last week that, with a few exceptions, the state’s case has no merit.

Instead, the CCIA brings to mind the old Jack Benny line. When confronted by a robber demanding “Your money or your life,” the notorious tightwad paused before replying “I’m thinking, I’m thinking.”

Law-abiding New Yorkers, after jumping through all the hoops required to carry a concealed weapon, should not have to face a similar dilemma, being forced to choose between risking their lives or risking arrest. Suddaby clearly agrees.

GOP gubernatorial candidate Lee Zeldin’s narrower-than-expected loss last week was based in large part on perceptions of crime. It’s hard not to believe some of those defecting voters recoiled at the thought of being left unarmed at the mercy of criminals who, by definition, will ignore the CCIA.

A Hochul spokesman noted the law is being defended by the State Attorney General’s Office, not outside counsel, so it’s not costing state taxpayers extra. But those resources still could be better spent fighting actual crime rather than creating a new class of “criminal” out of otherwise law-abiding gun owners.

While we laud Election Day losers who had the good sense – and grace – to concede, the governor and state Democrats should take a lesson and read the handwriting on the courthouse wall. It’s time to drop this Quixotic quest to disarm law-abiding permit holders who have never been the problem. 

Instead of continuing to appeal, it’s time for Hochul and her fellow Democrats to stop digging – and let the courts bury this blatantly unconstitutional law.

How NY’s new gun laws will impact hunting season Traveling outdoor enthusiasts who fail to comply with new legislation could face criminal charges  by Jeff Murray

Binghamton Press & Sun Bulletin USA TODAY NETWORK

Outdoor enthusiasts who carry firearms afield for hunting in New York this fall need to be aware of new gun laws that will affect their activities.

State lawmakers passed two new packages of gun legislation this year.

One was in response to a mass shooting in Buffalo and creates new requirements for the sale of semiautomatic rifles.

The other, in response to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down New York’s concealed carry law, includes provisions regarding the transportation and storage of firearms.

Both new laws, and the second bill in particular, could have an impact on hunters who travel afield in pursuit of deer and other game.

Hunters who fail to comply with the new requirements could inadvertently find themselves facing criminal charges.

What is the ‘Concealed Carry Improvement Act?’

In June, the U.S Supreme Court threw out a New York law that required New Yorkers who want to carry a handgun in public to show a special need to defend themselves, ruling the law violates the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

In response, Gov. Kathy Hochul called the state legislature back into special session and lawmakers passed the Concealed Carry Improvement Act.

Most of the provisions of the new law deal with where concealed carry permit holders can legally carry handguns and where they can’t, but there are also new rules involving storage and transportation of all firearms.

The law requires any firearms left unattended in a vehicle to be stored in a lockable plastic or metal, hard-sided gun case or safe, and hidden from view.

The firearm can also be secured with a trigger lock or cable lock in lieu of a locking case, as long as it’s out of sight.

If the hunter lives with anyone under 18 or anyone who is prohibited from possessing a gun, all firearms must either be secured with a gun locking device such as a trigger lock that makes them incapable of being fired, or securely locked in a safe or secure container which is locked with a key, keypad, or combination.

Are semiautomatic rifles still legal for hunting?

As of Sept. 4, anyone who wants to take ownership of a semiautomatic rifle in New York must be at least 21 years old and must first apply for and acquire a New York State semiautomatic rifle license, similar to the requirement for a pistol permit to possess a handgun.

However, a person of any legal hunting age may temporarily possess or borrow a legal semi-automatic rifle for hunting.

“The new law only applies to the new purchase in New York state of a semiautomatic rifle,” said Steuben County Sheriff Jim Allard, whose office is among law enforcement agencies responsible for enforcement of the new laws. “Any lawful owners of a semiautomatic rifle continue to be lawful owners.” How will the laws be enforced?

Several hunting seasons are open now, but the biggest influx of hunters going afield will take place on opening day of regular deer season, scheduled for Nov. 19 across most of the state.

Steuben County annually leads New York state in deer harvest, and people flock to the county from all over New York and beyond to hunt there, so Allard is well aware of issues that often crop up during hunting season.

Allard agrees with the concept of secure transport of firearms, but he doesn’t believe imposing criminal charges for violations is the best solution.

“I believe that it is always good to store valuables out of sight in a vehicle as a best practice to deter theft,” he said. “I find it much better to gain compliance through education than enforcement, utilizing the arm of enforcement only after education and counseling has failed.”

The state Department of Environmental Conservation is responsible for enforcing laws related to hunting, and that will include the new laws affecting firearms transport.

“Should potential violations be observed, DEC’s environmental conservation police officers (ECOs) and forest rangers investigate all incidents and crimes to the fullest extent possible within the legal parameters allowed, consistent with the particular situation and circumstances,” DEC said in a statement.

Will the new measures deter crime?

Gun control has been a hotly-debated issue in New York for years, at least since the legislature passed the SAFE Act (Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement) in response to the December 2012 mass shooting at an elementary school in Connecticut.

Gov. Kathy Hochul and legislative leaders say the new legislation is necessary to ensure the safety of New Yorkers after the Supreme Court invalidated the former concealed carry law.

“The bill does have several improvements that are intended to ensure fairness, consistency and due process,” Sen. Brian Kavanagh, D-Manhattan, said about the Concealed Carry Improvement Act. But Republican lawmakers said the changes won’t stop criminals from misusing firearms, and some law enforcement officials are also skeptical.

“It has been our experience that far more guns are stolen from hunting cabin burglaries than from vehicles,” Allard said. “To my knowledge, no data exists that would lead a reasonable person to believe that violent crimes result from a lack of vehicle security while hunting.”

DEC officials agree firearm thefts from vehicles during hunting season are not common.

How can I learn more?

Education about the new laws is an important component, according to DEC, which has done extensive outreach through its website, mailings, newsletters and public interaction with conservation officers, license issuing agents and hunter education instructors.

Information about the law’s changes can be found on both DEC’s website, dec.ny.gov, and the state’s gun safety website, gunsafety.ny.gov. New Yorkers can also call 1-855-LAW-GUNS for questions about guns or assistance with form submissions.

State land that was open to hunting in the past remains open under the new legislation, DEC said.

For more information about state land open to hunting, go to dec.ny.gov/ outdoor/7844.html.

A pair of Southern Tier hunters heads into the woods for opening day of deer season.

2022 Election Guide

printable pdf:  click HERE

The link below will download a Pdf copy of Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr.'s October 20 decision in the Hardaway v. Negrelli, case regarding houses of worship as "sensitive areas."

https://www.scopeny2a.org/resources/pdfs/601876312-Tro-Houses-of-Worship-Gun-Ruling.pdf

Press Release: Schuyler SCOPE holds Meet the Candidates Night

The Schuyler County Chapter of Shooters Committee on Political Education (S.C.O.P.E.) invited candidates for county, state and congressional office to attend its quarterly meeting Thursday (October 6) as a “Meet the Candidates Night.”

Candidates were given the opportunity to make a few brief remarks and answer questions from the membership. Over thirty members of S.C.O.P.E. and the general public were in the audience.

Among the topics addressed were each candidate’s belief in the right to keep and bear arms, a pending resolution of the Schuyler County legislature calling for the repeal of recent New York gun law changes, pistol permit procedures, emergency management plans, federal conceal carry laws and related issues. Each candidate in attendance affirmed his or her strong support for the Second Amendment.

The following Schuyler County candidates attended and addressed the audience:

• Holley Sokolowski, Republican Candidate for County Treasurer (unopposed)
• Carl Blowers, Republican Candidate for County Legislature (District V)(unopposed)
• Phil Barnes, Republican Candidate for County Legislature (District VI)(unopposed)

In the race for U.S. Congress, District NY-23:

·      Republican congressional candidate Nick Langworthy appeared by campaign manager George McNerney.

·      Democrat congressional candidate Max Della-Pia did not respond to SCOPE's invitation.

For the New York State Legislature:

·      Incumbent Senator Tom O’Mara (R, unopposed) and incumbent Assembly member Phil Palmesano (R, unopposed) were both unable to attend due to prior commitments and sent their apologies.

 

S.C.O.P.E. is a non-partisan statewide 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to educating the public about firearm ownership, Second Amendment rights and legislation.   The Schuyler County chapter’s meetings are held on the 1st Thursday of the month at 7:00 pm in January, March, May, October and as necessary at  the Montour Falls Moose Lodge, 2096 Co Rd 14, Montour Falls, NY 14865.

****

Picture available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OgbucfdWXczCLPa7iCyZDRHSOamBIR7U/view?usp=sharing

Key parts of NY’s new gun lKey parts of NY’s new gun law blocked by federal judge in Syracuseaw blocked by federal judge in Syracuse!

Updated: Oct. 06, 2022, 1:09 p.m.|   Published: Oct. 06, 2022, 12:06 p.m.

NEW!   Anne Hayes | ahayes@syracuse.com

Syracuse, N.Y. -- A federal judge in Syracuse has blocked enforcement of several parts of New York’s broad new gun law.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby ruled that several provisions of the state’s new gun law are unconstitutional and cannot be enforced.

He delayed the implementation of his decision for three business days, to allow the state to seek an appeals court’s ruling. Suddaby’s temporary restraining order is in effect until at least an Oct. 20 motion briefing in his court.

Suddaby blocked provisions of the law that outlined new requirements for background checks for gun permits, including the disclosure of all of an applicant’s social media accounts. He also blocked the bans on guns in some public and private properties.

His decision Thursday granted a temporary restraining order against six provisions listed in the law.

Suddaby took issue with the state’s new background check requirements. Four of the six provisions struck down related to tough requirements for an application or renewal of a license for concealed carry.

He rejected the provision that an applicant must have evidence to demonstrate they have “good moral character,” an attempt by the state to block guns from people with bad intent. Suddaby reversed the burden of proof, ruling that it’s up to the licensing agency to prove the applicant does not have good moral character.

Suddaby also ruled that the state cannot require applicants to have an in-person meeting with the licensing officer, disclose the names and contact information of all adults residing in their home or provide a list of all current and former social media accounts from the past three years.

Suddaby also reduced the new law’s broad bans on guns in public and private spaces.

Syracuse federal judge remains skeptical of NY gun law as he considers whether to quash it.

Updated: Sep. 29, 2022, 6:18 p.m.|  Published: Sep. 29, 2022, 2:03 p.m.  Syracuse Federal Building, home of the city's federal district courts.

By Douglass Dowty | ddowty@syracuse.com

Syracuse, NY — A federal judge in Syracuse on Thursday expressed doubt about the constitutionality of several parts of New York’s recent gun law as he heard arguments over whether to block its enforcement.

Why can’t religious congregations decide whether or not to allow guns into their houses of worship? Why are guns presumptively banned from private property without explicit permission from owners? How can the government order people to provide their social media accounts to apply for a gun license?

Those were among the concerns that U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby honed in on during hourlong arguments Thursday in Syracuse over whether he should temporarily ban the state from enforcing the new gun law, which took effect Sept. 1.

The judge is expected to rule anytime after telling the parties in the noon hour that he would issue a written decision.

During court, the judge voiced similar concerns to those he shared in his written opinion last month. Then he wrote that parts of the law were unconstitutional but said he couldn’t do anything about it yet. Those legal issues remained unresolved Thursday, with the state arguing that there still was no standing to challenge the law.

But the hearing also drilled down on questions of substance posed by the law.

For example, is a state law banning guns on private property without an owner’s permission a violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms?

Stephen Stamboulieh, a Mississippi lawyer who represents several gun owners challenging the law, argued that such a ban unfairly targets gun owners.

For example, a home or business that welcomes guests with legal guns might need to post a large sign stating that preference, making them targets to those who may disagree with their position, Stamboulieh argued.

He urged the judge to restore the previous New York standard, in which guns were allowed unless property owners banned them. “I don’t have a problem with a private property owner excluding someone because of a gun,” Stamboulieh said.

On the other hand, the fact some people are uncomfortable with guns isn’t a reason to infringe on constitutional rights, he said.

“Maybe some people have a problem with (others carrying guns), but this is constitutional carry,” Stamboulieh said.

James Thompson, a special counsel to the state Attorney General’s Office for Second Amendment litigation, responded that the state wasn’t banning anything. Private property owners were free to decide whether to allow guns or not. The default was simply “no” instead of “yes.”

For example, shouldn’t a homeowner know if a repairman coming into their house is carrying a gun? Thompson asked.

“Property owners get to decide, and they get to know whether guns are being carried on their property,” Thompson said, adding later: “The government does not take a position one way or the other.”

The opposing arguments highlighted a difference of opinion that carried throughout the court proceeding. Should the judge be considering whether the law carried the danger of being applied unconstitutionally? Or should the judge consider only if there is a valid, constitutional application of the law?

“The standard should not be ‘Can we imagine an unconstitutional application?’ ” Thompson argued. “It’s ‘Can we imagine a constitutional one?’ ”

Every law, if misused, could be carried out unconstitutionally, Thompson added.

The state’s sweeping gun law forces otherwise law-abiding citizens to violate the law to exercise their Second Amendment rights, Stamboulieh responded. The threat of law-abiding citizens being arrested for a felony, punishable by prison time, for exercising their constitutional right to carry a gun was a “dire” situation, he said.

“Three days might be the difference between getting arrested or not,” Stamboulieh said of why the judge needed to act fast to strike down the law.

Both sides debated at length whether or not an Oswego County pastor should be able to carry his gun in church. Pastor Joseph Mann of the Fellowship Baptist Church, in Parish, is carrying his gun in defiance of the law banning guns in places of worship. He’s one of the plaintiffs in the current lawsuit, but was not required to be in court Thursday.

Stamboulieh said that Mann, and others in his congregation, had received special church-specific training in carrying guns to protect the church from attack.

But Thompson argued that banning weapons from places of worship might help prevent attacks by mass shooters. Suddaby questioned that argument, pointing to Stamboulieh’s argument that some attacks on religious services had been ended by armed congregants.

Both sides also battled over the requirement that gun applicants turn over their social media accounts for the past three years for consideration.

Thompson, the state lawyer, said nothing in the law required people to turn over passwords or set their settings so an investigating officer could read their social-media posts.

But Stamboulieh noted that the law stated the purpose of turning over social media accounts was so investigators could confirm whether or not the applicant exhibited the character and conduct needed to responsibly carry a gun. How could that be determined if the investigator couldn’t read someone’s social media posts?

Suddaby asked the state lawyer whether he could think of any other situation in which the government asked someone for their social media accounts on a sworn application.

Thompson said he couldn’t think of another form, but pointed to a long history of laws that prohibit gun ownership by people deemed a threat to themselves or others. Historically, mass shooters have posted of their plans publicly on social media, he added.

In his previous decision, Suddaby had opined that forcing someone to reveal their social-media accounts to exercise their Second Amendment right could be in violation of that person’s First Amendment right to free speech, or even their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination (if something potentially criminal was posted on their social media pages).

Beyond the myriad of arguments targeting different portions of the law, Suddaby also has to decide what his role will be in determining the way forward.

If the judge finds parts of the law unconstitutional, should he strike only those portions or the entire law? If he does strike down all or part of the law, should his ruling go into effect right away or remain stayed until the state has time to appeal?

Suddaby suggested that, if he does rule against the law, he might allow the state time to appeal before his order goes into effect. That would, in essence, leave the fate of the law to an appellate court.

Ultimately, regardless of what Suddaby decides, the state’s gun law appears headed for another review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The country’s high court set in motion the latest court battles by ruling New York’s gun licensing law unconstitutional, leading the state to respond by crafting the strictest gun laws in the country.