THE LANDMARK SECOND AMENDMENT CASE, ANTONYUK VERSUS JAMES, RESTS IN A STATE OF SUSPENDED ANIMATION. IT IS TIME TO WAKEN IT FROM AN INDUCED SLUMBER. WE EXPLAIN HOW.

We, at the Arbalest Quarrel have, since April 25, 2025, hammered the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of Petitioners’ Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in Antonyuk vs. James, 120 F.4th 941 (2nd Cir. 2024) cert. denied, 2025 U.S. LEXIS, 1384, 145 S. Ct. 1900 (2025).

The legacy Press, including broadcast and cable TV and radio news outlets, and weblogs, podcasts, and social media sites (the few that followed the case and had provided commentary on it during the lengthy prosecution of Antonyuk), fail to assert (if they bother to consider at all) the importance of the case to the preservation of the Republic.

The Natural Law Right codified in the Second Amendment of the Nation’s Bill of Rights wasn’t an afterthought to the Constitution’s Framers who drafted it and who insisted on incorporating it into the Constitution, as a crucial component of the Bill of Rights. Nor did the States—that ratified the Bill of Rights in 1791—object to its insertion.

The States were certainly cognizant of the crucial need for a citizen army as necessary to the Security of a Free State. Freedom and liberty cannot exist in practice without an armed citizenry as Supreme and Sole Sovereign over the government and the Nation.

An elemental tension exists between the citizenry of a nation and a nation’s government. If the former (the citizenry) loses control over the latter (government), then tyranny results. Tyranny is inevitable.

Tyranny is the natural state of government—ALL GOVERNMENT. Most political entities—nations, tight or loose groupings or confederations of nations, and empires—start as despotic structures at inception.

This result is inevitable, absent a powerful, counterbalancing force, existent in the people.  

A “Tyranny” is a Despotic regime that unlawfully, wrests power that, in a political entity’s commencement, resides in the people, as supreme sovereign over both nation and government. The process, where, as here in our Nation, starts and proceeds through a lengthy, subtle, meticulously designed program, where nefarious elements both inside the nation and outside it, insidiously misuse a government’s levers of power against the nation’s true and sole sovereign: The nation’s citizenry.

The deliberate contortion of, misappropriation of, and misapplication of a nation’s constitution and laws to affect a reversal of ultimate authority and power, properly residing in the people, in the first instance, to a duplicitous, treacherous, government in the next instance, is the hallmark of Tyranny.

The framers of the United States Constitution were well aware of the danger posed by government due to its inherent nature to exert absolute control over the people if its power and authority were left unchecked.

The “Checks and Balances” set forth in the Constitution’s Articles, as ratified by the States, on June 21, 1788, may mitigate the devolution of a Nation, founded as a Republic, to a de facto State of Tyranny, but would not alone prevent that eventual occurrence. The Constitution, long ignored, would be eliminated, and a new one crafted, legitimizing the Autocratic State both as de jure law and in practice. No entity can be expected to properly police itself. The wielding of power creates a desire for the accumulation of more and more power, weakening, and ultimately overtaking one’s moral compass to resist negative, harmful impulses, destructive to one’s soul and to the soul of the Nation.

The Antifederalists among the Nation’s founders knew well that mitigating the natural tendency of a powerful government through the construction of words purporting to be adequate safeguards within the Constitution, however ingeniously conceived and adroitly crafted, is insufficient to effectively ward off tyranny.

At best, the “Checks and Balances’ of the Articles could slow the descent of Government into Tyranny, but would not prevent its eventual rise, cementing autocracy in the Nation, dooming the American people (the “Common Man”) to an existence of perpetual penury, enslavement and misery. The Antifederalists proposed—in fact, insisted upon—a written Bill of Rights, to be incorporated into the Articles.

The armed citizenry is necessary to constrain the tendency of government, as TYRANT, to exert control over the populace.

The Nation’s Bill of Rights was ratified by three-fourths of the States, on December 15, 1791, and thereby cemented into the Constitution.

Unlike such statements of rights and liberties crafted by the dubious United Nations and adopted in one form or another by various nations including those comprising the European Union, the Bill of Rights of the United States is no mere statement of lofty, but vapid, aims and sentiments. The Bill of Rights of the United States is both an assertion of PREEXISTING, ETERNAL, NATURAL LAW RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES, INTRINSIC IN MAN, EXISTENT IN MAN PRIOR TO GOVERNMENT, AS BESTOWED IN MAN BY THE DIVINE CREATOR (AND THEREFORE NOT AN IDEATION AND CREATION OF GOVERNMENT), but an ASSERTION OF POWERS THAT CANNOT LAWFULLY BE DIMINISHED, MODIFIED, OR ABROGATED, BY GOVERNMENT, OR REPEALED BY CONGRESS AND THE STATES. The WORDS MIGHT BE REPEALED, BUT THOSE WORDS ARE MERE CODIFICATION OF UNCONDITIONAL, ETERNAL RIGHTS. Of those NATURAL LAW RIGHTS delineated, “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS” IS MORE THAN A RIGHT, IT IS A POWER, AN EFFECTIVE POWER AGAINST THE INSINUATION OF TYRANNY ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

The armed citizenry is necessary to constrain the tendency of government, to exert control over the populace. Unsurprisingly, the ostensible rights and liberties extolled by other nations—to the extent rights and liberties of the populations of those nations are asserted at all—do not include the right of the people to keep and bear arms, apart from two remaining countries, apart from the U.S. Those two countries are Mexico and Guatemala.

But the Constitutions of those two Countries severely constrain the acquisition, possession, types of weapons that can be borne and kept by the respective nation’s people, and the use of the weapons.

The applicable language, “shall not be infringed” is noticeably absent from the language purportedly recognizing a right to keep and bear arms. See the article in Business Insider.

Yet, even in our Country, destructive forces antithetical to the notion of an armed citizenry (as “necessary to the security of a Free State”) constantly, devise schemes to severely constrain the right/power of the American citizenry to keep and bear arms.

The reasons propagated by a sympathetic, seditious Press and Social Media mill, to woo the people away from their birthright, may sound plausible to some, but are, on reflection, unsound and fallacious. They are meant as a cover-story to hide a horrific aim—the destruction of a Free Constitutional Republic—replacing that Free Republic into an all-powerful, autocratic regime, a Tyranny, a government not answerable to the people.

Virulent Anti-Second Administrations, including the Biden-Harris and Obama Administrations, and Anti-Second Amendment members of Congress, and thirteen States (rated “A” or “A minus” by the “Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence,” in 2024), seek to constrain the exercise of the Right to Armed Self-Defense.

See chart in World Population Review——

These States include those in the Mid-Atlantic Region, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland; and those states in the New England Region (Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island); one Midwestern State, Illinois; the States on the West Coast (Washington State, Oregon, and California)'; and Hawaii, the lone State in the Polynesia subregion; and the District of Columbia.

In our tripartite system of Government, consisting of three co-equal Branches, the third Branch of the Federal Government, the U.S. Supreme Court, has traditionally received sporadic attention.

Some scholars maintain that the Founders did not intend for the Supreme Court to have a significant role in the functioning of the Federal Government. That is false. But it is a persistent belief among some.

Indeed, Democrats wish to pass a court packing plan resembling President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s original 1937 proposal, to ensure rulings favorable to their political agenda, thereby ensuring that the Supreme Court operates in a subordinate capacity.

If Democrats achieved their goal, the U.S. Supreme Court would become nothing more than an extension of Congress. The Court would exist simply as a puppet of Congress, existing merely to give its imprimatur—a rubber stamp—on Congressional policy objectives.

With the Democratic Party inexorably coalescing into the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and/or the Socialist Party USA (SPUSA), or taking its cue from those parties, the Country is rapidly dividing into two distinct, irreconcilable camps: Those of us wishing to keep the promise of the American Revolution alive, in strict accordance with the U.S. Constitution, the Blueprint of a Free Constitutional Republic, and those people who seek the Country’s total demise—extending to erasure of the Freedoms and Liberties codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights. the bulwark of our Free Republic.

No clearer evidence of this GREAT DIVIDE in our Country is there than as seen in the kinds of cases before the Supreme Court in recent years.

The Court has come under substantial scrutiny as a result. But is it up to the task? We have our doubts.

Several cases before the High Court challenge State actions that infringe on Fundamental Rights, including Religious Freedom, Free Speech, and the Right to Armed Self-Defense.

All Fundamental Natural Law Rights are essential to preservation of a Free Constitutional Republic.

But the Federal Government and many of the States have, through time, whittled away at the citizenry’s cherished rights.

Americans have witnessed constant attacks on the First Amendment Freedom of Speech, and the near annihilation of the Right of the People to be Free from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures—as most information, today, is digital and digital information is difficult to keep confidential.

Where information is King, Government, Businesses, and Criminals (National and International) wish to gain access to all of it.

One’s identity is difficult to hold onto. A person’s hopes, dreams, and fears are easy to tap into, and one’s belief systems are malleable, subject to manipulation, shaped by propagandists and social media influencers.

Substantial numbers of Americans fall prey to widespread social and psychological programing, but most, fortunately, remain inured to this.

Those Americans who recognize the importance of the Nation’s fundamental, natural law rights tend to be able to resist social and psychological tactics aimed at breaking down the psyche.

Of all the Natural Law Rights, the most vital is the Right codified in the Second Amendment.

For close to a century, after the States ratified the Bill of Rights, there were no challenges to State or Federal action, as no need arose for that, as unconstitutional, unconscionable action was either rare or nonexistent.

But, in the late Nineteenth Century and throughout the Twentieth Century, cases began to materialize, concomitant with Government action beginning to intrude on the Americans’ basic Rights.

The recent Second Amendment case, Antonyuk vs. James, arose as a direct challenge to New York’s failure to adhere to the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Court’s third landmark case, NYSRPA vs. Bruen.

Well after two and a half years of litigation, the case came back to the U.S. Supreme Court on a second Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Those Americans who cherish the Right to Armed Self-Defense were pleased to see the case set for a vote by the Justices at conference.

They had every reason to expect the Court to garner at least four votes necessary to grant review of the case. After all, the New York Government had blatantly and contemptuously rebuffed the Court and its rulings. Far from adhering to the Court’s rulings that were first and foremost directed at the State’s Handgun Law, the Government’s amendments demonstrated plain disregard for those rulings, inviting a challenge that came quickly.

One would have every reason to expect the Supreme Court to grant review of a case grounded on a government’s disregard of the Court’s rulings. Yet, that did not happen.

The Court perfunctorily denied review in its order of April 2025.

This was so unexpected as to invite incredulity. What happened next invited yet more incredulity.

Once the U.S. Supreme Court rejects a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, the Clerk remands the case back to the state or federal appellate court from which the appeal originated. The Clerk sends the case to the appellate court immediately. This occurred.

In the case at bar, the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. That was the Court from which the Antonyuk Petitioners appealed the adverse decision of the Federal Appellate Court.

What happened next is perplexing, predicated on the basis of what we know at the time of posting of this article.

The Second Circuit seemingly continues to retain jurisdiction over the case; but no actions have been taken to advance its proceedings.

If the Appellate Court sent the case back down to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, as the Second Circuit had said it would do prior to staying that action when Antonyuk Plaintiff- Petitioners filed their Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, one would presume that the Second Circuit would have remanded the case back to the District Court, to the lower Federal District Court, in accordance with the Appellate Court’s original order, and would have done so immediately, once the U.S. Supreme Court denied review of it. But there was no public pronouncement or other indication that this has occurred. 

If Petitioners had appealed from a final order of the Second Circuit, and assuming no new evidence arose in the case after the Supreme Court denied review of it, the case would now be at an end. But the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari was filed when the case was in a non-final condition. The Second Circuit had vacated most of the order of the lower District Court that had granted the Petitioners’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

However, if new evidence did arise after denial of Petitioners Writ of Certiorari, notwithstanding that the particulars of the case being in a non-final condition, the Antonyuk Petitioners could still have filed a request for reconsideration of the denial of review based on such new evidence that came to its attention. The U.S. Supreme Court Rules allow for that. But we surmise no new evidence arose after the fact, and so, the Petitioners did not file a request for reconsideration. In any event there is a time constraint in the rules for a petitioner to file a request for reconsideration based on new evidence, if such comes to light after the fact.

A few commentators had surmised the U.S. Supreme Court denied Petitioners’ Petition simply because the case wasn’t ripe for appeal as the Second Circuit hadn’t rendered a final judgment on the case.

The case was still under a preliminary injunction, granted by the lower Court that the Second Circuit had subsequently vacated. But, if the U.S. Supreme Court was truly interested in this case, as the Court’s issuance of a “GVA” * indicated, then why didn’t the High Court issue a new GVA, pertaining to the Petitioners’ second Petition, making clear its desire to take up the case if the Appellate Court still denies the Petitioners the relief sought.

__________

*A GVA is a shorthand descriptor referring to an action of the High Court when it grants a Petition, vacates the decision of the lower Appellate Court from where the Petition was taken, and remands the case back to the Appellate Court to reconsider its prior decision, consistent with the U.S., Supreme Court’s order to it.

_________

But, after denial of Petitioners Writ of Certiorari, the Second Circuit may have resisted remanding the case and would do nothing more with the case. *

After all, the New York State Government had everything it wanted. It could continue to enforce most of the amendments to the Handgun Law, as the heart of those amendments were left untouched, by the Second Circuit that had vacated the lower (trial) Court’s granting of the Plaintiff-Petitioners’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Obviously, the Second Circuit was sympathetic to the Anti-Second Amendment predispositions of the New York Hochul Government.

So, then, what is the status of the Antonyuk case?

The Second Circuit has an obligation to pursue the case to final judgment, consistent with its own orders.

In the Second Circuit’s rulings, from which the Antonyuk Petitioners appealed, the Court said this:

For the reasons stated above, we MODIFY and AFFIRM the district court's injunction as to § 265.01-d to enjoin enforcement of that provision only with respect to private property open to the public; and REMAND the preliminary injunction as to § 265.01-d with respect to private property not open to the public for further merits analysis consistent with this opinion.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the injunction in part, VACATE in part, and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion. In summary, we uphold the district court's injunctions with respect to N.Y. Penal L. § 400.00(1)(o)(iv) (social media disclosure) and N.Y. Penal L. § 265.01-d (restricted locations) as applied to private property held open to the general public. We vacate the injunction in all other respects, having concluded either that the district court lacked jurisdiction because no plaintiff had Article III standing to challenge the laws or that the challenged laws do not violate the Constitution on their face.

Did the Second Circuit deliberately keep the case in a non-final condition to forestall a Petition? If so, that didn’t stop the Petitioners from filing their Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Petitioners may have thought the Second Circuit was deliberately stalling for time on behalf of the State. Petitioners had no desire to play that game.

Moreover, Associate Justice Samuel Alito had previously warned the New York Government (and, by extension, the Second Circuit), not to dawdle on this case, which the Second Circuit decided to do anyway.

The Petitioners had every reason to believe that the Justices would see through the ruse played by the Second Circuit. And, even if some minor issues were left to be resolved (and what those are isn’t so clear from a perusal of the Order), the U.S. Supreme Court is not constrained from granting review on a case where, as here, justice demands review.

In accordance with the Rules of the Second Circuit, the Appellate Court is required to send the case to the lower court—in this instance, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York since it was the Federal District Court that had granted Petitioners’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, back in 2022. But the Second Circuit never did remand the case to the District Court after it received the case from the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court.

To the best of our knowledge and belief, the case IS STILL SITTING at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Why is that?

Of course, when the Antonyuk Petitioners appealed the case, the Second Circuit was required to stay any further action on it, pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the Petition. But, after the High Court acted, there is no reason for the Appellate Court to continue to hold onto the case. It must return the case to the District Court for action OR provide a reason for the delay in remanding the case to the District Court, if the Appellate Court chooses to hold onto it. Yet the Second Circuit has done neither one of those things.

If the Court refuses to remand the case and refuses, also, to provide a reason for why it has not remanded and will not remand the case to the District Court, then this must mean that the Second Circuit is deliberately stalling to prevent further prosecution of it. In that event, Counsel for the Petitioners would have reason enough to file a special Writ to the Supreme Court requesting the High Court to order the Second Circuit to remand the case immediately to the District Court so that the case can eventually come to a final resolution. And then, the Petitioners can file their “THIRD PETITION” to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court would then be hard-pressed to deny Petitioners’ Writ of Certiorari at that point.

Now, if attorneys for Petitioners have contacted the Second Circuit to ascertain why it is that the Appellate Court has not remanded the case to the District Court, we have not found any evidence of that. Such filings should be part of the public record.

We will pursue further analysis of this matter and also discuss what we see as a failing on the part of the Supreme Court, too, for having denied review of the case when, under the Court’s own rules, there was every good reason to grant review, and no rational reason to deny review.

Antonyuk vs. James is much too important to the preservation of the Republic, and to the sanctity of the Right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to allow it to wither on the vine, indefinitely.

Our Country is slowly going to the dogs with the Radical Leftist subverting our core values and our most cherished Rights.

Four years of destructive policies instituted by the Biden-Harris Administration has devastated our Country on all indices.

President Trump has, through Herculean effort, done much to repair the massive harm wrought by the Marxists in Congress and by the Biden people.

Many of the lower Courts are working with the Marxists to create hurdles for Trump. And the U.S. Supreme Court for its part is doing precious little to combat harm engineered by the lower courts on behalf of seditious groups like the ACLU and a number of Leftist NGOs.

Our efforts go to protect and defend the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms. The linchpin to that effort rests with landmark Second Amendment cases.

Antonyuk was on track to become such fourth landmark case, and it can still become THAT FOURTH LANDMARK CASE. We are doing what we can to see that this comes to fruition.

__________________________________