ANTONYUK VS. NIGRELLI (ANTONYUK II): IS THIS CASE DESTINED TO BE THE FOURTH SEMINAL U.S. SUPREME COURT PRONOUNCEMENT ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS?

******************************

IMPORTANT NOTE TO OUR READERS: THE ARTICLE  POSTED YESTERDAY UNDER THE TITLE, "THE MEANING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS CLEAR, AND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS SPOKEN, BUT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND NEW YORK GOVERNOR HOCHUL HAVE OTHER PLANS," HAS UNDERGONE A SUBSTANTIAL REWRITE, TO SUCH AN EXTENT, THAT WE FELT IT BEST TO POST THIS NEW ONE AS A DISTINCT ARTICLE, AND WITH AND UNDER A NEW BANNER. WE HAVE KEPT THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE, AS POSTED, TO BE FAIR TO ALL OUR READERS. YOU MAY WISH TO COMPARE THE TWO. BUT, IF YOU FIND DISCREPANCIES IN POINTS MADE, BE ADVISED THAT THIS INSTANT ARTICLE CONTROLS. IT REPRESENTS OUR SOLE POSITION AND PERSPECTIVE ON THE MATTERS DISCUSSED. THANK YOU.

******************************

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

SUBPART ONE OF PART TWENTY

THE MEANING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS CLEAR, AND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS SPOKEN, BUT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND NEW YORK GOVERNOR HOCHUL HAVE OTHER PLANS

PART ONE{INTRODUCTORY QUOTATION}“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their arms.” ~Samuel Adams, American Statesman and Founding FatherThe importance of Heller, McDonald, and Bruen cannot be overstated. These cases, together, establish the Court’s recognition of, one, the immutable, eternal right of the people to keep and bear arms, two, that this right shall not be infringed, and, three, that the armed citizenry is necessary to the security of a free State.The existence of and maintenance of a free Constitutional Republic is impossible without a well-armed citizenry.To understand where we are, at the start of a new year, we must retrace our steps back to 2020.Biden and the Democrat Party will up the ante in their attack on the Second Amendment. That is indisputable.In 2022, this assault on the right to armed self-defense against the predatory beast, predatory man, and, worst of all, predatory Government, became manifest.In early February 2021, we pointed out, in our article, titled, “The Biden Plan for the Political and Social Remaking of the American Landscape,” that——“During his first two weeks in Office, Joe Biden signed over 40 executive orders or similar executive edicts. And he isn’t done. A few days into February and we can expect to see 50 or more Presidential executive orders and other edicts.” This is unheard of.For comparison, we pointed to a news report published in February 2021, positing that,“President Donald Trump signed four in his first week in 2017; President Barack Obama signed five in 2009; President George W. Bush signed none in his first week in 2001; and President Bill Clinton signed one in 1993.”Apparently, Biden and the puppet masters who control him would waste no time reversing the gains Trump had made in setting the Nation back on course, consistent with the aims of the founders of our Nation: To maintain a strong and independent, sovereign Nation-State, and free Constitutional Republic.The Neoliberal Globalists have reverted to their agenda, set in motion by George Bush and Barack Obama, aimed at dismantling a free Republic and eliminating the exercise of Americans’ natural law rights through which the citizenry maintains its lawful sovereign authority over the Nation and Federal Government, and over its own destiny.Also, in that February 2021 article, the reporter pointed out that——“The twin issues of ‘guns’ and ‘gun violence’ will be much discussed in the weeks and months ahead. That much is certain.Will Biden sign an executive order banning assault weapons’ and will he sign a flurry of other antigun laws as well, not bothering to wait for Congressional enactments?Don’t think this is improbable. In fact, with all the banter of gun-toting ‘white supremacists’ and right-wing ‘domestic terrorists’ and with thousands of National Guard troops camped out in the U.S. Capital, and with the constant denigration of and growing suppression of conservative dissent, something is definitely afoot. In fact, the Democrat Party propaganda machine is in overdrive. The propagandist newspaper, NY Times, for one, has laid the groundwork for an assault on ‘guns.’”Our remarks and those in the news article were prescient.In June 2022, due to Congressional Democrats and scurrilous Congressional Republicans, Biden “signed into law into law the first major federal gun reform in three decades, days after a decision he condemned by the Supreme Court expanding firearm owners’ rights.” See the article in Reuters.Dutifully, compliantly obeying the orders of his Administrative nursemaids and caretakers, who themselves take orders from shadowy, sinister forces from on high, the Biden puppet also took aim at the millions of civilian citizens who own and possess semiautomatic weaponry and components of the weapons.But what is especially important here is a remark Biden conveyed to the Press, as reported by Reuters, in that same June 2022 article.“‘The Supreme Court has made some terrible decisions.’” The demented fool probably didn’t know what specific U.S. Supreme Court cases his caretakers ordered him to refer to. No matter. All Americans should know. And America’s Patriots do know.One was Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health. The other was NYSRPA vs. Bruen. Both decisions are important. But, of the two, the latter is much more important. The latter case pertains directly to the security of a free State. The former does not.NYSRPA vs. Bruen is the latest in a Supreme Court jurisprudential “trilogy” of seminal Second Amendment cases. Yet, the Biden Administration and some State Governments have openly defied the U.S. Supreme Court, and, worse, have openly demonstrated visible contempt for the High Court.At both the Federal Level and State Levels, powerful malevolent and malignant forces have directed their assault on America’s Second Amendment. Biden and New York Governor Kathy Hochul are the public faces behind shadowy orchestrators, passing along orders surreptitiously to their puppets.Our Free Constitutional Republic is in dire jeopardy.New York State Government and actions of other States since Bruen demonstrate all the fervor, ferocity, and audacity of those State governments to go their own way, blatantly disregarding Bruen as they disregarded Heller and McDonald. This has resulted in a plethora of new litigation against the States by Americans who desire only to exercise their natural law right to armed self-defense.The number of cases filed and progression of post-Bruen case law decisions in New York, alone, point to Americans’ adoration of the natural law right to armed self-defense and to the extraordinary lengths they will go to compel rogue States to adhere to both the plain meaning of the Second Amendment and to those U.S. Supreme Court rulings cementing the Second Amendment in the American psyche.This points to a tremendous disconnect between the Country Americans know and love, and an alien, monstrous non-nation the Biden Administration and many States, in league with the Biden Administration, wish to thrust on Americans, against their will.__________________________________________

A TREMENDOUS CLASH IS AT HAND BETWEEN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RULINGS IN BRUEN AND THE NEW YORK GOVERNMENT’S REPUDIATION OF BRUEN

SUBPART TWO

{INTRODUCTORY QUOTE}“It is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or of any number of men, at the entering into society to renounce their essential natural rights.” ~ Samuel Adams, American Statesman, and Founding FatherOnce the U.S. Supreme Court published the Bruen decision, the Hochul Government, anticipating the decision, was prepared for it. It had been prepared for the Bruen decision for months. The State Senate in Albany quickly enacted amendments to its Gun Law, designed to operate in defiance of the rulings and to further constrain the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and Governor Hochul immediately signed the amendments into law. Holders of valid New York concealed handgun carry licensees reviewed the amendments as quickly as Hochul had signed them into law. They were not amused. And they were the first out of the gate, in any jurisdiction, to challenge the constitutionality of those lengthy amendments to the New York Gun Law, which, as a body, were referred to as the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (“CCIA”).The Bruen decision came down on June 23, 2022. Hochul signed the CCIA into law on July 1, 2022. And Plaintiffs filed their case, Antonyuk vs. Bruen (Antonyuk I) on July 11, 2022.Since then, both Antonyuk I and a plethora of other cases wended their way through New York’s Federal Courts. But none are more important than that first case, as it is the first one to make its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the first one to receive a response from the U.S. Supreme Court since its rulings in NYSRPA vs. Bruen.After the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed Antonyuk I, without prejudice, Plaintiff Ivan Antonyuk and other holders of valid New York handgun carry licenses filed a new case, on September 20, 2022 (Antonyuk II). That case was recaptioned Antonyuk vs. Hochul. And, after the Court dismissed Hochul out as a Party Defendant, and, after a new Superintendent of the New York State Police, Steven Nigrelli, took over from the previous Superintendent of the New York State Police, Kevin Bruen, the Plaintiffs’ recaptioned the case, Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction, staying the execution of Hochul’s CCIA on November 7, 2022.One day later, coincidentally, the date of the Midterm Elections, November 8, 2022, the New York Government filed its Motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals, seeking relief from the PI, and the Second Circuit granted the relief the Government sought, on November 15, 2022, staying the PI, allowing execution of the CCIA during the pendency of the merits of the PI. Four days later, the Plaintiffs, NY concealed handgun carry licensees filed their own response to the lifting of the Stay.After the Second Circuit issued its ruling reversing the District’s granting of the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction. The Second Circuit modified its order minimally. The PI remained, stayed. See the Arbalest Quarrel article, posted on December 14, 2022, for details.The Plaintiffs appealed the Second Circuit’s ruling, requesting relief from the U.S. Supreme Court.As pointed out by John Crump, in an article posted on Ammoland on December 28, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court, on December 27, 2022, demanded a response from the Second Circuit.Justice Sotomayor issued a short “request.” Note: the term ‘request’ means the High Court isn’t ordering Hochul’s Government to respond to the Plaintiff’s Application for Relief, but a “request,” having been made, obviously encourages the Government to respond.Sotomayor’s directive reads:“Response to application (22A557) requested by Justice Sotomayor, due by 4 p.m. (EST), Tuesday, January 3, 2023.”Sotomayor’s Order is in reference to the Plaintiffs’ filing of December 21, 2022, titled,“Emergency Application For Immediate Administrative Relief And To Vacate Stay Of Preliminary Injunction Issued By The United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit.”In their filing, the Plaintiffs assert,“Without providing any analysis or explanation, the Second Circuit has stayed a preliminary injunction issued by a federal district court in New York that was carefully designed to limit New York’s enforcement of a sweeping gun control statute, enacted as retaliation against New York gun owners for having prevailed in this Court’s decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). The district court’s injunction was supported by a detailed 184-page opinion, meticulously tailored to follow this Court’s framework established in Bruen. In contrast, the Second Circuit’s stay pending appeal was issued based only on a single conclusory assertion, yet with the effect of indefinitely suspending the protections afforded New Yorkers by the Second Amendment and affirmed by this Court in Bruen. The Second Circuit’s stay should be vacated in order to uphold the right of New Yorkers to keep and bear arms, as well as to vindicate the authority of this Court over the circuit courts. This Court’s Opinion in Bruen was issued on June 23, 2022. Only hours later, New York Governor Hochul promised to ‘fight back’:We just received some disturbing news . . . the Supreme Court . . . has stripped away the State of New York’s right and responsibility to protect its citizens . . . with a decision . . . which is frightful in its scope of how they are setting back this nation. . . . This decision is not just reckless, it’s reprehensible. It’s not what New Yorkers want, and we should have the right of . . . what we want to do in terms of gun laws in our state. . . . [O]ur governor has a moral responsibility to do what we can . . . because of what is going on, the insanity of the gun culture that has now possessed everyone up to the Supreme Court. . . . We’ve been ready for this . . . We’ve been working with a team of legal experts . . . I’m prepared to call the legislature back into session. . . . We are not going to cede our rights that easily, despite the best efforts of the politicized Supreme Court. . . . No longer can we strike the balance. . . Shocking. They have taken away our rights. . . . This is New York. We don’t back down. We fight back. . . . I’m prepared to go back to muskets. . . . We’re just getting started here. Just eight days later on July 1, 2022, the New York Legislature responded to Governor Hochul’s call to defy this Court’s authority and resist Bruen’s protection of Second Amendment rights, enacting the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (“CCIA”). After extensive briefing, a hearing, and oral argument, the district court enjoined portions of the CCIA in a 184-page opinion. Shortly thereafter the Second Circuit, without providing any reasoning or analysis, granted New York’s request first for a temporary administrative stay, and then a stay pending appeal, allowing New York’s repudiation of Bruen back into effect without so much as a brief explanation.”The key to the Plaintiffs’ argument supporting relief from the Second Circuit’s perfunctory decision is the lack of reasoning of the Second Circuit for overriding the District Court’s analysis of the“Four-Factor” test, and the High Court is requesting the Government, and, obliquely, the Second Circuit itself, for an explanation of its reasoning behind the lifting of the PI stay of execution of the CCIA.In its comprehensive Opinion, the District Court determined the Plaintiff New York Concealed Handgun Carry Licensees proved that awarding the PI is warranted.The U.S. Supreme Court is of course well versed in the District Court’s comprehensive rulings, supporting its granting of Plaintiffs’ PI. And the High Court is well aware of the Second Circuit’s curt reversal of the lower Court’s decision.The U.S. Supreme Court’s unusual “request,” directed to the New York Government, is also aimed at the Second Circuit. The High Court is asking the Government, essentially a surrogate for the Second Circuit, here, to explain why the District Court’s comprehensive, logical, rational opinion, supporting its granting of the Preliminary Injunction, should be considered erroneous.Since the Second Circuit’s reversal of the District Court’s well-reasoned opinion granting the PI, is cryptic or, otherwise, meaningless, the U.S. Supreme Court has asked the Government to step in and explain why the U.S. District Court’s granting of the PI, staying enforcement of the CCIA should not be reinstated.This request mirrors the Plaintiffs’ Application to the Second Circuit, requesting an explanation for its curt reversal of the District Court’s granting of the Plaintiffs’ PI, sans any reason for lifting the Stay of the CCIA, imposed by the District Court.See our article titled, “New York’s Gun Law: A History Of & Present Status Of The Antonyuk Case,” posted on Ammoland Shooting Sports News, posted on December 28, 2022.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York issued a Preliminary Injunction against enforcement of the CCIA because,

• The Plaintiff New York State Concealed Handgun Carry Licensees are likely to succeed on the merits.
• The Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury absent a stay of the
• The Government is unlikely to incur substantial injury through a stay of enforcement of the CCIA during the review of the merits of the Plaintiffs' case against the New York Government.
• The public interest is so great and so grave that enforcement of the Government’s CCIA should be stayed pending the resolution of the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction.

That the Second Circuit lifted the stay not only allows enforcement of the CCIA, before the merits of the case are decided but disturbingly suggests the Second Circuit will ultimately find for the Government. This means, at first glance, at least, that the Second Circuit won’t issue a permanent injunction against enforcement of the CCIA but will find the CCIA Constitutional when it isn’t. But this is unlikely. We explain why in a subsequent article.One thing is clear. The New York Government, and, by extension, the Second Circuit—one through weak argument, and the second through a lame judicial order—have admitted they detest the Second Amendment, and are contemptuous of both the rulings in Bruen. And, further, that Governor Hochul, to her everlasting shame, expressed her personal disdain for the Court Majority that issued the rulings, thereby exhibiting her defiance of the U.S. Constitution, her contempt for the Nation, as an independent sovereign Nation-State and free Constitutional Republic, and her loathing of the people who happen to cherish their God-Given fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable, unmodifiable, and eternal, and absolute right to armed self-defense.But let Hochul rant and rave. The New York State Government and the Second Circuit are behind the eight-ball, now.The U.S. Supreme Court knows there is no logical and legal reason to allow for the enforcement of an unconstitutional Gun Law. And the High Court is nudging the Government to admit that fact.The Government need not respond to Justice Sotomayor’s unusual directive, as it is a “request,” not an order. But, obviously, Justice Sotomayor has encouraged the Government to respond, as failure to respond serves as a silent affirmation of the unconstitutionality of the CCIA.We consider in our next article the options open to the Government and the ramifications of their action, or non-action. The New York Government’s response—if there is one—must be filed by late afternoon, Tuesday, January 3, 2023. ___________________________________

THE NEW YORK STATE GOVERNMENT MUST EXPLAIN ITSELF TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT: THE FATE OF MILLIONS OF NEW YORK GUN OWNERS HANGS IN THE BALANCE, AND THE CLOCK IS TICKING

SUBPART THREE

{INTRODUCTORY QUOTE}“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous, they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to first external or internal invader.”~ Samuel Adams, American Statesman, and Founding FatherThe Plaintiff holders of New York handgun carry licenses requested clarification of the Second Circuit’s terse and vacuous, perfunctory order that overturned the U.S. District Court’s granting of their Preliminary Injunction, staying enforcement of the Government’s Concealed Carry License Improvement Act (CCIA).Concerned with an unsatisfactory order lacking any decipherable explanation for its decision staying the Preliminary Injunction, allowing enforcement of Hochul’s amendments to New York’s Gun Law during the pendency of Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, the Plaintiffs brought their grievance to the U.S. Supreme Court.The High Court accepted the Plaintiffs’ Application for Relief. The Government has precious little time to offer a response, although it need not do so. But, the Second Circuit has provided the New York Government until 4.00 PM, Tuesday, January 3, 2023, to issue its response if it wishes to do so.The procedural tool the Plaintiffs used to secure U.S. Supreme Court intervention here is called the “All Writs Act,” codified in 28 USCS § 1291. And the application of it is often a tortuous mess. The High Court didn’t rule on its efficacy of it here, but it served its purpose.As one legal writer said of the “All Writs Act,”“The prevailing doctrinal landscape is principally a product of two mid-twentieth-century judicial innovations: (1) the collateral order doctrine, which expands the meaning of the term ‘final decision’ for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291; and (2) appellate mandamus, which allows the federal courts of appeals to review interlocutory orders by issuing writs of mandamus under the All Writs Act, The current system has been subject to much criticism: ‘hopelessly complicated,’  ‘legal gymnastics,’ ‘dazzling in its complexity,’ ‘unconscionable intricacy’ with ‘overlapping exceptions, each less lucid than the next,’ ‘an unacceptable morass,’ ‘dizzying,’ ‘tortured,’ ‘a jurisprudence of unbelievable impenetrability,’ ‘helter-skelter,’ ‘a crazy quilt, ‘a near-chaotic state of affairs,’ a ‘Serbonian Bog,’ and ‘sorely in need of limiting principles.’ In the face of such criticism, the prevailing doctrine on appellate jurisdiction has proven to be surprisingly immune from reform.” “Reinventing Appellate Jurisdiction,” 48 B.C. L. Rev. 1237, November 2007, by Adam N. Steinman, Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati, College of Law, J.D. Yale Law School.” The High Court didn't rule on the applicability of the “All Writs Act,” thereby tacitly accepting jurisdiction to handle the matter set forth in the Plaintiffs' Application for Relief. And the High Court sent a clear message to the New York Government and, by extension, a silent message to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as well.The stakes are high, for everyone, Plaintiff New York Concealed Handgun Carry Licensees and Defendant New York Government Officials and Officers, and the matters involved impact the entire Nation, both the American People and other State Governments, and the Federal Government, too. You can bet that Justice Sotomayor’s Order placed a damper on New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day Holiday festivities. And Hochul’s Attorney General, Letitia James, and her staff of lawyers could not have been any happier.Although, as we pointed out, supra, the Defendant New Y0rk Government need not respond to Justice Sotomayor’s directive as it is only a “request” for a response, not an “order” demanding a response, unusual as this “request” is, it would be remiss of the Government to ignore this request. The issuance of even a seemingly benign request, any item coming from the U.S. Supreme Court is to be taken seriously, and in some cases, as here, cause for alarm. And Hochul's Government would be wise to respond to it, even if it isn't required to do so, as the New York Handgun license scheme licensing in place for well over one hundred years is on the line even if it doesn’t appear at the moment to be in jeopardy. It most definitely is.Whether the Government responds or not, however, various scenarios play out. We start with these three observations:First, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York realized the CCIA was not only blatantly unconstitutional but, as it is the Government’s response to the NYSRPA vs. Bruen, the CCIA operates as a blatant slap in the face to the High Court.Second, Hochul and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany basically told the U.S. Supreme Court to go to Hell. And while the District Court had no intention of playing that game of kowtowing to the New York Government any longer, the Second Circuit did so, lifting the PI Stay, but with an inadequate explanation because, obviously, there isn't one to be made.Third, The persistent problem for both the New York Government and the Second Circuit, is that the District Court’s findings were not wrong, which is why the District Court granted the PI. That fact also explains why the Second Circuit issued a perfunctory order, not dealing directly with the District Court’s findings. The Second Circuit could not rationally explain how the District Court’s application of the “Four-Factor” test was erroneous, but it didn’t want to rule against the Government. So, it issued a lame order.The Government and the Second Circuit might have expected the Plaintiffs would appeal the adverse action of the Second Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it probably felt the High Court would not accept the Plaintiffs’ application, inferring that there is no tenable basis for the High Court to entertain an interlocutory order here. Indeed, the Plaintiffs probably struggled to find a jurisdictional basis. The best thing, apparently the only thing, the Plaintiffs could come up with was the “All Writs Act” which is a wild stab at getting the U.S. Supreme Court’s attention. But it worked. The High Court wasn't going to stand on ceremony here. And, some credible basis could be made, if the High Court wished to deal with the applicability of the “All Writs Act,” jurisprudentially and jurisdictionally, as the application of it has expanded exponentially through time (so why not here?), the issues are so compelling that the High Court cut to the chase. The implication of the importance of Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli is clear from the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order qua “request” at all, on an interim, interlocutory matter. The New York Government and the Second Circuit felt smug. They both knew or would have, at least, surmised that the Plaintiffs would file their Application for Relief from the Second Circuit's Order, but both apparently, believed, erroneously, that the High Court would reject the Plaintiffs’ Application out of hand. They were wrong if they held such notions.The U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule on the application of the All Writs Act. It did an end run around it, simply “requesting,”—inviting, but not demanding—the New York Government to respond to the Plaintiffs’ Application for Relief from the Second Circuit’s stay of the Preliminary Injunction. That the High Court has at least invited the Government to respond is bad enough for the Government.What will Hochul’s Government do?The Government need not do anything. The High Court isn’t demanding a response from the Government. It only “requests” a response.Suppose the Government refrains from responding to Justice Sotomayor’s “request,” and takes its chances, relying on the decision of the Second Circuit that reversed the District Court, allowing enforcement of the CCIA during pendency —essentially doubling down on the Second Circuit’s weak Order.This would not bode well for the Government. The High Court could have remained aloof. It could have rebuffed the Plaintiffs’ application for relief from the Second Circuit’s Order. In that event, the High Court would have denied the Application outright. The CCIA would remain in force, and the PI stayed during the pendency. But the High Court didn’t do that.In requesting a response from the Government, the High Court had, in a non-positive way, manifested an interest in the Plaintiffs’ arguments, suggesting that the Plaintiffs’ arguments, supporting its Application for relief from the Second Circuit’s decision staying the PI, have merit. So the Government is obliged to respond.But then, why didn’t the High Court formally take the case up and issue an interlocutory order reversing the Second Circuit’s decision, sua sponte, i.e., on its own motion, affirming the District’s decision, and granting the PI? In that event, enforcement of the CCIA would be stayed, pending resolution of the merits, after which the losing party, having in hand a final order, could appeal a final decision to the U.S. Supreme Court for a full hearing of the Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli case, on the merits. Perhaps, the U.S. Supreme Court, at the moment, at least, wishes to be tactful, and diplomatic. And, so, the Government is tactically compelled to respond. It must take the High Court’s “request” as at least a tacit demand for a response, and for good reason.For, if the Government fails to respond, the High Court will likely, ipso facto, reverse the Second Circuit’s decision. The Government is, then, just asking for trouble by cavalierly failing to respond to the “request.”The Government, from years of experience, would have reason to expect the Second Circuit would kowtow to it, rubber-stamping the most outrageous Government actions, even as the lower Federal District Court made clear it was no longer going to play that game. This came as a surprise to Hochul. And she continually misconstrues the District Court's intent, refusing to acknowledge that the Court's orders mean what they say. This became blatantly clear in Hochul's remarks to the public after the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed Antonyuk vs. Bruen (Antonyuk I), inferring, wrongly, that the dismissal of the case, without prejudice, constituted an outright win for the Government. Hochul apparently failed to peruse, or, otherwise, she dismissed the reasoning of the Court. The Court made abundantly clear that the major, substantive portions of the CCIA are patently illegal, inconsistent with the plain meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and inconsistent with the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in NYSRPA vs. Bruen. No matter. The District Court dismissed the case. And for Kathy Hochul that is ALL THAT MATTERED to Hochul. Had she spent a little time reflecting on the content of the Opinion, she would know the Court had dismissed the case due to a standing issue of one of the Party Plaintiffs, and that matter could be rectified by simply filing a new case setting out the same allegations. Thus, the District Court tacitly encouraged the Plaintiff, Ivan Antonyuk, in the Plaintiffs' capacity as an injured individual, to file a new case against the New York Government. And Ivan Antonyuk did just that. That case, Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli (Antonyuk II), has come to bite Hochul, like an angry tiger, on her behind, and that tiger is not letting go.It is one thing for Governor Hochul to expect the New York Courts to kowtow to the New York Government on Second Amendment matters, as it has consistently done through the many years and decades. And the Second Circuit has done so, and the District Court has not, even if Hochul wishes to delude herself to think otherwise OR otherwise expect, as, at the moment, has panned out, that the higher U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will override the lower U.S. District Court's rulings. But, it is quite another thing entirely to expect the U.S. Supreme Court to do the same, to kowtow to the Government, knowing that Justice Sotomayor, along with a couple of other Associate Justices, is a diehard liberal-wing Justice, sharing the same ideology, abhorring the Second Amendment no less so than the New York State Government and the Second Circuit, and will therefore keep the High Court Conservative wing in check. No! Where, as here, the institution of the U.S. Supreme Court is threatened, the Justices will band together to preserve the sanctity of the High Court. That was true up to the present time. But with Biden's nominee to the High Court, now confirmed and sitting on the High Court, Ketanju Brown Jackson, it may very well be that a long-standing venerable institution is in danger of losing its integrity upon which it has heretofore remained a truly independent Branch of Government.Therefore, as for the matter at hand, Justice Sotomayor is not about to take action in a manner blatantly inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court Bruen rulings, even if she, along with a few other Justices, tends, ideologically, to be sympathetic to the Government's position on the Second Amendment.Thus, the Parties to the action here will be placed in the same position they were in before the Second Circuit’s action. The Second Circuit will be compelled to review the merits of the PI with enforcement of the CCIA stayed during the pendency of a decision on the merits of the case. Nonetheless, the New York Government ought to respond and, it is our prediction, will respond to Justice Sotomayor's “request.”  It must respond or incur the wrath of the U.S. Supreme Court that will take a non-response as yet one more personal slight, adding to a plethora of previous indignities that the miscreant, Kathy Hochul, showered on the Court.   As this article goes to posting, at the end of the business day, January 3, 2023, the New York Government has filed its response to Justice Sotomayor's “request,” pulled up from the U.S. Supreme Court docket. The filing is viewable as a PDF.AQ will study it shortly. Given the short time that the Government had available to it, to respond to Justice Sotomayor's, “request,”  the Government has probably reiterated the points made in its original response to the District Court’s decision, granting the PI, staying enforcement of the Government’s CCIA, and will hope for the best. What happens now?We consider the possibilities in depth, in the next article.______________________

NEW YORK GOVERNOR HOCHUL IS CAUGHT BETWEEN A ROCK AND HARD PLACE AND SHE HAS NO ONE TO BLAME FOR THIS BUT HERSELF

SUBPART FOUR

{INTRODUCTORY QUOTE}“The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors.” ~ Samuel Adams, American Statesman, and Founding FatherNow that New York Governor Kathy Hochul has responded to Justice Sotomayor’s “Response to application (22A557) requested by Justice Sotomayor, due by 4 p.m. (EST), Tuesday, January 3, 2023,” which has just been filed, viewable on the SCOTUS docket, the question is, what happens now? What will the U.S. Supreme Court do?This much we surmise:Justice Sotomayor will act, but she won’t act on her own. Likely, she can’t act on her own. The entire Court must resolve the matter, and it will resolve the matter.The High Court will review and analyze both the Plaintiffs' Application for Relief, previously filed, and titled, “Emergency Application For Immediate Administrative Relief And To Vacate Stay Of Preliminary Injunction Issued By The United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit”, and the Defendant New York Government's Response to the Plaintffs' Application for Relief, titled, “Brief For Respondents In Opposition To Emergency Application For Immediate Administrative Relief And To Vacate Stay Of Preliminary Injunction Issued By The U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit.” In rendering its decision, the High Court will likely utilize New York’s own “Four-Factor” standard, devised by the New York Federal Courts to ascertain if a Preliminary Injunction (PI) is warranted or not.Applying New York’s own test, the High Court will determine whether to lift the stay or retain the stay on enforcement of the CCIA during the pendency of a final decision on the PI. The case will then be returned to the Second Circuit for the ultimate resolution of the PI.AQ anticipates that the High Court will waste little time on this, and will render a decision within the next few days or within a week or two at the latest.Likely the High Court will find the District Court’s ruling, granting the Plaintiffs’ PI, warranted and will order the Second Circuit to stay execution of the CCIA while the Second Circuit hashes out the substantive merits of the case.One might think the Second Circuit would find against the Plaintiffs, on the merits, given the Court’s animosity toward the Second Amendment as illustrated in its decision on the District Court’s granting of the Preliminary Injunction. But will it do this? Suppose it does. What then? Plaintiffs will immediately appeal the adverse decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. And the U.S. Supreme Court would take the case up. There is no doubt about that. The U.S. Supreme Court would take the case up because Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli directly affects the High Court’s earlier decision in NYSRPA vs. Bruen. That is something neither the New York Hochul Government, nor the Second Circuit would want. For, the High Court would find that the CCIA, either in full or in substantial part, does not comply with the High Court’sBruen rulings. The High Court would thereupon strike the CCIA down.This would place Hochul Government in a much worse position than it was in when theBruen rulings first came down on June 23, 2022. Hochul should not have toyed with the High Court, pretending to comply with the Court’s Bruen rulings, all the while machinating to further constrain and constrict the exercise of the citizen’s right to armed self-defense. But Hochul thought she knew better. She didn’t. Instead, she stuck her foot well down her throat, and there it remains.And, once the High Court finds theCCIA unconstitutional, it could go one step further, finding the entire New York concealed handgun carry licensing structure unconstitutional. This is something it avoided in NYSRPA vs. Bruen. But, given Hochul’s contemptuous attitude toward the High Court, the gloves are off. The Court could and will take the Hochul Government to task. Strategically, then, to assist the Government, the Second Circuit would do well to find for the Plaintiffs, issuing a Permanent Injunction against enforcement of theCCIA. The Hochul Government wouldn’t dare appeal a seemingly adverse decision. That would be disastrous not only for New York, but for many other jurisdictions around the Country, including New Jersey, Illinois, California, Oregon, and Washington State, among others. Ultimately New York will have to revert to the original Gun Law, in substantial part, albeit without the “Proper Cause” requirement and without the other mischief it devised in constructing the CCIA. The Government will be compelled to issue a lot more concealed handgun carry licenses. It would be a bitter pill for the Government to swallow. But, at least, the Hochul Government will be able to keep intact some semblance of the State handgun licensing scheme, which it desires to preserve at all costs.Can Hochul do anything else, if not juridically, then politically to constrain New Yorkers from exercising their Second Amendment right? She can rant and rave to the Press, of course, which she will do anyway, and she can take her complaint to the Grand Harlequin in Chief, Joe Biden. But what the Hell can Biden do for her? Not a damn thing unless his Administration is prepared to declare martial law, arguing the U.S. Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights are now both defunct. This would lead to armed conflict throughout the Country. That is a dead certainty. The Administrative State, although powerful, isn’t omnipotent even if it thinks it is and even if many of the brainwashed legions of Americans think so, too.For, here, in our Country, unlike in the EU, in the Commonwealth Nations, or in CCP China, Americans are well-armed, tens of millions of Americans, and Americans have substantial ammunition to prevent a Neoliberal Globalist/Neo-Marxist Counterrevolution from overturning the American Revolution of 1776.History, morality, and law would all be on the side of America’s Patriots to take up arms against forces intent on thrusting a Neoliberal Globalist/Neo-Marxist Counterrevolution on the Nation.A declaration of martial law where no legitimate reason exists for invoking it—and there is none—irrefutably points to immoral and unlawful tyranny of Government.The Biden Administration would be openly guilty of this: launching tyranny of Government in the form of an illegal oligarchic conspiratorial takeover of the Government against the American people.Recall that Justin Trudeau declared martial law in Canada, for a short time. Canada has nothing remotely like a true Bill of Rights to secure freedom and liberty for common Canadians, but even that jackass was forced to back down, given a backlash in the Canadian Parliament. But he has learned from his earlier mistakes. He has since insinuated martial law in Canada incrementally, insidiously, beginning with a total ban on civilian possession of handguns. Further actions against liberty and freedom will be forthcoming. Wait and see. So much for Canada. And lots of luck with that, you Canadians!But for us, Americans, we should focus on Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli. Where is that case headed in the immediate future?The High Court will issue its order, sending the case back to the Second Circuit, but likely reaffirming the District Court’s grant of the PI, staying enforcement of the CCIA during the pendency of the case. That is our prediction. And that benefits Plaintiffs from the get-go. Time is on their side. However long the Second Circuit takes, the CCIA will remain suspended. We also predict as we stated, supra, that the Second Circuit will affirm the District Court’s findings on the Plaintiffs’ PI and convert it to a Permanent Injunction against enforcement of the CCIA, in full or in substantial part. The Second Circuit will take that seemingly paradoxical action to salvage for the Hochul Government what it can of New York’s concealed handgun licensing structure. Otherwise, if the Second Circuit were to find against the Plaintiffs, overturning the PI, ruling the CCIA constitutional, that would serve as a final appealable order just begging for the High Court's review of the case on the substantive merits with disastrous consequences for Hochul’s Government. So, the Hochul Government is, ultimately, in a quagmire it cannot extricate itself from. And Hochul herself can’t do a damn thing about it except beat her chest, screech, and howl to the winds. And, she has only herself to blame for this. She should not have toyed with the Bruen rulings, nor should she have poured salt on an open wound, contemptuously deriding the Court for its rulings, in the process, as she openly defied the Court.So, then, the Plaintiffs are in a strong position here to secure and strengthen the natural law right codified in the Second Amendment even if that isn’t immediately evident.The Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists both here and abroad will also moan and thrash about in impotent rage as the Republic may yet survive. The question is: Will the Biden Administration dare impose martial law on the Country in the next couple of years? Not likely. Not that it wouldn’t love to do just that.But, for all the myriad ways that the Biden Administration has deliberately weakened this Country, in the first two years of its reign, reversing Trump’s triumphs, as he has strengthened our Nation, and has secured it from threats posed by obvious foes and by dubious friends, the Biden Administration would be out of its mind to attempt confiscation of arms and ammunition on an industry-wide scale. What argument could the Biden Administration rationally conjure up? Can it rationally claim national security concerns, demanding that stringent measures be taken against those gun-toting “MAGA” Americans, and claiming a desire to protect the public from this thing, “Gun Violence,” even as the Government allows, even encourages, psychopathic criminals and lunatics to run amok, preying at will on innocent Americans?Spouting endless harangues against guns and the tens of millions of Americans who cherish their natural law right to keep and bear arms is one thing. Americans are inured to that. It is nothing more than water rolling off a duck’s back. But, to demand that average Americans forsake their firearms or face the wrath of the Federal Government is something else again. That is a recipe for civil war, the likes of which this Nation hasn’t seen since the War between the Blue and Gray. And it is the Federal Government itself that would bear sole responsibility for lighting that powder keg, unleashing a new horror on the Country for which History would forever justifiably excoriate.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

THE MEANING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS CLEAR, AND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS SPOKEN, BUT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND NEW YORK GOVERNOR HOCHUL HAVE OTHER PLANS

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

SUBPART ONE OF PART TWENTY

{INTRODUCTORY QUOTATION}“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their arms.” ~Samuel Adams, American Statesman and Founding FatherThe importance of Heller, McDonald, and Bruen cannot be overstated. These cases, together, establish the Court’s recognition of, one, the immutable, eternal right of the people to keep and bear arms, two, that this right shall not be infringed, and, three, that the armed citizenry is necessary to the security of a free State.The existence of and maintenance of a free Constitutional Republic is impossible without a well-armed citizenry.To understand where we are, at the start of a new year, we must retrace our steps back to 2020.Biden and the Democrat Party will up the ante in their attack on the Second Amendment. That is indisputable.In 2022, this assault on the right to armed self-defense against the predatory beast, predatory man, and, worst of all, predatory Government, became manifest.In early February 2021, we pointed out, in our article, titled, “The Biden Plan for the Political and Social Remaking of the American Landscape,” that——“During his first two weeks in Office, Joe Biden signed over 40 executive orders or similar executive edicts. And he isn’t done. A few days into February and we can expect to see 50 or more Presidential executive orders and other edicts.” This is unheard of.For comparison, we pointed to a news report published in February 2021, positing that,“President Donald Trump signed four in his first week in 2017; President Barack Obama signed five in 2009; President George W. Bush signed none in his first week in 2001; and President Bill Clinton signed one in 1993.”Apparently, Biden and the puppet masters who control him would waste no time reversing the gains Trump had made in setting the Nation back on course, consistent with the aims of the founders of our Nation: To maintain a strong and independent, sovereign Nation-State, and free Constitutional Republic.The Neoliberal Globalists have reverted to their agenda, set in motion by George Bush and Barack Obama, aimed at dismantling a free Republic and eliminating the exercise of Americans’ natural law rights through which the citizenry maintains its lawful sovereign authority over the Nation and Federal Government, and over its own destiny.Also, in that February 2021 article, the reporter pointed out that——“The twin issues of ‘guns’ and ‘gun violence’ will be much discussed in the weeks and months ahead. That much is certain.Will Biden sign an executive order banning assault weapons’ and will he sign a flurry of other antigun laws as well, not bothering to wait for Congressional enactments?Don’t think this is improbable. In fact, with all the banter of gun-toting ‘white supremacists’ and right-wing ‘domestic terrorists’ and with thousands of National Guard troops camped out in the U.S. Capital, and with the constant denigration of and growing suppression of conservative dissent, something is definitely afoot. In fact, the Democrat Party propaganda machine is in overdrive. The propagandist newspaper, NY Times, for one, has laid the groundwork for an assault on ‘guns.’”Our remarks and those in the news article were prescient.In June 2022, due to Congressional Democrats and scurrilous Congressional Republicans, Biden “signed into law into law the first major federal gun reform in three decades, days after a decision he condemned by the Supreme Court expanding firearm owners’ rights.” See the article in Reuters.Dutifully, compliantly obeying the orders of his Administrative nursemaids and caretakers, who themselves take orders from shadowy, sinister forces from on high, the Biden puppet also took aim at the millions of civilian citizens who own and possess semiautomatic weaponry and components of the weapons.But what is especially important here is a remark Biden conveyed to the Press, as reported by Reuters, in that same June 2022 article.“‘The Supreme Court has made some terrible decisions.’” The demented fool probably didn’t know what specific U.S. Supreme Court cases his caretakers ordered him to refer to. No matter. All Americans should know. And America’s Patriots do know.One was Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health. Dobbs. The other was NYSRPA vs. Bruen. Both decisions are important. But the latter is much more important. The latter case pertains directly to the security of a free State. The former does not.NYSRPA vs. Bruen is the latest in a Supreme Court jurisprudential “trilogy” of seminal Second Amendment cases. Yet, the Biden Administration and some State Governments have openly defied the U.S. Supreme Court, and, worse, have openly demonstrated visible contempt for the High Court.At both the Federal Level and State Levels, powerful malevolent and malignant forces have directed their assault on America’s Second Amendment. Biden and New York Governor Kathy Hochul are the public faces behind shadowy orchestrators, passing along orders surreptitiously to their puppets.Our Free Constitutional Republic is in dire jeopardy.New York State Government and actions of other States since Bruen demonstrate all the fervor, ferocity, and audacity of those State governments to go their own way, blatantly disregarding Bruen as they disregarded Heller and McDonald. This has resulted in a plethora of new litigation against the States by Americans who desire only to exercise their natural law right to armed self-defense.This points to a tremendous disconnect between the Country Americans know and love, and an alien, monstrous non-nation the Biden Administration and many States, in league with the Biden Administration wish to thrust on Americans, against their will.The number of cases filed and progression of post-Bruen case law decisions in New York, alone, point to Americans’ adoration of the natural law right to armed self-defense and to the extraordinary lengths they will go to compel rogue States to adhere to both the plain meaning of the Second Amendment and to those U.S. Supreme Court rulings cementing the Second Amendment in the American psyche.The High Court directed its Bruen rulings to New York’s “May Issue” gun law language, apropos of the State’s “Proper Cause” requirement. But the Court’s rulings apply to other States with similar language in their Gun Laws.As one might expect, holders of valid New York concealed handgun carry licensees were the first out of the gate, in any jurisdiction, to challenge the constitutionality of amendments to the New York Gun Law, the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (“CCIA”). The Bruen decision came down on June 23, 2022. Hochul signed the CCIA into law on July 1, 2022. And Plaintiffs filed their case, Antonyuk vs. Bruen (Antonyuk I) on July 11, 2022.Since then, both Antonyuk I and a plethora of other cases wended their way through New York’s Federal Courts. But none are more important than that first case, as it is the first one to make its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the first one to receive a response from the U.S. Supreme Court since its rulings in NYSRPA vs. Bruen.After the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed Antonyuk I, without prejudice, Plaintiff Ivan Antonyuk and other holders of valid New York handgun carry licenses filed a new case, on September 20, 2022 (Antonyuk II). That case was recaptioned Antonyuk vs. Hochul. And, after the Court dismissed Hochul out as a Party Defendant, and, after a new Superintendent of the New York State Police, Steven Nigrelli, took over from the previous Superintendent of the New York State Police, Kevin Bruen, the Plaintiffs’ recaptioned the case, Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction, staying the execution of Hochul’s CCIA on November 7, 2022.One day later, coincidentally, the date of the Midterm Elections, November 8, 2022, the New York Government filed its Motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals, seeking relief from the PI, and the Second Circuit granted the relief the Government sought, on November 15, 2022, staying the PI, allowing execution of the CCIA during the pendency of the merits of the PI. Four days later, the Plaintiffs, NY concealed handgun carry licensees filed their own response to the lifting of the Stay.After the Second Circuit issued its ruling reversing the District’s granting of the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction. The Second Circuit modified its order minimally. The PI remained, stayed. See the Arbalest Quarrel article, posted on December 14, 2022, for details.The plaintiffs appealed the Second Circuit’s ruling, requesting relief from the U.S. Supreme Court.As pointed out by John Crump, in an article posted on Ammoland on December 28, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court, on December 27, 2022, demanded a response from the Second Circuit.Justice Sotomayor issued a terse “request.” Note: the term ‘request’ means the High Court isn’t ordering Hochul’s Government to respond to the Plaintiff’s Application for Relief, but a “request,” having been made, obviously encourages the Government to respond.Sotomayor’s directive reads:“Response to application (22A557) requested by Justice Sotomayor, due by 4 p.m. (EST), Tuesday, January 3, 2023.”Sotomayor’s Order is in reference to the Plaintiffs’ filing of December 21, 2022, titled,“Emergency Application For Immediate Administrative Relief And To Vacate Stay Of Preliminary Injunction Issued By The United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit.”In their filing, the Plaintiffs assert,“Without providing any analysis or explanation, the Second Circuit has stayed a preliminary injunction issued by a federal district court in New York that was carefully designed to limit New York’s enforcement of a sweeping gun control statute, enacted as retaliation against New York gun owners for having prevailed in this Court’s decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). The district court’s injunction was supported by a detailed 184-page opinion, meticulously tailored to follow this Court’s framework established in Bruen. In contrast, the Second Circuit’s stay pending appeal was issued based only on a single conclusory assertion, yet with the effect of indefinitely suspending the protections afforded New Yorkers by the Second Amendment and affirmed by this Court in Bruen. The Second Circuit’s stay should be vacated in order to uphold the right of New Yorkers to keep and bear arms, as well as to vindicate the authority of this Court over the circuit courts. This Court’s Opinion in Bruen was issued on June 23, 2022. Only hours later, New York Governor Hochul promised to ‘fight back’:We just received some disturbing news . . . the Supreme Court . . . has stripped away the State of New York’s right and responsibility to protect its citizens . . . with a decision . . . which is frightful in its scope of how they are setting back this nation. . . . This decision is not just reckless, it’s reprehensible. It’s not what New Yorkers want, and we should have the right of . . . what we want to do in terms of gun laws in our state. . . . [O]ur governor has a moral responsibility to do what we can . . . because of what is going on, the insanity of the gun culture that has now possessed everyone up to the Supreme Court. . . . We’ve been ready for this . . . We’ve been working with a team of legal experts . . . I’m prepared to call the legislature back into session. . . . We are not going to cede our rights that easily, despite the best efforts of the politicized Supreme Court. . . . No longer can we strike the balance. . . Shocking. They have taken away our rights. . . . This is New York. We don’t back down. We fight back. . . . I’m prepared to go back to muskets. . . . We’re just getting started here. Just eight days later on July 1, 2022, the New York Legislature responded to Governor Hochul’s call to defy this Court’s authority and resist Bruen’s protection of Second Amendment rights, enacting the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (“CCIA”). After extensive briefing, a hearing, and oral argument, the district court enjoined portions of the CCIA in a 184-page opinion. Shortly thereafter the Second Circuit, without providing any reasoning or analysis, granted New York’s request first for a temporary administrative stay, and then a stay pending appeal, allowing New York’s repudiation of Bruen back into effect without so much as a brief explanation.”The key to the Plaintiffs’ argument supporting relief from the Second Circuit’s perfunctory decision is the lack of reasoning of the Second Circuit for overriding the District Court’s analysis of the “Four-Factor” test, and the High Court is requesting the Government, and, obliquely, the Second Circuit itself, for an explanation of its reasoning behind the lifting of the PI stay of execution of the CCIA.In its comprehensive Opinion, the District Court determined the Plaintiff Handgun Licensees proved that awarding the PI is warranted.The U.S. Supreme Court be versed in the District Court’s comprehensive rulings, supporting its granting of Plaintiffs’ PI. And the High Court would be versed in the Second Circuit’s reversal of the lower Court’s curt decision, dismissive of the District Court’s findings.The U.S. Supreme Court’s unusual “request,” directed to the New York Government, is also aimed at the Second Circuit. The High Court is asking the Government, essentially a surrogate for the Second Circuit, to explain why the District Court’s comprehensive, logical, rational opinion, supporting its granting of the Preliminary Injunction, should be considered erroneous.Since the Second Circuit’s reversal of the District Court’s well-reasoned opinion granting the PI, is cryptic or, otherwise, meaningless, the U.S. Supreme Court has asked the Government to step in and explain why the U.S. District Court’s granting of the PI, staying enforcement of the CCIA should not be reinstated.This request mirrors the Plaintiffs’ Application to the Second Circuit, requesting an explanation for its curt reversal of the District Court’s granting of the Plaintiffs’ PI, sans any reason for lifting the Stay of the CCIA, imposed by the District Court.See our article titled, “New York’s Gun Law: A History Of & Present Status Of The Antonyuk Case,” posted on Ammoland Shooting Sports News, posted on December 28, 2022.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York issued a Preliminary Injunction against enforcement of the CCIA because,

• The Plaintiff handgun licensees are likely to succeed on the merits.
• The Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury absent a stay of the CCIA.
• The Government is unlikely to incur substantial injury through a stay of enforcement of the CCIA during the review of the merits of the Plaintiffs' case against the New York Government.
• The public interest is so great and so grave that enforcement of the Government’s CCIA should be stayed pending the resolution of the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction.

That the Second Circuit lifted the stay not only allows enforcement of the CCIA, before the merits of the case are decided but disturbingly suggests the Second Circuit will ultimately find for the Government. This means the Second Circuit likely won’t issue a permanent injunction against enforcement of the CCIA but will find the CCIA constitutional when it isn’t.The New York Government, and, by extension, the Second Circuit, albeit tacitly, must now admit they both detest the Second Amendment, and they are contemptuous of Bruen.Both the Government and the Second Circuit are behind the eight-ball.The U.S. Supreme Court knows there is no logical and legal reason to allow the enforcement of an unconstitutional gun law. And the High Court is nudging the Government to admit that fact.The Government need not respond to Justice Sotomayor’s unusual directive, as it is a “request” not an order. But, obviously, Justice Sotomayor has encouraged the Government to respond, as failure to respond serves as a silent affirmation of the unconstitutionality of the CCIA.We consider in our next article the options open to the Government and the ramifications of their action, or non-action, in our next article. The New York Government’s response—if there is one—must be filed by Tuesday, January 3, 2023.___________________________________

THE NEW YORK STATE GOVERNMENT MUST EXPLAIN ITSELF TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT: THE FATE OF MILLIONS OF NEW YORK GUN OWNERS HANGS IN THE BALANCE AND THE CLOCK IS TICKING

SUBPART TWO

{INTRODUCTORY QUOTE}“It is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or of any number of men, at the entering into society to renounce their essential natural rights.”“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous, they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to first external or internal invader.”~ Two Quotes from  Samuel Adams, American Statesman, and Founding FatherThe Plaintiff holders of New York handgun carry licenses requested clarification of the Second Circuit’s terse, vacuous, perfunctory order that overturned the U.S. District Court’s granting of their Preliminary Injunction, staying enforcement of the Government’s Concealed Carry License Improvement Act (CCIA).Concerned with an unsatisfactory order lacking any decipherable explanation for its decision staying the Preliminary Injunction, allowing enforcement of Hochul’s amendments to New York’s Gun Law during the pendency of Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, the Plaintiffs brought their grievance to the U.S. Supreme Court.The High Court accepted the Plaintiffs’ Application for Relief. The Government has precious little time to offer a response, although it need not do so. The Second Circuit has provided the New York Government until 4.00 PM, Tuesday, January 3, 2023, to issue its response if it wishes to do so.The procedural tool the Plaintiffs used to secure U.S. Supreme Court intervention here is called the “All Writs Act,” codified in 28 USCS § 1291. And the application of it is often a tortuous mess. As one legal writer said of the “All Writs Act,”“The prevailing doctrinal landscape is principally a product of two mid-twentieth-century judicial innovations: (1) the collateral order doctrine, which expands the meaning of the term ‘final decision’ for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291; and (2) appellate mandamus, which allows the federal courts of appeals to review interlocutory orders by issuing writs of mandamus under the All Writs Act, The current system has been subject to much criticism: ‘hopelessly complicated,’  ‘legal gymnastics,’ ‘dazzling in its complexity,’ ‘unconscionable intricacy’ with ‘overlapping exceptions, each less lucid than the next,’ ‘an unacceptable morass,’ ‘dizzying,’ ‘tortured,’ ‘a jurisprudence of unbelievable impenetrability,’ ‘helter-skelter,’ ‘a crazy quilt, ‘a near-chaotic state of affairs,’ a ‘Serbonian Bog,’ and ‘sorely in need of limiting principles.’ In the face of such criticism, the prevailing doctrine on appellate jurisdiction has proven to be surprisingly immune from reform.” “Reinventing Appellate Jurisdiction,” 48 B.C. L. Rev. 1237, November 2007, by Adam N. Steinman, Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati, College of Law, J.D. Yale Law School.” The stakes are high. You can bet that Justice Sotomayor’s Order placed a damper on New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day Holiday festivities. And Hochul’s Attorney General, Letitia James, and her staff of lawyers could not have been any happier.Although the Government need not respond to Justice Sotomayor’s directive as it is only a “request” for a response, not an “order,” it is still a cause for alarm. And the Government would be wise to respond to it as the New York Handgun license scheme licensing in place for well over one hundred years is on the line.Whether the Government responds or not, various scenarios play out. John Crump has pointed to a couple of possible scenarios. See, once again, his article in Ammoland Shooting Sports News. We expand on those, and we start with these three observations:First, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York realized the CCIA was not only blatantly unconstitutional but, as it is the Government’s response to the NYSRPA vs. Bruen, the CCIA operates as a blatant slap in the face to the High Court.Second, Hochul and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany basically told the U.S. Supreme Court to go to Hell. And while the District Court had no intention of playing that game any longer, kowtowing to the New York Government, the Second Circuit did so, lifting the PI Stay, but with an inadequate explanation.Third, The persistent problem for both the New York Government and the Second Circuit, is that the District Court’s findings were not wrong, which is why the District Court granted the PI. That fact also explains why the Second Circuit issued a perfunctory order, not dealing directly with the District Court’s findings.  resulted in the Plaintiffs’ appeal of an interlocutory order directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Second Circuit could not justify rationally how the District Court’s application of the “Four-Factor” test was erroneous, but it didn’t want to rule against the Government. So it issued a lame order.The Government and the Second Circuit might have expected the Plaintiffs would appeal the adverse action of the Second Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it probably felt the High Court would not accept the Plaintiffs’ application, inferring that use of the All Writs Act is a wild stab at getting the U.S. Supreme Court to accept a jurisdictional basis that doesn’t apply here.Perhaps that is why the Government and the Second Circuit felt smug, believing, erroneously, that the High Court would not grant the All Writs Act, compelling the New York Government to make its case for staying the PI. But the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule on the application of the All Writs Act. It did an end run around it, simply “requesting,”—inviting, but not demanding—the New York Government to respond to the Plaintiffs’ Application for Relief from the Second Circuit’s stay of the Preliminary Injunction. That the High Court has at least invited the Government to respond is bad enough for the Government.What will Hochul’s Government do?The Government need not do anything. The High Court isn’t demanding a response from the Government. It only “requests” a response.Suppose the Government refrains from responding to Justice Sotomayor’s “request,” and takes its chances, relying on the decision of the Second Circuit that reversed the District Court, allowing enforcement of the CCIA during pendency —essentially doubling down on the Second Circuit’s weak determination.This would not bode well for the Government. The High Court could have remained aloof. It could have rebuffed the Plaintiffs’ application for relief from the Second Circuit’s Order. In that event, the Court High Court would have denied the Application outright. The CCIA would remain in force, and the PI stayed during the pendency. But the High Court didn’t do this.In requesting a response from the Government, the High Court had, in a non-positive way, manifested an interest in the Plaintiffs’ arguments, suggesting that the Plaintiffs’ arguments, supporting its Application for relief from the Second Circuit’s decision staying the PI, have merit.But then, why didn’t the High Court formally take the case up and issue an interlocutory order reversing the Second Circuit’s decision, affirming the District’s decision, and granting the PI? In that event, enforcement of the CCIA would be stayed, pending resolution of the merits, after which the losing party, having in hand a final order, could appeal a final decision to the U.S. Supreme Court for a full hearing of the Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli case, on the merits.The Government is nonetheless tactically compelled to respond. It must take the High Court’s “request” as a demand for a response, and for good reason.For, if the Government fails to respond, the High Court will likely reverse the Second Circuit’s decision. The Government is just asking for trouble by cavalierly failing to respond to the “request.” The Government may from years of experience, expect that the Second Circuit will kowtow to it, rubber-stamping the most outrageous Government actions. But, it is another thing again to expect the U.S. Supreme Court to do so, even if Justice Sotomayor is a diehard liberal-wing Justice, who abhors the Second Amendment no less than the New York State Government. Justice Sotomayor is not about to take an action inconsistent with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, even if she, along with a few other Justices, tends to be sympathetic to the Government's position on the Second Amendment. Thus, the Parties will be placed in the same position they were in before the Second Circuit’s action. Thus, the Second Circuit will be compelled to review the merits of the PI with enforcement of the CCIA stayed during the pendency of a decision on the merits of the case. This is why the New York Government must respond and will respond to Justice Sotomayor's “request.”  It must respond or incur the wrath of the U.S. Supreme Court. But, given the short time available to it, now imminent as this article goes to publication, the Government will probably simply reiterate the points made in its original response to the District Court’s decision, granting the PI, staying enforcement of the Government’s CCIA. What happens then?Justice Sotomayor won’t act on her own. Likely, she can’t act on her own. The entire Court must resolve the matter.And, utilizing New York’s own “Four-Factor” standard, devised by the New York Federal Courts to ascertain if a PI should be granted or not, the High Court will determine whether to lift the stay or retain the stay on enforcement of the CCIA during the pendency of a final decision on the PI. In either event, the case will be returned to the Second Circuit for ultimate resolution.If the Second Circuit finds for the Plaintiffs, which is doubtful, given the Court’s animosity toward the Second Amendment as illustrated in its decision on the District Court’s granting of the Preliminary Injunction, the Second Circuit will deny the preliminary injunction, and rule the CCIA constitutional. With the denial of a preliminary injunction, the decision will have the effect of a final judgment on the merits. The Second Circuit will have determined that the CCIA is constitutional. The Plaintiffs will return to the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting a formal review of the case on the merits.And the U.S. Supreme Court will take the case up. There is no doubt about that. Since the case directly affects its earlier decision in NYSRPA vs. Bruen, the Court will determine whether the CCIA complies with the High Court’s Bruen rulings or doesn’t. Unless the composition of the High Court changes, the Court will find the CCIA unconstitutional in full or in part. Likely the result will bode ill for the Government. The entire concealed handgun carry license scheme will now be on the line. And the decision will result in severely weakening if not upending the entire New York handgun licensing scheme.This places the Hochul Government in a worse position than it was when the Bruen rulings came down on June 23, 2022. She should not have toyed with the High Court, pretending to comply with the Court’s Bruen rulings, all the while constricting the exercise of the right to armed self-defense ever tighter.The Second Circuit would know this from the get-go. Rightfully fearing reversal of an appeal if it denies the preliminary injunction, effectively finding the CCIA Constitutional, the Second Circuit may throw in the towel. In that event, the Court will grant the Preliminary Injunction, finding it meets the New York “Four-Factor” standard, and thence convert it into a Permanent Injunction. That means the CCIA will remain unenforceable forever. Thus, even if the Constitutionality of it isn’t decided, the net effect is to reduce its impact to nullity.What happens then? The Government can appeal an adverse decision to the High Court. It won’t do that. For if it did so, the High Court will take the appeal up and affirm the decision of the Second Circuit.The High Court may even go one step further, holding the CCIA unconstitutional. Conceivably the High Court could go two steps further, finding the entire New York concealed handgun carry licensing structure unconstitutional. Looking at the Government’s attitude toward the Court, as exemplified by its actions, the Court could take the Hochul Government to task. That is possible.Therefore, if the Second Circuit finds for the Plaintiffs, issuing a Permanent Injunction against enforcement of the CCIA, the Hochul Government won’t dare appeal a decision. That would result be disastrous not only for New York, but for many other jurisdictions around the Country, including New Jersey, Illinois, California, Oregon, and Washington State, among others.The best that Hochul can hope for, and the Biden Administration, too, is that, in the next two years, they have an opportunity to get seat another Anti-Bill of Rights person on the High Court. Don’t be surprised to see Biden nominating his Attorney General, Merrick Garland to a seat. Democrats have waited a long time, and they have never forgiven Trump, nor McConnell for denying Garland a Confirmation Hearing which would have seen him on the Court anyway. If that had occurred, Bruen would never have been decided favorably. More likely, the High Court likely would never have reviewed the Bruen case. And Heller and McDonald would be in jeopardy of being overturned. And with the loss of Heller and McDonald, the Country would be that much closer to seeing the end of days for a free Constitutional Republic and a sovereign American citizenry.Can Hochul do anything else, politically, since she is foreclosed from doing anything more juridically? She can rant and rave in the Press, and she can take her complaint to the Grand Harlequin in Chief, Biden. But what the Hell can Biden do for her? Not a damn thing unless his Administration is prepared to declare martial law, arguing the U.S. Supreme Court is now defunct. This happens in Banana Republics. It doesn’t happen in honest-to-God Constitutional Republics. This would lead to armed conflict. The Administrative State, although powerful, isn’t omnipotent even if it thinks it is and even if many Americans think so, too.For, here, in our Country, unlike in the EU, in the Commonwealth Nations, or in CCP China, Americans are well-armed, tens of millions, and Americans have substantial ammunition to prevent a Neoliberal Globalist/Neo-Marxist Counterrevolution from prevailing. That fact isn’t to be taken lightly by this Nation's rogue Federal Government and by rogue State Governments like that of New York. And Americans would have a good case, morally, historically, and legally, for taking up arms against those forces intent on entertaining a Neoliberal Globalist/Neo-Marxist  Counterrevolution.A declaration of martial law where no legitimate reason exists for invoking it manifestly demonstrates tyranny of Government.The Biden Administration would be openly admitting this through its actions: Tyranny of Government in the form of an illegal oligarchic conspiratorial takeover of the Government against the American people.Recall that Justin Trudeau declared martial law in Canada, for a short time. Canada has nothing remotely that can honestly be considered a true Bill of Rights, and even that jackass was forced to back down, given a backlash in the Canadian Parliament.So where is Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli headed?The High Court will issue its order, and it will shoot down the Second Circuit. That is our prediction. It means the CCIA will remain unenforceable during the pendency of the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit, and the PI will remain effective. And neither the Second Circuit nor Hochul can do a damn thing about it except beat their chest, screech, and wail to the winds.But, even if the High Court affirms the decision of the Second Circuit or, through its inaction, remains silent on the Second Circuit’s decision, allowing the decision to stand, the Hochul Government is, ultimately, in a quagmire it cannot extricate itself from.If the Second Circuit finds against the Plaintiffs on the merits, the Plaintiffs will appeal an adverse decision to the High Court. And the Court will take up the case. There is no question about that. And, the CCIA will be struck down, as it is untenable. It contradicts the plain meaning of the Second Amendment and the Bruen rulings. And once the CCIA is struck down, that will severely damage the entire handgun licensing structure of New York, as the illegality of the entire structure, and the illegal machinations of the Government that created it will be crystal clear.And, if the Second Circuit finds for the Plaintiffs and issues a permanent injunction against the Government on enforcement of the CCIA, that will effectively strike the death knell for the CCIA, setting the stage for the eventual dismantling of the entire handgun licensing structure as it was untenable, legally, historically, and morally, at its inception, as the Sullivan Act, 112 years ago.The Government can appeal from a Second Circuit Court ruling against it, but it won’t do that. It has nothing to gain, and it has everything to lose were it to do so. For, the last thing New York needs is a fourth seminal Second Amendment case that not only effectively destroys the entire handgun licensing structure of the State but will effectively be disastrous for all other jurisdictions that have draconian “may issue” concealed handgun carry license laws in place.Either way, we see the Plaintiffs in a good position here to secure and strengthen the natural law right codified in the Second Amendment even if that isn’t immediately evident.The Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists both here and abroad will thrash about in impotent rage as the Republic may yet survive. The question is: Will the Biden Administration dare impose martial law on the Country?For all the myriad ways that the Biden Administration has deliberately weakened this Country, the Government would be out of its mind to attempt confiscation of arms and ammunition on a wide scale, claiming that national security concerns demand that stringent measures be taken against these gun-toting “MAGA” Americans. Spouting harangues against guns and tens of millions of Americans who cherish their natural law right to keep and bear arms is one thing. Demanding Americans to forsake their firearms is something else again.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE CONNECTICUT HANDGUN CARRY PERMIT: BASIC PROCEDURES

A ROAD TRIP WITH A HANDGUN: The Case For Universal State Concealed Handgun Carry Reciprocity

CONNECTICUT PISTOL PERMIT PROCEDURES FOR NON-RESIDENTS ARE DIFFERENT THAN FOR THOSE WHO RESIDE IN THE STATE: NON-RESIDENTS MUST SECURE A VALID CCW FROM ANOTHER JURISDICTION BEFORE AN APPLICATION FOR A CONNECTICUT PISTOL PERMIT WILL BE CONSIDERED

THE ADVENTURES OF ONE LAW-ABIDING AMERICAN CITIZEN AS HE TRAVERSES THE MINEFIELD OF FIREARMS’ LAWS, ATTEMPTING TO SECURE FOR HIMSELF MULTIPLE CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSES FROM A MULTITUDE OF JURISDICTIONS THAT HE MAY EXERCISE HIS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELF-DEFENSE

A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PROCEDURES FOR OBTAINING A CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE IN VARIOUS STATES, FOR THE LAYMAN

PART FOUR: THE CONNECTICUT FIREARM APPLICATION PROCEDURE FOR ACQUIRING AN UNRESTRICTED CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE

THE CIRCUITOUS, TORTUOUS ROUTE TO OBTAINING MULTIPLE UNRESTRICTED CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSES, AS EXPERIENCED BY OUR INTREPID CITIZEN, MR. WRIGHT.

SUBPART THREE

RECAP AND ASIDE

As we continue to work through a detailed examination of the licensing schemes of a few States, we do so following in the footsteps of Mr. Wright, an American citizen, a successful business owner, and fervent supporter of our “Bill of Rights”— all ten of them, including then, our sacred Second Amendment. Mr. Wright, travels regularly on business throughout the United States. The nature of Mr. Wright’s business requires him to carry valuables, consisting of products associated with his business and, as well, valuable negotiable instruments, and substantial amounts of cash. As he travels throughout the U.S. on business, Mr. Wright is an obvious target of assault. And, since Mr. Wright carries products and negotiable instruments of significant and substantial value, he is, as well, a tempting target.Mr. Wright had first sought to obtain an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license for Nassau County. The licensing of firearms is handled exclusively by the Nassau County Police Department. Mr. Wright is a resident of Nassau County, Long Island, New York. We discussed, in previous articles in the ROAD TRIP series, the onerous steps involved in attempting to secure handgun carry licenses in New York. In fact, various jurisdictions, County and City, within the State of New York, such as New York City, have instituted their own requirements for obtaining a concealed handgun carry license. That means, for example, the NYPD, that has exclusive authority for issuing all firearms’ licenses for the City, won’t recognize a handgun carry license validly issued from any New York jurisdiction other than its own. A New York resident who seeks, then, to exercise his or her fundamental right under the Second Amendment to carry a handgun concealed for self-defense anywhere in the State, but who doesn’t reside or work in any one of the five Boroughs of New York City, must obtain an additional CCW issued by the Licensing Division of the NYPD if he or she wishes to carry a concealed handgun, lawfully, in any one or more of those five Boroughs that comprise the City.Our intrepid citizen, Mr. Wright, holds valid handgun licenses issued by the appropriate licensing official of Maine, of Nassau County, Long Island, New York, of New York City, and licensing officials of other jurisdictions.State laws governing firearms ownership and possession are constantly changing. For the ROAD TRIP series, we will present you with the latest firearms’ licensing procedures as of the date of posting of the respective article.Each State, and the District of Columbia, has its own set of firearms’ laws including its own laws pertaining to the licensing of firearms to citizens. Those laws are often changing and they are often complicated, sometimes exceedingly so. That is the case, especially, in those jurisdictions that don’t desire American civilians to own and possess firearms—and there are more than a few of those.Since State firearms’ laws do change—sometimes quickly and often drastically, subject to the whims of Legislatures operating on the latest “gun news” story of the day—the Arbalest Quarrel will keep abreast of the changes of the law in the jurisdictions—local, State, and federal—that we discuss. As we go through the steps Mr. Wright went through to secure his handgun licenses, we will take some liberty. We will discuss the firearms’ laws and procedures as those procedures exist today, which may be different in small or large part from the time Mr. Wright applied for and received his handgun permits and licenses. We will also discuss, as they pertain to the often frustrating circumstances surrounding Mr. Wright’s experiences, what one might expect as he or she attempts to secure a concealed handgun carry license for one’s self. The actual tortuous hurdles are not exemplified in the droll and dry application papers themselves. Real world circumstances illustrate plainly and painfully, just what a person must go through simply to exercise his or her fundamental right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.As we have pointed out both here and in previous articles, Mr. Wright applied for and received his concealed handgun carry licenses many years ago, albeit he periodically must renew those licenses to keep them in force, and he does so. You might think that renewals of one’s licenses would be a relatively simple and straightforward process, compared to the lengthy process of securing a concealed handgun carry license for the first time. But, that is not always the case. Moreover, even where renewing a license is a relatively simple and painless process, it still involves the laying out of additional sums of money, and each jurisdiction has its own timetable for renewing a license. The timing of renewals is not consistent from one jurisdiction to the next and, if a handgun licensee should miss the renewal period, there is no grace period, and licensing officials do not excuse a mistake in missing a deadline. That means an individual must go through the entire process to secure a concealed handgun carry license again, as if for the first time. That means: do not miss a deadline for renewing your handgun license!We will provide you with accurate gun licensing information as of the date of the posting of the article as if Mr. Wright were applying for a concealed handgun carry license at this moment in time, noting differences in past and present laws to the extent we believe those differences critical in understanding the reason jurisdictions have made the changes in firearms’ laws that they do and to point to ambiguities and vagueness in gun laws as we see them.The steps involved in securing a concealed handgun carry license are time-consuming and expensive. Don’t think they aren’t. In some jurisdictions, the application procedure is extremely extensive and tedious, sometimes confoundingly complex or confusing, and any two processes are invariably duplicative. Jurisdictions will require the applicant to present fingerprint cards, signed and completed. Many questions as to one’s physical and mental health, and criminal record, if any, will be duplicative, if somewhat nuanced from one jurisdiction to the next. Photographs and proof of citizenship will likely be standard from one jurisdiction to the next.The ROAD TRIP series should demonstrate to you, if nothing else, the need for simple, straightforward, streamlining of the application process—keeping in mind that, after all, the law-abiding American citizen who seeks to obtain a handgun carry license for self-defense is undertaking a task that should not be inconsistent with the customs and values of our Nation. Yet, the procedures in place today, in many jurisdictions, are reminiscent of or suggestive of values and customs and traditions of other nations or groups of nations, such as those that comprise the EU. Understand: no other Country on Earth recognizes the singular right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms as accruing in and existent in the individual. Yes, the cantons of Switzerland permit, perhaps—at one time—may even have required citizens to own firearms, including machine guns. That may no longer be the case as Switzerland, being pressured by the “elites” who had created the EU, have a strong distaste toward the average citizen owning firearms. Switzerland has acquiesced somewhat to the dictates of the EU even though it isn’t formally part of the EU.Israeli citizens, too, may apply for and readily obtain a permit to own and possess firearms, including machine guns. But the right of the Swiss citizen or the Israeli citizen to own and possess any firearm doesn’t accrue to the individual—that is to say, the right is not intrinsic to the individual, as a natural right, preeminent in and preexistent in the individual. It is a privilege bestowed on the citizen by the government—bestowed easily and routinely, but a privilege nonetheless.The United States is the only Nation on the face of the Earth that recognizes, in the Country’s Second Amendment, that the right of self-defense is basic, natural, primordial and that the right accrues to the individual. It is not something that is bestowed upon a person by government. That right is not to be denigrated or denied. No better means for defending one’s life and well-being against physical threat exists than that of a firearm in the hands of one properly trained in its use. Yet, why is it that the average law-abiding American citizen must jump through hoops simply to exercise that right?The right of self-defense is, after all, embedded in the Second Amendment. The federal Government does not bestow that right upon American citizens. It cannot bestow that right because the right preexists in each American citizen. Antigun groups either don’t realize this basic incontrovertible fact or otherwise choose to ignore it. They claim the right to keep and bear arms exists merely as a collective right in the context of militias, suggesting that the right has no meaning except in the context of the collective need of the State to protect itself against threats from outside the State—outside the Nation.We see this idea echoed constantly in innuendos, in suggestions, as exemplified in policies, that rights and liberties are tied not to Americans as individuals, but to American citizens as nameless components of society; to Americans as they exist as part of a huge collective; as part of a hive, as so many nameless cogs in a wheel. That, of course, is a false notion, one the founders had not and would not ever ascribe to. But, it is a myth presented to the public, as perpetrated by and engrained in the public through the mainstream media, at the behest of those ruthless forces that seek an end to the Republic and an end to this Country as an independent, sovereign Nation.

A WORD OF ADVICE FOR THOSE AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO WISH TO SECURE ONE OR MORE CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSES

The first step an American citizen should take when seeking to acquire a concealed handgun carry license is to peruse the website of the gun licensing authority closely. Each of the jurisdictions we have examined, during our research, maintain a website through which one may find information pertaining to firearms’ laws applicable to the jurisdiction. The information provided is basic, but it is a good starting point. The websites we have looked at provide, as well, information pertaining to the licensing of firearms in the subject jurisdiction. The information we found to be presented in an honest and forthright manner in even if you must, in some instances, have to dig deep to uncover that information through several layers of menus and through more than a few web pages.The website will plainly lay out the governmental authority that has primary or exclusive authority for licensing of firearms in the jurisdiction. Often, but not invariably, this will be the duty of police authority in the jurisdiction. The applicant for a firearm’s license should familiarize himself or herself with the applicable licensing procedures. Sometimes, it will be relatively easy to do this as the menu items directed to firearms’ licensing are easy to locate and decipher. At other times that can be difficult. We find this to be true for those jurisdictions that have had a history of draconian gun laws and that are antithetical to the notion of an armed citizenry. Thus, you may need to drill down through several menu options to obtain the information you need.You should contact the issuing authority directly if you have any question or seek confirmation of how you are to proceed in acquiring a firearm’s license or permit. We have, in our work, found the licensing authorities to be helpful, knowledgeable, and attentive in responding to questions about firearm’s licensing, and have found these officials to be, as well, forthright about the prospects of obtaining a firearm’s license—especially about the prospect of securing a concealed handgun carry license in the particular jurisdiction for one’s self. Although Mr. Wright has applied for and obtained his concealed handgun carry licenses many years ago—subject, of course, to jurisdictional renewal requirements—keep in mind, once again, that we will provide you, the reader of this article, with current licensing standards and procedures for the jurisdiction we are covering.Bringing the procedures and standards up-to-date will serve two purposes. First, doing this will provide the reader with a useful vehicle for understanding the salient laws and procedures of the jurisdiction in question, as they exist presently. This will save the reader time and energy he or she would otherwise have to expend were that person to research the laws and procedures on their own.We have, in a previous article, when discussing changes in concealed handgun carry laws for the State of Maine, spent time looking at changes in Maine law. This, we felt, was necessary to explain apparent inconsistencies or ambiguities existent in the present law and to provide context for the changes. We will continue to do this in forthcoming “ROAD TRIP” articles where we feel explanatory information would be helpful to individuals who may wish to acquire a concealed handgun carry license in the jurisdiction we happen to be covering.Second, in our ROAD TRIP articles, we aptly demonstrate the difficulties attendant to acquiring a concealed handgun carry license in a State or City or County jurisdiction.What an individual must go through--indeed, suffer--merely to exercise his natural right of self-defense will not, then, and should not,  be lost on anyone. It is ironical, even shameful, that citizens of a free Republic should have to expend substantial time and exorbitant sums of money simply to exercise the natural right guaranteed to them, codified in the Bill of Rights. But, that is the case and has been the case for some time. Effective, national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation would do much to end the need to acquire more than one valid concealed handgun carry license. Thus, an individual will be spared the needless, senseless, duplicative, wasteful expenditure of time and money presently required to obtain and renew multiple licenses issued by multiple jurisdictions.Note: if one has any doubt as to how to proceed to acquire a concealed handgun carry license, one should contact a licensed attorney and/or respected professional security consultant and expert in firearms’ laws and procedures. This can save one time and, more importantly, preclude the possibility the applicant for a concealed handgun carry license fails to fill out an application completely, or fills an application out improperly or includes the wrong information on the application form, or includes more information than the information that is required and thereupon jeopardizes one’s chances for securing a license.As to the last point, this is not to say or suggest an applicant should lie on an application or be less than forthright. One should never lie or ever be less than forthright, especially when completing an application for a firearm’s license or permit. You will never fool the licensing official and if you attempt to do so, you will fail. If one isn’t honest, that is the surest way to be denied issuance of a concealed handgun carry license.Moreover, attempting to obtain a firearm license if you are not permitted to own and possess a firearm—for example, if you have been convicted of a felony or if you were in the military and you received a dishonorable discharge, or if you have renounced your citizenship, or if you have a history of serious mental disorder, psychosis, or if you have been convicted of domestic violence, to name a few bases for disqualification— you may open yourself up to civil or even criminal liability by applying for a handgun license and failing to include these matters if an application asks for information pertaining to these matters—and, make no mistake, an application for a concealed handgun permit or, for that matter, an application for issuance of any firearm will require to respond honestly to any of these. That said, one doesn’t have to include in his or her application and ought not voluntarily include anything more or other than the information the application specifically asks for. If, after completing and submitting the application for processing, the licensing officer contacts the applicant to request additional information, the applicant must comply. If again, the applicant has any question as to what information is sought or has concern about the information sought, the applicant should contact a licensed attorney in the jurisdiction in which he or she seeks the license or should contact a security consultant whose expertise rests in or includes application for possession of firearms.Let’s now begin on the matter of obtaining a concealed handgun carry license. Below, we discuss the procedures that Mr. Wright had to follow to obtain a license permitting him to lawfully carry a handgun concealed in the State of Connecticut.

PROCEDURES FOR OBTAINING A CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE IN CONNECTICUT

The basic Connecticut firearms’ licensing procedures are available for perusal on the State's website.We note that, in Connecticut, the Department responsible for licensing of firearms is the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) of the State Police.There are several menu options. The one we want and the one Mr. Wright wants is this one:Special Licensing and Firearms.There are distinct procedures depending on whether one is a resident of Connecticut or not. Mr. Wright does not reside in Connecticut. You cannot obtain an application on-line. Mr. Wright isn’t a resident of Connecticut. He is a resident of New York. A non-resident must obtain an application by contacting the State Police directly. However, important information exists on the website and a non-resident should peruse that information before contacting the Connecticut State Police for an application packet.On the website, Mr. Wright drills down to the application process for preliminary information for both residents and non-residents. He comes to this:FIREARMS AND PISTOL PERMITSHow do I get a permit to carry a gun in the State of Connecticut?Out of state residents may apply for a non-resident Connecticut State Pistol Permit. Non- residents apply directly to the Connecticut State Police.  Call 860-685-8494 to have an application mailed out.”For Residents of Connecticut, the preliminary procedure is different. Residents of Connecticut must first apply for a Temporary State Permit.The Procedure is as follows:“How do I apply for a Temporary State Permit?You must go to your local Police Department or First Selectman’s office to obtain an application. The application has all the instructions necessary to obtain the permit. The cost of the permit is $70.00, and it generally takes eight weeks to obtain.”After the Connecticut Resident obtains a Temporary State Permit, he or she can then apply for a permanent, “Connecticut State Permit.The information on the website sets forth: Once I have received a Temporary State Permit, how do I apply for a Connecticut State Permit?You can apply at the following locations to fill out the state application and have your photo taken. You must bring a copy of your Temporary State Permit, a check, money order for $70.00, made payable to Treasurer State of Ct. or cash,  proof you are legally and lawfully in the United States (i.e., Birth Certificate, U.S. Passport, Naturalization Certificate or Alien Registration Card issued by I.C.E.) and a current photo I.D., such as a driver’s license.  Applications are available at:

• Troop G in Bridgeport - Tuesday through Saturday

• Troop E in Montville - Tuesday through Saturday

• Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection in Middletown

Office Hours and Locations:How do I change my address on my State Pistol Permit?You can either call (860) 685-8290, or mail a letter to the Emergency Services and Public Protection, Division of State Police, Special Licensing and Firearms Unit, 1111 Country Club Road, Middletown, CT, 06457. Change of address is required within 48 hours, and the letter should include pistol permit number, name, and date of birth, old address, and new address.”Further information given is applicable to residents and non-resident holders of Connecticut State Pistol Permits alike:“May I keep my State Pistol Permit if I move out of state?Yes, providing you notify the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the change of address, and continue to renew your permit.How long is a State Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers good for? The permit is valid for 5 years from date of issue unless revoked or suspended.  Who may purchase a handgun?  Only those people who are Permit holders, Eligibility Certificate holders, or sworn Police Officers may purchase a handgun.Mr. Wright knows he regularly visits Connecticut on business and wonders if he could just stop into a local police department when he is in the State. He phones his attorney. His attorney takes a look at the website and phones the DESSP. Mr. Wright’s attorney determines that Mr. Wright must obtain an application through the mail. There is no way around this, and he requests an application for Mr. Wright. The DESSP official says he will send an application out forthwith to Mr. Wright’s attorney on behalf of Mr. Wright.Upon receipt of the application papers, Mr. Wright and his attorney look through the documents. In the first few sentences of the first page of a green sheet, titled, “Connecticut State Pistol Permits,” and subtitled, “Out of State Residents,” one thing becomes immediately apparent. A non-resident cannot apply for a Connecticut State Pistol Permit prior to securing a valid concealed handgun carry license from another jurisdiction.The non-resident must already have a valid CCW license issued from another jurisdiction before he can apply for a Connecticut State Pistol Permit. Thus, having a CCW in hand from another State is a condition precedent to obtaining a Connecticut Pistol Permit. Mr. Wright’s attorney learns that Connecticut does not require that the non-resident secure a CCW license from a particular jurisdiction or jurisdictions. The non-resident must simply have in his or her possession a valid CCW license, issued from any State. Mr. Wright has a valid unrestricted CCW issued to him by the NYPD, and a second valid CCW issued to him by the State of Maine. Either one of those two valid CCW licenses satisfies the condition precedent for further processing of Mr. Wright’s application.

CONNECTICUT CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSING PROCEDURES

Mr. Wright’s attorney took a look at the applicable Connecticut pistol licensing Statute. Below is the Statute stated in full:Sec. 29-28. Permit for sale at retail of pistol or revolver. Permit to carry pistol or revolver. Confidentiality of name and address of permit holder. Permits for out-of-state residents. (b) Upon the application of any person having a bona fide permanent residence within the jurisdiction of any such authority, such chief of police, warden or selectman may issue a temporary state permit to such person to carry a pistol or revolver within the state, provided such authority shall find that such applicant intends to make no use of any pistol or revolver which such applicant may be permitted to carry under such permit other than a lawful use and that such person is a suitable person to receive such permit. No state or temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver shall be issued under this subsection if the applicant (1) has failed to successfully complete a course approved by the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection in the safety and use of pistols and revolvers including, but not limited to, a safety or training course in the use of pistols and revolvers available to the public offered by a law enforcement agency, a private or public educational institution or a firearms training school, utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and a safety or training course in the use of pistols or revolvers conducted by an instructor certified by the state or the National Rifle Association, (2) has been convicted of (A) a felony, or (B) on or after October 1, 1994, a violation of subsection (c) of section 21a-279 or section 53a-58, 53a-61, 53a-61a, 53a-62, 53a-63, 53a-96, 53a-175, 53a-176, 53a-178 or 53a-181d, (3) has been convicted as delinquent for the commission of a serious juvenile offense, as defined in section 46b-120, (4) has been discharged from custody within the preceding twenty years after having been found not guilty of a crime by reason of mental disease or defect pursuant to section 53a-13, (5) (A) has been confined in a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, as defined in section 17a-495, within the preceding sixty months by order of a probate court, or (B) has been voluntarily admitted on or after October 1, 2013, to a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, as defined in section 17a-495, within the preceding six months for care and treatment of a psychiatric disability and not solely for being an alcohol-dependent person or a drug-dependent person as those terms are defined in section 17a-680, (6) is subject to a restraining or protective order issued by a court in a case involving the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against another person, (7) is subject to a firearms seizure order issued pursuant to subsection (d) of section 29-38c after notice and hearing, (8) is prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing or receiving a firearm pursuant to 18 USC 922(g)(4), (9) is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States, or (10) is less than twenty-one years of age. Nothing in this section shall require any person who holds a valid permit to carry a pistol or revolver on October 1, 1994, to participate in any additional training in the safety and use of pistols and revolvers. No person may apply for a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver more than once within any twelve-month period, and no temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver shall be issued to any person who has applied for such permit more than once within the preceding twelve months. Any person who applies for a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver shall indicate in writing on the application, under penalty of false statement in such manner as the issuing authority prescribes, that such person has not applied for a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver within the past twelve months. Upon issuance of a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver to the applicant, the local authority shall forward the original application to the commissioner. Not later than sixty days after receiving a temporary state permit, an applicant shall appear at a location designated by the commissioner to receive the state permit. The commissioner may then issue, to any holder of any temporary state permit, a state permit to carry a pistol or revolver within the state. Upon issuance of the state permit, the commissioner shall make available to the permit holder a copy of the law regarding the permit holder’s responsibility to report the loss or theft of a firearm and the penalties associated with the failure to comply with such law. Upon issuance of the state permit, the commissioner shall forward a record of such permit to the local authority issuing the temporary state permit. The commissioner shall retain records of all applications, whether approved or denied. The copy of the state permit delivered to the permittee shall be laminated and shall contain a full-face photograph of such permittee. A person holding a state permit issued pursuant to this subsection shall notify the issuing authority within two business days of any change of such person’s address. The notification shall include the old address and the new address of such person.”There are several important items for consideration in the above Connecticut Statute. The Statute sets forth, one, the requirement that a person “successfully complete a course approved by the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection in the safety and use of pistols and revolvers including, but not limited to, a safety or training course in the use of pistols and revolvers available to the public offered by a law enforcement agency, a private or public educational institution or a firearms training school, utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and a safety or training course in the use of pistols or revolvers conducted by an instructor certified by the state or the National Rifle Association”; and, two, the applicant must not fall within one or more of the categories that constitute automatic disqualification. You will waste your own time and money and that of the licensing official if you have either failed a firearm’s safety training course or if you fall into one or more categories of individuals who are prohibited from owning a gun.If, however, you have passed and have documentation to prove that you have successfully passed an appropriate firearm’s safety training course and you do not fall within one or more of the categories that disqualify one automatically from possessing any firearm, then you may proceed to the next step of the application process.In the next segment of this article, we will go into further detail of the application process as Mr. Wright seeks to secure a valid DESSP issued Pistol Permit that will enable him to carry a handgun, lawfully, in Connecticut.Before concluding this segment of the article on Connecticut CCW licensing, we address a few matters that individuals who are contemplating obtaining a Connecticut Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers might have in connection with the foregoing discussion:

FINAL NOTE PERTAINING TO CONNECTICUT PISTOL LICENSING STATUTE: TWO POINTS IMPORTANT TO NON-RESIDENTS THAT MAY BE RESPONSIVE TO QUESTIONS THE READER MIGHT HAVE, AS THEY ARE QUESTIONS THAT THE ARBALEST QUARREL HAD, AS WELL; AND ONE GENERAL POINT APPLICABLE TO RESIDENTS OF CONNECTICUT AND NON-RESIDENTS ALIKE.

Connecticut law, as we said, requires non-residents to have in hand a valid concealed handgun carry license as a condition precedent to obtaining a Connecticut CCW permit. Some readers of this article may wonder whether a Connecticut CCW is necessary at all to carry a handgun concealed in Connecticut if they hold a valid CCW from another jurisdiction. As of this writing, the answer is an unequivocal, “no.” Connecticut does not maintain reciprocity with any other jurisdiction. A CCW issued by another jurisdiction is required, as we have said, as a condition precedent, for obtaining a Connecticut CCW if and only if the person seeking a Connecticut CCW is a resident of another State. This means that a non-resident must invariably hold at least two CCW licenses in order to be able, lawfully, to carry a handgun concealed in Connecticut: a valid CCW issued by another State, as a condition precedent to obtaining a CCW issued by the appropriate firearms’ licensing authority in the State of Connecticut, the DESSP. Obviously, this condition does not apply to residents of Connecticut.Second, for both residents of Connecticut and non-residents alike, those who seek a valid Connecticut CCW permit, must successfully complete a course approved by the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection in the safety and use of pistols and revolvers. Now, some jurisdictions outside of Connecticut do issue CCW licenses without the requirement that a holder of a valid CCW license or permit first successfully complete. New York City, curiously enough, is one of these. It is exceedingly difficult for the average law-abiding person to obtain an unrestricted, “full carry,” concealed handgun license. But, the City doesn’t require and the NYPD itself does not provide a safety training course for holders of concealed handgun carry licenses. One may speculate as to the reason for this. One possible and plausible explanation for this is that the City officials do not wish for any civilian to possess firearms. It isn’t a secret that the previous Mayor or New York City, Michael Bloomberg, benefactor and sponsor of the antigun group, Everytown for Gun Safety, is virulently opposed to the average law-abiding citizen from owning and possessing firearms. The present Mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, is no less a zealous advocate for disarming Americans. The website, OntheIssues says this concerning de Blasio’s position of firearms’ possession and ownership. “Bill de Blasio has pushed for strong gun safety laws at the state level and for the promotion of industry-wide standards in gun safety, including micro-stamping. De Blasio also led the effort to divest public pension fund holdings in companies that manufacture the most dangerous weapons and launched the 'Wall Street for Change' campaign to support gun divestment of prominent hedge funds and money managers nationwide.” New York City officials apparently feel that by requiring holders of restricted and unrestricted concealed handgun licenses to successfully complete a firearms’ safety training course, whether provided by the NYPD or another organization, this would suggest that the City encourages the average citizen to own and possess firearms. This is convoluted thinking but it pervades the thinking of those New York City officials who are behind the draconian New York Safe Act. It is as if City officials are saying, “we don’t believe any American citizen should own and possess firearms. Those New York residents who seek to own and possess firearms must receive the appropriate licenses and permits to do so; and we will not make it either easy or cheap for those that wish to do so. Moreover, we will not provide access to firearms’ training courses or provide any information as to where a firearm’s licensee or permit holder may obtain that training, for to do so would mean that we believe in the right of the American people to keep and bear arms; and we do not wish to give anyone that impression; for we don’t.”Now the Arbalest Quarrel is not taking the position that a government body should require a person to take a firearms’ safety training course because we do not believe that the government should be in the business of bestowing on law-abiding American citizens what is their natural right anyway: the right to keep and bear arms. However, the Arbalest Quarrel does feel that, if a person does own and possess firearms, he ought to have the good sense of obtaining training in their proper use and function. A sane, rational person should have proper training in the use of any implement that, if used or handled improperly, can cause serious injury or death. But one’s responsibility for the handling of any instrument devolves on the individual. It should not be a mandate of the State. If a jurisdiction does require the law-abiding citizen to first obtain a handgun license before that person is lawfully permitted to carry a handgun concealed on his or her person within the jurisdiction, that governmental body should make available to the person the means whereby a person can obtain proper training or provide a person with a list of recommended organizations such as the NRA that have well over a century of experience on the proper handling of firearms. New York City doesn’t have anything to say about this. It is as if the City Government through the NYPD Licensing Division--the City Government's authorized body for issuing firearms' licenses and permits to individuals--simply wishes to wash its hands of the matter. That is bizarre to say the least.The City has draconian, arbitrary standards in place for issuing firearms' licenses and permits and puts the New York resident through an ordeal to obtain a firearm's license or permit, but then expresses a complete disinterest in providing firearms' training for the license or permit holder, or even suggesting venues through which the licensee or permit holder may obtain training once the license or permit is issued to him. Can you imagine the NYPD giving its officers a badge and a gun and leaving it up to the officer to find some means or other on their own to obtain training in the proper use of the firearm--caring not one whit whether the officer obtains proper training in the handling of the firearm or not, and offering no suggestion as to where an officer might obtain training? Yet, that is precisely the situation in which the City and the NYPD leave the civilian upon whom they deign, grudgingly, to issue a firearm's license or permit. It is almost as if the City is inviting a mishap with a gun; indeed almost as if it is expecting a mishap with a gun; perhaps even wanting one; and thereupon being in a position to say, "there, we told you so; you should never have had a gun in the first place. But you wanted a gun; and we gave you a license so you could buy one. And, now that you have 'messed up,' as we fully expected you would do, we are taking away your gun, we are taking away your gun license, and we charging you with a misdemeanor for misusing your gun. We hope you learned your lesson. We are never again going to issue you a firearm's license. So, don't bother applying for one. Guns belong in the hands of responsible individuals only, such as the police, and politicians, and judges, and movie stars, and other VIP; in other words, 'connected' individuals. The average, ordinary, law-abiding person such as yourself has no business with a gun. Guns are for 'elites,' in society--for important people, intelligent people; people with money; guns are not for the hoi polloi, such as you! If you need protection, you have your cell phone; call 911; or get yourself a whistle, and wait for help. It's on the way!"

CONSIDER THE ABOVE "CHASTISEMENT" BY THE NYPD FIREARMS' LICENSING OFFICER APROPROS OF THE FOLLOWING:

An old story goes that a semi-blind businessman, an industrious hard working man, who spent many years working to create a small but successful cash business but a man who has had no formal or informal training in the handling of firearms goes to the Licensing Division of the NYPD, applying for a CCW license. The NYPD Licensing Officer asks the businessman why he thinks he needs a handgun for self-defense. The businessman explains that his business is a cash business and that he handles substantial sums of cash as he conducts his business and he has been mugged on more than a few occasions and his money stolen on numerous occasions. The businessman explains, further, that he is tired of being mugged and threatened and losing money that he has worked hard earning and he needs a gun for self-defense when he walks several blocks to the bank, or takes the subway, or a bus, or a cab to deposit the cash at his bank. He is surrounded by many people—some of whom would love to get their hands on the substantial sums of money he has on his person and several thugs have done so in the past.Now, the NYPD has set an arbitrary standard for proof of the necessity for issuing a CCW license to a person. The NYPD Licensing Officer determines whether a person, in the normal conduct of his business, happens to transport substantial sums of cash to or from a bank. The NYPD considers, without explicitly saying, whether a business operates, in part at least, like a mini Brinks security service. If an applicant for a CCW license can make a good case for issuance of a CCW to the satisfaction of the NYPD Licensing Officer, this amounts to an applicant arguing that his business duties involve in part, at least, working like a Brinks security guard, transporting canvas bags full of money. Of course, what constitutes the carrying of substantial cash is determined by the NYPD and on a case-by-case basis. In this story, the NYPD determines the semi-blind businessman does carry substantial cash to or from a bank a few times a week. That the man has been mugged on numerous occasions, and seriously hurt, in part, at least, because the man's business happens to be located in a particularly dangerous part of the City, is not reason enough to issue the man a CCW license, according to the NYPD License Division standards. Indeed, that sad circumstance is beside the point. After all, a lot of law-abiding New York residents are mugged on a daily basis and these individuals do not have firearms to protect themselves. So being mugged is not a sufficient basis upon which the businessman may effectively distinguish himself from countless others who live in the City. But, the fact that the businessman has been mugged carrying sufficient amounts of cash on his person to and from a bank a few times a week--and what constitutes a sufficient amount of cash is up to the NYPD Licensing Officer to decide--is deemed by the Officer to be an important factor, a critical, even decisive, factor for determining whether to issue the man a CCW license that he seeks.The NYPD Licensing Officer then asks the businessman whether the man has any disability that might hinder his ability to use a handgun. The man, semi-blind, though he is, says, he has some vision problems but that he is able to see well enough to transact his business, handle large sums of cash, and to handle a handgun. The NYPD licensing official thereupon agrees to issue the businessman his CCW license.Now, whether the businessman has had any training in the use of a handgun and, if not, whether the businessman intends to get that training so that he would be able to use a handgun effectively if the need should arise, that is another question entirely, and it is not one that is a requirement for being issued a handgun license and securing a handgun. Curiously, this latter point is true. The ability to handle a firearm is not a factor in and is altogether irrelevant to the issuance of concealed handgun carry licenses by the Licensing Division of the NYPD. But, we are not yet done with this story.Another man, a New York resident, hale and hearty, has just moved to New York City, having served his Country as a U.S. Navy SEAL. Our U.S. Navy SEAL, recognizes how dangerous it is to live in the City and, like our semi-blind businessman, he also applies for a CCW license. The NYPD Licensing Officer asks the man why the man thinks he needs to carry a handgun. The U.S. Navy SEAL, now retired from the Navy and living in New York City, says he wishes to have a handgun for self-defense. The Licensing Officer asks the man whether he has a business and, if so, if the man transports substantial sums of cash to or from a bank, one or more times during the week. Our U.S. Navy SEAL says that he doesn’t have a business and does not transport substantial sums of cash to a bank. The Licensing Officer then asks the applicant, our U.S. Navy SEAL, retired from active duty, whether the applicant is presently the target of specific threats to the Navy SEAL’s life. The applicant, our retired U.S. Navy SEAL, replies, “none that he can think of.” The NYPD Licensing Officer then tells the applicant that he must deny the applicant a CCW because the applicant hasn’t demonstrated need, sufficient, to the satisfaction of the NYPD Licensing Officer, under the standards established by the NYPD, for issuance of a CCW to the applicant.The retired U.S. Navy SEAL doesn’t understand this. He points out that he knows full well how to use firearms—virtually any firearm and that he is an expert marksman, and that he operates coolly under threat to life, as his combat experience and training demanded. “Sorry,” replies the NYPD Licensing Officer. “You have failed to demonstrate to my satisfaction that you face, on a daily basis, more danger to your life and well-being than does any other average New York resident face, in the City. The fact that you know how to use a firearm effectively and would certainly be able to do so in a life threatening situation--and I have no reason to doubt that--is irrelevant. New York City doesn't recognize self-defense, in the absence of more to be sufficient reason to issue a restricted or unrestricted concealed handgun carry license. Again, I am sorry. But, City Government officials believe that too many guns in the hands of too many people--even the law-abiding--is considered dangerous to the well-being of the community even if law-abiding individuals are placed at risk for being denied access to a firearm when they truly need one and know how to use it."There is no moral to the story. But one may take note how logic may be turned on its head so that irrationality is perceived as presumptively rational. And, although, it appears to be far-fetched, the story, sadly, really isn’t. Of course, an NYPD Licensing Officer is hardly likely to issue a concealed handgun carry license—or any other kind of firearm’s license or permit—to an applicant who appears to have a difficulty seeing, but one’s ability to use a gun in a life-threatening situation is not a factor for consideration in the issuance of any firearm’s license or permit. Concerning issuance of CCW licenses, New York City, and any other City or County in the State, in accordance with State law, is a “may issue” State, like several other jurisdictions around the Country. A “may issue” State means a person requesting a CCW license, must convince to the appropriate licensing authority in the jurisdiction that he “needs” a gun and that “need” generally translates to meeting an arbitrary standard for the issuance of a CCW license to the person. If a person cannot meet the arbitrary standard the “may issue” jurisdiction has established, then the applicant is denied the CCW, unless the person is a VIP, such as a politician or a judge, or someone famous—a movie star for example. That means the life of one person is worth more than the life of another. If you are a VIP, you obtain what you want. If you are one of the hoi polloi who cannot otherwise satisfy the arbitrary standard, well, then, good luck.Whether a person is capable of using a firearm for self-defense is often, as we see in some jurisdictions, like New York, all but irrelevant. The need of a firearm for self-defense becomes nuanced, subject to the whim of the licensing official. This means that the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is reduced inevitably to a privilege, a grant of Government and the import and imperative of the Second Amendment is simply ignored.Getting back to the requirements for obtaining a CCW license in Connecticut, that State, unlike New York, does require of its own residents and of non-residents, that they show proof of successfully completing a firearm’s training and safety course prior to issuance of a gun permit. So, if a holder, say, of a New York City concealed handgun license, wishes to secure, as well a Connecticut CCW, in order to carry a handgun lawfully in Connecticut, that person must show proof of having successfully completed a gun safety and training course. This means the holder of a New York City CCW license and those who hold a CCW from any other jurisdiction that does not require proof of completion of a firearms’ safety training course in the handling of firearms as a condition precedent to obtaining a CCW license, must obtain the necessary training. Having, then, successfully completed the firearms’ safety training course and receiving a certificate to that effect, the applicant, whether a resident of the State of Connecticut or not, who seeks a Connecticut CCW license, has, then, the necessary documentation to present to the DESSP Officer. Further processing of the application for the Connecticut CCW permit can then continue.Lastly, we have learned that a holder of a CCW from another jurisdiction who seeks to obtain a Connecticut CCW does not have to obtain a CCW in the jurisdiction he or she resides in.A resident of Hawaii, for example, who wishes to obtain a Connecticut CCW permit—a State permit to carry handguns or revolvers—need not demonstrate he or she has a CCW license from Hawaii. That’s a good thing. For although it is theoretically possible for the average law-abiding American citizen, who is a resident of Hawaii, to obtain a CCW license, for all practical purposes, that is impossible. Take a look at the Hawaii Police Department’s website.The website sets forth: “In exceptional cases when an adult applicant shows reason to fear injury or is engaged in the protection of life and property, the Hawaiʻi County police chief may grant a license to carry. For detailed information on who may be granted a license, see Section 134-9 of the Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes.” Living in Hawaii may be paradise. But, in that paradise, “here there be tygers.” One must forsake one’s self of any pretense of access to firearms for self-defense. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, Section 17 of Hawaii’s State Constitution, which mirrors the language of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution word for word, contain empty verbiage, devoid of effect.Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.            

Obtaining A CCW From Multiple Jurisdictions Is Time-Consuming, Expensive, and Slow

A ROAD TRIP WITH A HANDGUN: The Case For Universal State Concealed Handgun Carry Reciprocity

PART FOUR: THE CONNECTICUT FIREARM APPLICATION PROCEDURE FOR ACQUIRING AN UNRESTRICTED CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE

THE CIRCUITOUS, TORTUOUS ROUTE TO OBTAINING MULTIPLE UNRESTRICTED CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSES AS EXPERIENCED BY OUR INTREPID CITIZEN, MR. WRIGHT.

SUBPART TWO

OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY IN THE CONTEXT OF COUNFOUNDINGLY DIFFICULT AND WASTEFUL TIME AND MONEY ONE MUST SPEND ACQUIRING MULTIPLE CONCEALED CARRY HANDGUN LICENSES FROM MULTIPLE STATE AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS AS ONE SEEKS NOTHING MORE THAN TO EXERCISE ONE'S NATURAL AND GUARANTEED RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS FOR SELF-DEFENSE, AS THE FOUNDERS OF OUR REPUBLIC INTENDED BOTH FOR THEM AND FOR US.

INTRODUCTION

In this section of our “ROAD TRIP” series of articles we lay out the necessity of National concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation. National concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation would dramatically reduce the time, energy, and cost factors involved in obtaining handgun licenses from multiple jurisdictions. We follow the experience of one American citizen as he deals with the complexity of applying for and acquiring multiple handgun licenses.For over two decades Mr. Wright has spent substantial time and exorbitant suns of money securing concealed handgun carry licenses from multiple jurisdictions. Most of the requirements are duplicative. He continues to spend time and money, renewing those licenses as required in each jurisdiction. The Arbalest Quarrel has laid out in detail the intricacies and difficulties in obtaining CCW handgun licenses. We have discussed Mr. Wright’s acquisition of handgun licenses in New York and in Maine.

LICENSING OF FIREARMS AND STATE PREEMPTION

Unlike many, if not most States, the New York State Legislature hasn’t preempted the field of firearms laws. That means cities and counties within New York may enact their own firearms’ codes and ordinances, consistent with State Statute—so long as the city and county codes and ordinances are not less stringent than State law. They aren’t. New York City’s codes, regulating the ownership, possession, and licensing of firearms, including handguns, shotguns, rifles and even black powder muskets and non-functioning replicas, are numerous, complex, and onerous.Mr. Wright is a resident of Nassau County, Long Island, New York. We wrote about Mr. Wright’s acquisition of a Nassau County handgun license. That license isn’t valid in New York City. Mr. Wright’s main business offices are in New York City. Under the firearms’ codes of New York City, Mr. Wright had to acquire a separate New York City handgun license to carry a handgun concealed, lawfully, in any of the Boroughs within the City because, unlike most jurisdictions, the New York State Legislature has not preempted the field of firearms’ licensing. This means that lower level government jurisdictions, Counties and Cities, within the State of New York, can institute their own codes and regulations, so long as those codes and regulations are no less stringent than and are consistent with State Statute. That results in codes and regulations much more complex and clearly more stringent than anything coming out of Albany.In a previous article we discussed the procedure for obtaining an unrestricted, “full carry” concealed handgun license in New York City. The procedure is costly, in both time and money. Mr. Wright had no alternative but to obtain an unrestricted New York City handgun license if he were to protect his life and safety conducting business in the City. He could not rely on the Nassau County gun permit. New York City does not have firearms' "reciprocity" with other Cities and Counties in the same State--a strange situation, but not unique. Other States, such as Hawaii, operate similarly. The result is a hodgepodge of firearms' codes and regulations across the State of New York.Mr. Wright also conducts business in Maine, and we discussed the procedure for obtaining a concealed handgun carry license, that would allow Mr. Wright, a law-abiding American citizen and inordinately busy entrepreneur, to carry, concealed, on his person, a handgun, in the State of Maine.

THE IMPACT OF THE HELLER CASE ON THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

For over two decades Mr. Wright has spent substantial time and money securing handgun licenses. He should not have had to do so. The natural right of self-defense follows logically from the natural right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. This isn’t supposition. It is fact. If there remain any doubt, about that, the U.S. Supreme Court, in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), laid such doubt to rest. Indeed, self-defense was a salient issue of Heller. The overview of the case sums up the holdings as follows: “The Court held that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home and its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purposes of immediate self-defense violated the Second Amendment. The Court held that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Court determined that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announced a purpose but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrated that it connoted an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the Court's reading of the operative clause was consistent with the announced purpose of the prefatory clause. None of the Court's precedents foreclosed its conclusions.”The majority in Heller stopped short of extending its holding to the carrying of a handgun for self-defense outside the home. But, the high Court generally tailors its decisions narrowly to the specific legal issues of the case. The central issue in Heller was whether the District of Columbia can lawfully ban outright a person’s use of a handgun for self-defense within one’s home. The District of Columbia attempted to do so, thereby reducing the effectiveness of a handgun for self-defense to that of a heavy paperweight, or hammer.The high Court made clear that the District of Columbia’s constraint on one’s ability to use a handgun for self-defense within one’s home is unconstitutional as it conflicts with the import of the Second Amendment. Since Heller, every State, including the District of Columbia must acknowledge, at least tacitly, and often enough, grudgingly, the right of a person to rely on a handgun for self-defense in one’s home. That right flows, logically, from the high Court’s determination in Heller, as the Court made clear and unequivocal, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unconnected to an individual’s membership, if any, in a State militia.The laws of each State and the District of Columbia ostensibly make provision for the carrying of a handgun concealed for self-defense. Yet, in practice several States, including the District of Columbia, issue such licenses, rarely, if at all, and, if they do so, such licenses are issued only to a privileged, well-connected, few which raises, then, Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection concerns as America is a class-less society. No American citizen’s rights are function of one’s personal wealth, or power, or connection to those who have extraordinary wealth or who wield extraordinary power. One’s rights and liberties as an American citizen are not expanded or reduced predicated on his net worth, or market value, or position, or status. At least that is not supposed to be the case, but that happens to be true where a law-abiding citizen seeks to exercise one particular natural and fundamental right: namely the right to keep and bear arms.Moreover, not all jurisdictions that do issue concealed handgun carry licenses maintain a reciprocal relationship with another State. Reciprocity agreements among States is often muddled and fluid—subject to change, often without adequate notice.

WOULD NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LEGISLATION ENACTED BY CONGRESS REALLY BE EFFECTIVE IN ENABLING LAW-ABIDING AMERICAN CITZENS TO CARRY A HANDGUN CONCEALED ON THEIR PERSON, FOR SELF-DEFENSE?

To be sure, Congressional enactment of well-crafted national concealed handgun reciprocity legislation would do much to obviate confusion in the lawful carrying of concealed handguns in the several States as each State that provides for concealed handgun carry licensing would be required to recognize the validity of a concealed handgun carry license issued by another State. But that means States—those referred to as “may issue”—that, at present, turn a guaranteed right into a jurisdictional grant or privilege, issuing concealed handgun carry licenses rarely if at all—may not be required to recognize the validity of licenses issued by States that routinely issue such licenses to average, law-abiding citizens—those referred to as the “shall issue” States.There are several permutations of possible national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation formulae that Congress can consider when drafting national concealed carry bills. The Arbalest Quarrel will provide a detailed analysis of the pending bills in a forthcoming article. But, we will say this now: the most effective national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation would require all States, including the District of Columbia and all U.S. territories, to recognize and accept, within their respective jurisdictions, and recognize and accept, unconditionally, the validity of every valid State issued concealed carry license whether one is a resident of the State that issued the license or not. That means that no American citizen , carrying a handgun concealed on his person, while also holding a valid concealed handgun carry license, validly issued by the appropriate licensing authority, shall not be subject to arrest.Suppose, then, a resident of Hawaii—where issuance of concealed handgun carry licenses is extremely rare and virtually impossible to secure unless one is well-connected—obtains a concealed handgun carry license from, say, Texas. Can the resident of Hawaii, then, rely on the validity of the Texas CCW license to lawfully carry a handgun concealed in Hawaii? Well, that depends on how the Congressional national concealed carry legislation is worded. If the legislation sets forth that every State must recognize and honor a valid State issued CCW license in every other State, regardless of a given State’s own firearms’ licensing laws, then the Hawaii resident, holding a valid CCW license issued, say, from Texas, is in safe waters and may utilize the Texas CCW license to carry a handgun concealed in every State, including, then, his home State of Hawaii. The Hawaii resident would be able, then, effectively, to override his home State’s draconian gun laws. But that would make, nugatory, Hawaii’s highly restrictive, draconian gun laws. What would Hawaii do? Hawaii wouldn’t sit idle seeing its “may issue” gun laws neutralized as its own residents, as well as non-residents, can then carry a handgun concealed on their person throughout the islands of Hawaii and the Hawaiian Government could not do a thing about it.Hawaii would undoubtedly file lawsuits, objecting to the constitutionality of such Congressional legislation. Antigun organizations and the Attorneys General of States such as New York, New Jersey, and Illinois would probably file their own amicus briefs in support of Hawaii’s lawsuits. Hawaii would argue, inter alia, that such Congressional legislation is a bald attempt to override Hawaii’s right under the Tenth Amendment to enact its own firearms’ laws, and that such national concealed handgun carry legislation enacted by Congress operates as an unconstitutional, impermissible infringement on Hawaii’s State as Congressional legislation enjoins States from exercising their own police powers. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  Hawaii would also likely argue that such national concealed handgun carry legislation operates as an unconstitutional, unconscionable encroachment on State sovereignty as Congress preempts a traditional power of the States—regulation of firearms within a State’s own borders. So-called “may issue” States would argue that such impermissible encroachment means that, as residents of “shall issue” States enter their States carrying valid CCW licenses, with handguns in tow, Hawaii’s police could not arrest them. They would be immune from arrest and from prosecution. Residents of “may issue” States, on their part, who seek to carry a handgun concealed would be unhappy as well if Hawaii’s draconian gun laws prevent them from exercising the very right that non-residents may exercise in their own State—especially if residents of Hawaii would not recognize their own resident’s obtaining valid handgun licenses from another State. This would present a conundrum for Congress and for the Courts.Antigun proponent residents of those States that do not wish to see—what they perceive, albeit wrongly, to be—an extension of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms would raise a hailstorm of objections to guns coming into their State from other States, while those residents who seek to secure CCW licenses for themselves would argue that it makes no sense to deny to them the right to keep and bear arms that is extended to non-residents simply by virtue of less restrictive gun laws existent in non-resident States, especially if any handgun license they obtain from another State is considered invalid in Hawaii if one happens to be a resident of Hawaii.While antigun groups file lawsuits to curtail the effectiveness of Congressional national concealed handgun carry legislation, there would be, on the other side, plans afoot by residents of “may-issue” States to compel State Legislatures to repeal draconian firearms’ laws and to enact new less restrictive laws that cohere with the firearms’ laws of “shall issue” States and with the Congressional legislation.Anticipating problems, Republicans in Congress may seek to enact a weaker yet still improbable version of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation. A weaker version of the national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation would require every State, including the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories, to recognize the validity of and therefore honor a validly issued CCW license of the issuing jurisdiction from a citizen’s own State of residence if and only if one’s resident State issues CCW licenses to its residents. But, for “may issue” States, the fact that they issue CCW licenses, theoretically, at least, means that they may be required to recognize and honor the CCW license of any non-resident who comes into their State, “packing” a gun anyway. In that event, we would undoubtedly see present “may issue” States modifying their gun laws, yet further, making their gun laws even more stringent—altogether proscribing the issuance of CCW licenses in their States. Those “may-issue” concealed handgun carry States, such as Hawaii and New York, and Illinois, would not, then, be required to recognize and honor a CCW license issued by another State since they do not, any longer issue CCW licenses. Thus, anyone entering the State with a firearm and a valid CCW license issued by another State would not be in safe harbor. That person would be subject to immediate arrest and prosecution for carrying a gun into the State at all. So, a weakened national concealed handgun carry reciprocity law would really not be a national concealed handgun carry reciprocity law at all, but merely a qualified national concealed handgun carry reciprocity law.Nonetheless, even weakened versions of Congressional national concealed handgun carry legislation would likely see major battles in Congress. Those battles would then pour over into the Courts.Looking forward—let’s say the next ten years—assuming national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation of some sort or another is passed in the next few months, we would see—indeed would probably have to see—the Heller holding extended to the public domain—namely the domain outside one’s home. That may be the only way to finally snuff out the antigun movement’s efforts to curtail firearm’s ownership and possession once and for all.

HOW MIGHT PROPONENTS OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS COMBAT THE EFFORTS OF ANTIGUN GROUPS AND “MAY ISSUE” STATES THAT SEEK TO CURTAIL EXPANSION OF THE HELLER DECISION?

One tenable response to Hawaii’s objection is that the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, made applicable to the States under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, overrides a possible Tenth Amendment or police powers objection a State, might make, if, as a proponent of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation, argues, as well, that the right of self-defense, a hallmark of the individual right to keep and bear arms, cannot be legitimately circumscribed by States. A framing of constitutional issues may look in part like this:The natural right of self-defense falls, one, within the right guaranteed under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and that right, is protected, two, under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and the right of self-defense is protected, three, under the full faith and credit clause of Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution; and perhaps a novel argument may set forth that the right of self-defense, embodied in and entailed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is complemented, four, in the Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as one of the unenumerated rights and liberties underlying the Ninth Amendment. An argument of a Ninth Amendment right of self-defense would likely butt up against the argument that such right is inconsistent with the sovereignty of States under the Tenth Amendment and under the police powers of States to regulate firearms’ laws within their own borders, assuming one can draft a tenable Ninth Amendment argument of self-defense at all—apart from the application of the Second Amendment right to the matter of self-defense as now recognized as a result of the Heller decision, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment as set forth in the U.S. Supreme Court's McDonald decision, that came on the heels of Heller. See, McDonald vs. City of Chicago, 557 U.S. 965, 130 S. Ct. 48 (2009).  The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Had Hillary Clinton succeeded to the U.S. Presidency, any thought of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation would be no more than a pipedream. With the Trump Administration, soon to be ensconced in the White House, passage of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation, in some form, will pass, notwithstanding efforts of virulent Antigun Legislators, like Senator Charles Schumer, who made very clear that he would oppose it. But, Americans will see enactment of such legislation even if it takes several months to do so, followed by years of Court battles.Thus, for now, those States that do not at the moment have concealed handgun carry reciprocity agreements with other jurisdictions, and that have no desire to enter into such concealed handgun carry reciprocity agreements with other States, place out-of-State residents in a bind. One must either forego the carrying of a handgun concealed in those jurisdictions that do not have a concealed handgun carry reciprocity agreement with another jurisdiction or one must—like Mr. Wright, who seeks to carry a weapon for self-defense in multiple jurisdictions that he travels to and through for business related purposes—apply for and obtain separate concealed handgun carry licenses, issued by multiple issuing authorities. That at present is the nature of the Country we live in. That is the case for Mr. Wright whose trials and tribulations we follow as he works his way through the obstacles of obtaining a concealed handgun carry license in various New England and mid-Atlantic States where he conducts business.Thus, the problems Mr. Wright faces simply to exercise his right of self-defense is hampered and constrained—making, for him, and for those of us who seek merely to exercise the natural right guaranteed to us, as codified in the Second Amendment—an elusive goal. Thus the antigun groups and antigun Congress and antigun State Legislatures and mainstream media, and the secretive, wealthy, powerful, ruthless, individuals and groups behind them all continue to make a mockery of the American citizen and continue to make a mockery of the American citizen’s Bill of Rights.Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.