THREE MAJOR SECOND AMENDMENT CASES AND AS FOR A FOURTH AND FIFTH CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS CRIES, “HOLD, ENOUGH!” *

THE AMERICAN PUBLIC SHOUTS, “THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS NOT DONE NEARLY ENOUGH TO HONOR ITS OATH TO CONSTITUTION AND PEOPLE”—ENSURING THAT THE STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DO NOT RIDE ROUGHSHOD OVER THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

It would seem to a rational mind that the U.S. Supreme Court would grant review of Petitioners’ Petition (their SECOND one) in Antonyuk vs. James. There was no reason not to grant review.

The Court had made plain its deep interest in Antonyuk for well over two years. And, well the Court should be interested in it.

For, the Antonyuk case arose from the abject failure of the New York Government to heed to the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in a prior case that itself arose as a challenge to the New York Government’s brazen attack on the citizens’ Fundamental, Unalienable Right to armed self-defense, codified in the Second Amendment of the BILL OF RIGHTS (BOR) of the Constitution.

The New York Government has a longstanding, deep-seated abhorrence of the Fundamental Natural Law Right to Armed Self-defense, and that abhorrence goes back to its origins as a State.

That hatred manifests in a propensity to ignore U.S. Supreme Court strictures. The present Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, is prone to vocal outbursts of vituperative contempt toward the Court. In that respect her position on firearms, and civilian ownership and possession of them reflects the same smug contempt and false piety of her predecessor, Andrew Cuomo.

One would think the U.S. Supreme Court would slap down this insolent confrontational attitude toward the High Court quickly and decisively. But apparently, that hasn’t happened because the Chief Justice of the Court, John Roberts, has no interest in protecting the most vital Right in the American peoples’ arsenal of Rights—the unalienable Natural Law Right to Armed Self-Defense against both Predatory Man and the Predatory Man-Beast of Government.

But, regardless of the Chief Justice's ideological views on “the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms,” if those views are contrary to the views of the Framers who themselves held no reservations as to the necessity for it, for maintaining the “Security of a Free State,” one would think that Justice Roberts would cast aside his personal predilections pertaining to “the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms” in view of his Oath “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies foreign and domestic. And, in so doing, Chief Justice John Roberts would thereby be supporting and defending the credibility and integrity of the Court, as well.

Therefore, it is difficult to comprehend how and why the Chief Justice would allow a recalcitrant New York Government to openly defy the Court, but he has done so. And the junior members of the Court, which the legacy Press erroneously casts as members of the “Conservative-wing,”—those three members that President Trump nominated during his first term in Office—take their cue from Chief Justice Roberts.

They forbear from incurring his wrath by voting, as he wishes, to deny review of critical important Second Amendment cases—those cases having a significant impact on the tenability and viability of the three seminal Second Amendment cases, Heller, and McDonald, and Bruen, and therefore, on the continued viability of the Second Amendment Right to armed Self Defense.

The Antonyuk case arose as a challenge to the New York Hochul Government’s abject failure to adhere to the rulings of NYSRPA vs. Bruen. And, in having failed to adhere to the rulings of the decision, except on a purely superficial level—which only compounds its obstreperousness—the New York Hochul Government demonstrates an intention to remain a rogue actor, unaccountable to the United States Supreme Court, unaccountable to the U.S. Constitution, and unaccountable to the American people.  

While the Bruen case has nationwide effect, these facts should not be lost on any American.

The New York Government insists that THE SANCTITY OF ITS OWN ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL HANDGUN LAW SUPERSEDES THE SUPREMACY AND SANCTITY OF THE NATION’S BILL OF RIGHTS—INCLUDING, ESPECIALLY, THE NATURAL LAW RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

So, notwithstanding the universality of the holdings of that earlier case to all the states in the Union, this particular Case or

Bruen was published on June 23, 2022. The case arose as a challenge to the constitutionality of New York’s Handgun Law that denied individuals the right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense, absent a showing of extraordinary need to do so.

The Bruen case, as well as the two preceding cases, District of Columbia vs. Heller and McDonald vs. City of Chicago, require re-reading, reflection, and contemplation.

The PUBLIC, the LEGACY PRESS, and POLITICIANS tend to emphasize the major holdings and rulings of these three landmark cases.

The PROPONENTS of Heller, McDonald, and Bruen praise the holdings and rulings of these cases as well they should. And they consider these holdings and rulings long overdue, as well they are.

The OPPONENTS, meanwhile, unsurprisingly, protest the holdings and rulings of these THREE LANDMARK CASES, and would overturn them if they could.

But there is much more to uncover from these three cases than the holdings and rulings themselves.

The adage, “separating the wheat from the chaff,” suggesting the need to separate important information (the grain) from the trivial matter (the husk) comes to mind. But the holdings and rulings are not only crucial information, THE WHEAT, to be gleaned from Heller, McDonald, and Bruen.

As applied to review of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, zeroing in on the Court rulings alone, bypassing the reasoning and seemingly subordinate asides, is never a good idea.

For, sometimes THAT APPARENT CHAFF may hide something of importance that casts an important light on THE HIGH COURT’S holdings and rulings, “THE WHEAT” in a Supreme Court case.

Thus, the PURPORTED CHAFF ISN’T CHAFF, at all, but is itself “WHEAT”—CERTAINLY WHEAT to those Governments that look for a LOOPHOLE in a U.S. Supreme Court case that might provide them with A SEEMINGLY PLAUSIBLE REASON TO DISOBEY High Court holdings and rulings.

Rabid Anti-Second Amendment State Governments such as New York meticulously scrounge around a U.S. Supreme Court case, not unlike a squirrel searching intently for an acorn. And New York did just that when the Bruen decision came down. The State had long expected an adverse decision after Oral Argument in the case which took place almost eight months before the decision came down the pike. THE HOCHUL GOVERNMENT MADE SURE IT WAS READY FOR THAT ADVERSE DECISION AND WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO COUNTER ITS EFFECTS ON THE STATE’S HANDGUN LAW. THE STATE PULLED OUT ALL THE STOPS TO CREATE SUCH CHANGES TO THE GUN LAW THAT CAN DO MORE THAN SALVAGE IT, BUT WOULD PRESERVE IT. ALLOWING THE GOVERNMENT TO CONTINUE TO BUILD UPON IT AND EVENTUALLY, INEXORABLY, INEVITABLY WEAKEN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE IN NEW YORK TO THE POINT OF EFFECTIVELY DE FACTO NULLIFYING IT.

Looking simply at and relishing High Court rulings in those three Landmark Second Amendment cases as a “DONE DEAL” DOES NOT SERVE TO SECURE THE RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE. THOSE THREE CASES ARE A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTIO OF COURSE BUT WE WOULD BE LAX TO THINK THAT THOSE CASES ARE SUFFICIENT TO PRESERVE OUR UNALIENABLE RIGHT, AND THEREFORE SECURITY FROM TYRANNY.

The ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT COMMUNITY does not stop searching for an off-ramp, a loophole, some way around a Court’s holding, when it abhors a High Court decision.

The attempt to avoid or evade the Court’s strictures remains ever-present. Therefore, it behooves those of us who cherish “the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms” to consider and reflect on any possible weakness in the Landmark Second Amendment cases.

We can be sure the Anti-Second Amendment forces will do so, and we must stay ahead of the game.

A Free Constitutional Republic and Sovereign American Citizenry cannot long exist in a Nation that no longer exercises armed self-defense, that fails to embrace and cherish THE GOD-GIVEN RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, and that forgets THOSE PERTINENT LESSONS learned about THE HORRORS OF TYRANNY and DESPOTISM, THE IMPORT OF AND SUCCESS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION OF 1776, and the CUNNING AND TRICKERY OF OUR ADVERSARIES HERE AT HOME and ABROAD.

We must remain EVER VIGILANT AND AS ASTUTELY AWARE OF THE TANGENTIAL, NEBULOUS POINTS, FOOTNOTES, and REMARKS (the DICTA) EMBEDDED and BURIED in those case law holdings and rulings, and we must contemplate dissenting opinions as well, BECAUSE those DISSENTS can themselves one day assert themselves and become the LAW OF THE LAND.

So, we must be conversant in SUCH DISSENTING OPINIONS IN SUPREME COURT RULINGS—no less so than our adversaries. who seek our Nation’s demise. For those adversaries are numerous, powerful, well-funded, well-organized, and tenacious. And they are determined to take down OUR NATION’S ONE CERTAIN FAIL-SAFE AGAINST TYRANNY—THE ARMED CITIZEN—which is necessary if they are to succeed in their aim OF SUBVERTING OUR FREE REPUBLIC and SUBJUGATING A PEOPLE WHO ONCE EXISTED AS THE NATION’S SOLE AND SUPREME SOVEREIGN OVER GOVERNMENT AND NATION.

The New York Government, under its Governor Kathy Hochul had employed her attorneys and implored the State Democratic Party Majority in Albany to find some way TO AVOID the imprimatur imposed on the State by the Court’s Bruen decision while, at once, paying token service to it—to cloak their animus toward the Court and their intention to preserve the utility of the State’s Handgun Law.

This was no easy task for the New York Hochul Government, but it was determined to succeed. AND THEY HAD AMPLE TIME TO COMPLETE THIS TASK.

CONSIDER: ORAL ARGUMENT in the Bruen case took place on November 3, 2021.

From a perusal of the transcript of THE HEARING, the New York Hochul Government knew full well that the Court would render a MAJOR DECISION and THAT DECISION WOULD OVERTURN THE STATE’S IRON-CLAD GRIP OVER CIVILIAN CITIZEN POSSESSION OF AND USE OF HANDGUNS FOR SELF-DEFENSE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN—THEREBY NEGATING THE TREMENDOUS POWER THE STATE EXERTED OVER THE CITIZENS WHO RESIDED OR WORKED IN NEW YORK, THROUGH OPERATION OF ITS HANDGUN LAW.

THAT LAW HAD EXISTED FOR WELL OVER A CENTURY IN THE STATE AND, THROUGH THE PASSING DECADES, THE GUN LAW BECAME ENTRENCHED, SOLIDIFIED IN THE LAW OF NEW YORK, GAINING ACCEPTANCE, AND AN AURA OF LEGAL AND ETHICAL RESPECTABILITY BY MANY AS A RESULT OF ITS LENGTHY DURATION. THIS INDOMITABILITY, IMPENETRABILITY, INSURMOUNTABILITY, THROUGH PASSAGE OF TIME AND NEW YORK COURT IMPRIMATUR, DOESN’T ALTER ONE IMPORTANT FACT: THE STATE LAW OFFENDS NATURAL LAW. IT MUST BE STRUCK DOWN.

AND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT WAS THE ONLY BRANCH OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT THAT CAN EFFECTIVELY DO SO, AND, THROUGH THE TENACITY, PERSISTENCE, PERSEVERENCE OF TWO ASSOCIATE JUSTICES, CLARENCE THOMAS AND SAMUEL ALITO—THE ONLY TWO WHO REMAIN AFTER THE UNTIMELY AND SUSPICIOUS DEATH OF ANTONIN SCALIA—THE STRIKING DOWN OF NEW YORK’S ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL HANDGUN LAW, AFTER ONE HUNDRED AND TEN YEARS WAS TO BECOME A REALITY.

The Hochul Government certainly saw this and was noticeably alarmed at what such a High Court decision would mean to a State that had slowly, inexorably spread its tentacles around the Natural Law Right to Armed Self-Defense—at least in THAT jurisdiction. The prospects for a State having long preserved its unconstitutional Handgun Law was, in the space of less than one year would be undone.

The Hochul Government wasn’t incorrect in its inference. The Court came down with a blistering decision on June 23, 2022.

The State had almost EIGHT MONTHS to craft a mechanism to thwart the impact of Bruen, and salvage, if not secure, the CORE of its HANDGUN LAW that revolved around TWO DEVICES—— “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER,” AND “PROPER CAUSE.”

The New York Government had fabricated these two devices almost one hundred years before, in 1913. The intent was to tighten its grip over a citizen’s carrying of handguns in public, for self-defense.

GOOD MORAL CHARACTER and PROPER CAUSE served as an amendment to the State’s HANDGUN LAW enacted two years before, in 1911. The State’s HANDGUN LAW (commonly referred to as the SULLIVAN ACT) FORMALIZED the process for issuing a CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE in New York.

THE LEGALITY, CONSTITUTIONALITY, AND MORALITY OF STATE FIREARMS LICENSING GENERALLY AND STATE HANDGUN LICENSING PARTICULARLY IS PROBLEMATIC, DUBIOUS, AND MORE TO THE POINT, OUTRAGEOUS.

HANDGUN LICENSING INSERTS ITSELF BETWEEN THE AMERICAN CITIZEN AND THE RIGHT CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT. IN SO DOING, THE GOVERNMENT TRANSFORMS A GOD-GIVEN, UNCONDITIONAL, ETERNAL RIGHT INTO A MAN-MADE, CONTINGENT, CONDITIONAL, TRANSITORY PRIVILEGE. BUT THAT IS THE STATE’S INTENT.

New York State and Federal Courts had tried to skirt the problem by engaging in legal gymnastics and logical dilemmas to do so. These Courts tacitly accept that “the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms” IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, A LIBERTY INTEREST TO BE PROTECTED, BUT CLAIM STATE HANDGUN LICENSING DOESN’T CONFLICT WITH THE RIGHT AS THE STATE IS SIMPLY EXERCISING ITS OWN RIGHT TO DO SO, UNDER THE CONCEPT OF A “STATE’S POLICE POWERS” WHICH IS THE BASIS OF THE COURT’S RULINGS IN FINDING THAT THE NEW YORK GOVERNMENT HAS LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DO THIS—BUT THAT POINT IS TACIT AS WELL.

A case often cited by the New York Courts (both State and Federal) in support of this, is Papaioannou v. Kelly, 14 A.D.3d 459  788 N.Y.S.2d 378  (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dept. 2007). The Court opined, 

It is well settled that the possession of a handgun license is a privilege, not a right, which is subject to the broad discretion of the New York City Police Commissioner (Matter of Kaplan v Bratton, 249 A.D.2d 199, 201, 673 N.Y.S.2d 66 [1998]; Matter of Fondacaro v Kelly, 234 A.D.2d 173, 177, 652 N.Y.S.2d 604 [1996], lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 812, 679 N.E.2d 644, 657 N.Y.S.2d 405 [1997]), and respondent, by statute, has been delegated "extraordinary power" in these matters (Matter of O'Brien v Keegan, 87 N.Y.2d 436, 439, 663 N.E.2d 316, 639 N.Y.S.2d 1004 [1996]; Matter of Trimis v New York City Police Dept., 300 A.D.2d 162, 163, 752 N.Y.S.2d 47 [2002], lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 503, 791 N.E.2d 961, 761 N.Y.S.2d 595 [2003]). Indeed, the only issue to be reviewed by this Court herein is whether the administrative decision to revoke petitioner's pistol license was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion (Iacono v Police Dept. of the City of N.Y., 204 A.D.2d 225, 226, 612 N.Y.S.2d 140 [1994], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 85 N.Y.2d 848, 648 N.E.2d 786, 624 N.Y.S.2d 366 [1995]; Sewell v City of New York, 182 A.D.2d 469, 473, 583 N.Y.S.2d 255 [1992], lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 756, 602 N.E.2d 232, 588 N.Y.S.2d 824 [1992]), and whether a rational basis exists for the agency's determination. A rational basis exists when the evidence adduced is sufficient to support the Commissioner's action (see Matter of Bocchiano v New York City Police Dept., 213 A.D.2d 264, 624 N.Y.S.2d 21 [1995]; Sewell, 182 A.D.2d at 473).

New York police feel they are immune from the disastrous impact of this legal theory. They are wrong. The New York Government’s treating handgun licensing as a privilege that effectively overrides operation of the Fundamental Right to Armed Self-Defense when the two come into conflict, applies as much to them as it does to the civilian citizenry residing or working in New York.

See Boss vs. Kelly, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62348 (S.D.N.Y 2007), affirmed,  Boss v. Kelly, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 520 (2d Cir. N.Y., Jan. 13, 2009). Note that the case commenced prior to Heller and a decision against the NYPD Police Officer was affirmed by a New York Federal District Court case one year after Heller. The case is instructive of the New York Government’s deep-seated suspicion of the armed citizenry. And that suspicion extends to the State’s own police officers. Consider, the Boss case. The Court spent considerable time discussing the operative facts of the case.

The facts alleged in the Complaint, which are accepted as true for the purposes of this motion, are as follows. Plaintiff Kenneth Boss is a police officer employed by the New York City Police Department ("NYPD").On February 4, 1999, Boss was one of four officers involved in the fatal shooting of Amadou Diallo, an unarmed twenty-two year old man of African descent. The incident received nationwide media attention and triggered protests related to the issue of police brutality.

Following the incident, plaintiff surrendered his weapon to the NYPD. Shortly thereafter, the four officers involved in the shooting of Diallo, including Boss, were indicted by a grand jury for murder, reckless endangerment, manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. Upon his indictment, the NYPD suspended Boss for thirty days and then returned him to duty on "modified assignment," which is a duty status reserved for officers involved in disciplinary proceedings or criminal charges.

On February 25, 2000, after a trial, a jury found Boss not guilty of all charges. Subsequently, the NYPD Firearms Discharge Review Board concluded that Boss had not violated any NYPD firearms guideline, and recommended that plaintiff's duty status be reviewed in one year.

One year later - in April 2002 - Boss wrote to Commissioner Kelly  asking that he be returned to full duty, but that request was denied. Boss was then assigned to the Emergency Service Unit's training school and repair shop, where he remained on "modified assignment" with no gun.

In August 2002, Boss commenced a proceeding in New York Supreme Court, New York County, pursuant to Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, seeking restoration to full duty with a gun. He alleged in that petition that maintaining him on "modified assignment" without a gun was arbitrary and capricious and in excess of Commissioner Kelly's legal authority. In his affidavit submitted in opposition to Boss's Article 78 petition, Commissioner Kelly explained the reasons  behind his decision to maintain Boss on "modified assignment" without a gun.

Specifically, according to the Complaint, Kelly wrote that in light of the controversy surrounding the Diallo shooting and subsequent criminal trial, if Boss were restored to full duty with a gun, and ever had to take any police action involving the use of force, "he and the Department would be inappropriately subjected to pre-judgment." This, according to Boss, "brands Plaintiff as incompetent and dangerous on the authority of sheer speculation."

On April 14, 2004, Justice Michael Stallman of the New York Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part Boss's Article 78 petition in a written opinion. Boss v. Kelly, 3 Misc. 3d 936, 776 N.Y.S.2d 772 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2004). Justice Stallman wrote that the police commissioner "exercises broad discretion to manage the Police Department, necessarily including deployment of personnel and their assignment to appropriate duties." Id. at 938. Nevertheless, Justice Stallman concluded that the Patrol Guide - which sets forth personnel rules governing the NYPD - permitted "modified assignment" status only when there is misconduct or disciplinary action anticipated. Id. at 941. Here, no disciplinary action was anticipated by the time the Article 78 was commenced, and the criminal charges had already been tried to verdict. Id. at 938, 942. Thus, the court concluded that Boss could not be kept on "modified assignment," although he could be assigned to a variety of other non-full duty assignments. Id. at 942. "It is clear," however, the court wrote, "that petitioner's demand for full duty status is a demand for restoration of his gun." Id. at 940. As to that, the court concluded that the Patrol Guide did not require that Boss's gun had to be restored, and that the decision not to restore the gun was within Commissioner Kelly's "broad discretion to manage the Police Department." Id. at 938, 940. Thus, the court granted the petition in part and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further action consistent with the opinion. Id. at 943.

The Appellate Division, First Department, later affirmed that determination, writing that "[t]he Commissioner's determination not to return the petitioner to full duty status does not violate departmental rules, . . . and the decision not to restore his weapon was within the Commissioner's rationally exercised discretion. The Commissioner's stated reasons for denying restoration to full duty are neither irrational nor arbitrary and capricious." Boss v. Kelly, 17 A.D. 3d 269, 270, 793 N.Y.S.2d 423 (1st Dep't 2005) (internal citation omitted). Shortly thereafter, the NYPD changed Boss's duty status to "Full Duty No Gun."

In April 2006, Boss took military leave from the NYPD and deployed to Iraq as a marine, where he saw combat. Upon his later discharge from active military duty and return to the NYPD, Boss requested that he be restored to full duty with a gun he was, however, given the same assignment and duty status that he had prior to his military leave: "Full Duty No Gun." As a result, according to the Complaint, his status has earned him the "mocking moniker 'Kenny No-Gun' among his colleagues." (Id.)

On March 12, 2007, Boss initiated the present action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging in Count 1 that the City of New York, the NYPD, and Commissioner Kelly violated his property rights without due process by virtue of his duty assignment and in Count 2 that Commissioner Kelly violated his liberty rights without due process by filing an affidavit in the Article 78 proceeding that effectively "brands Plaintiff as incompetent and dangerous on the authority of sheer speculation." Boss seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and compensatory and punitive damages. Defendants now move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

However, to establish a property interest, a plaintiff must have "more than an abstract need or desire for [the property], []he must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it under state or federal law in order to state a § 1983 claim." Finley, 79 F.3d at 1296 (citing Roth, 408 U.S. at 577). Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly "recognize[d] that a benefit is not a protected entitlement if government officials may grant or deny it in their discretion." Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 756, 125 S. Ct. 2796, 162 L. Ed. 2d 658 (2005) (citing Kentucky Dep't of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 462-463, 109 S. Ct. 1904, 104 L. Ed. 2d 506 (1989)).

Although federal law controls what process is due, property interests themselves “‘are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law - rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.”’ Velez v. Levy, 401 F.3d 75, 85 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Roth, 408 U.S. at 577); see also Martz v. Incorporated Vill. of Valley Stream, 22 F.3d 26, 29-30 (2d Cir. 1994).

Here, applying New York law, Boss cannot plausibly plead a "legitimate claim of entitlement," Finley, 79 F.3d at 1296, to possess a firearm while on duty because "[i]t is well settled that the possession of a handgun license is a privilege, not a right, which is subject to the broad discretion of the New York City Police Commissioner." Papaioannou v. Kelly, 14 A.D.3d 459, 460, 788 N.Y.S.2d 378 (1st Dep't 2005) (citing Matter of Kaplan v Bratton, 249 A.D.2d 199, 201, 673 N.Y.S.2d 66 (1st Dep't 1998) and Matter of Fondacaro v Kelly, 234 A.D.2d 173, 177, 652 N.Y.S.2d 604 (1st Dep't 1996)); accord Sewell v. New York, 182 A.D.2d 469, 472, 583 N.Y.S.2d 255 (1st Dep't 1992). Thus, because defendants may "grant or deny" Boss's access to a firearm "in their discretion," Town of Castle Rock, 545 U.S. at 756, he has failed to state a plausible claim that he has a property interest in possessing a gun while on duty.

In response, plaintiff points out that the New York state cases cited above arise from the Police Commissioner's decision to restrict a civilian's access to firearms, as opposed to his decision to restrict a police officer's access to firearms as part of his employment. However, plaintiff does not cite any legal authority suggesting that the Commissioner has less discretion in granting the right to carry firearms to police officers - employees over whom he may exercise considerable control within delimited discretion - than he does when granting that right to civilians.

To the contrary, both judicial decisions in Boss's own Article 78 proceeding explain that the Commissioner has considerable discretion in deciding whether an officer may carry a firearm. Justice Stallman noted that "[t]he Patrol Guide does not give an officer an absolute right to have a firearm under any and all circumstances," and therefore concluded that the decision "whether or not to restore an officer's firearm appears to be within the discretion of the officer's superiors, and ultimately, that of the Commissioner, rationally exercised." Boss, 3 Misc. 3d at 940. Similarly, the Appellate Division, First Department held that "the decision not to restore his weapon was within the Commissioner's rationally exercised discretion." Boss, 17 A.D.3d at 270.

Moreover, other courts have held that "[i]n determining the fitness of candidates, the Police Department, as the agency charged with the responsibility, is afforded 'wide discretion,' which is to be sustained unless clearly abused." City of New York v. N.Y. City Civ. Serv. Comm'n, 20 A.D.3d 347, 348, 800 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1st Dep't 2005); see   also Matter of Bruder v. Kelly, N.Y.L.J., Aug. 6, 2007, at 18 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jul. 31, 2007) (deferring to the discretion of the NYPD Commissioner regarding the reinstatement of a police officer involved in another highly-publicized and racially-charged police brutality case "in view of the importance of the public trust in police officers"). Thus, because defendants had “wide discretion” in deciding to place Boss on “Full Duty No Gun” status, Boss has no constitutional property interest in possessing a gun while on duty, and Claim 1 is dismissed with prejudice.” [Citations to the Complaint omitted].

 Be all this as it may, since obtaining a HANDGUN LICENSE (A STATE PREROGATIVE, according to these Courts) operates as a CONDITION PRECEDENT to THE LAWFULLY CARRYING OF A HANDGUN IN PUBLIC and since the STATE can exercise its discretion in issuing or refraining from issuing a Handgun License, STATE INTERFERENCE IN A CITIZEN’S EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IS THE ONLY INFERENCE THAT CAN BE LOGICALLY DRAWN.

Even if the State invariably were to issue a Handgun License to a citizen, still, issuance of a license as a CONDITION PRECEDENT to THE EXERCISE OF A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT IS PRESENT IN THE ACT, AND THEREFORE IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGAL. STATE HANDGUN LICENSING (AND ANY STATE FIREARMS LICENSING) INTERFEREE WITH THE EXERCISE OF ONE’S FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE, NATURAL LAW RIGHT. YES, LICENSING IS A PRIVILEGE, AS NEW YORK COURTS AND OTHER COURTS MAINTAIN, BUT TO CLAIM THAT STATE APPLICATION OF PRIVILEGE, CONSISTENT WITH THE EXERCISE OF ITS POLICE POWER DOES NOT DAMAGE TO THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF THE RIGHT IS NONSENSICAL.

A STATE’S DELIBERATE, UNMITIGATED, UNCONDITIONAL CONVERSION of an UNALTERABLE and UNALIENABLE NATURAL LAW RIGHT into a Government PRIVILEGE is patently and facially illegal. Yet, this practice as indelible law in many of the Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions persists and in the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE STATE, too, HAS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY involved itself in this as well.

Scarcely one full week after the New York Senate passed a set of comprehensive amendments to its Handgun Law, that included a NEW STATUTE in the NEW YORK PENAL CODE, pertaining to “SENSITIVE LOCATIONS”, Governor Kathy Hochul signed the amendments into Law. That occurred on July 1, 2022—the same day those amendments, referred to as the “CONCEALED CARRY IMPROVEMENT ACT” (CCIA), crossed her desk.

Less than two weeks later, on July 11, Ivan Antonyuk, and Gun Owners of America, Inc., (GOA) Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), and Gun Owners of America New York, Inc. (GOA-NY) filed its lawsuit, challenging the constitutionality of the State amendments to the Handgun Law.

On July 20 the Plaintiffs added a Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

In that first case the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York DISMISSED the CM [THE COMPLAINT] WITHOUT PREJUDICE on the Court’s OWN MOTION for “LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION,” and thereupon DENIED the PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION as MOOT. [THIS CASE IS OFTEN REFERRED TO BY THE COURTS AS ANTONYUK I—A SHORTLIVED CASE, TO DISTINGUISH IT FROM THE SUBSEQUENT ONGOING CASE THAT THE COURTS REFER AS ANTONYUK II, FOR CONVENIENCE].

ANTONYUK II COMMENCED IN THE LATTER MONTHS OF 2022 AND CONTINUED THROUGH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT REJECTION OF ANTONYUK PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ON APRIL 7, 2025, [IN THE CASE LAST CAPTIONED ANTONYUK VS. JAMES [A.K.A. ANTONYUK II]]. THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE CASE IS UNKNOWN, BUT APPARENTLY, IT’S SITTING IDLE, IN A STATE OF ETERNAL LIMBO AT THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, WHERE THE CLERK OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT SENT IT, AFTER THE HIGH COURT REJECTED REVIEW OF IT. IS THE CASE ALIVE? IS IT DEAD? WHAT IS THE STATUS OF IT? IS IT IN A STATE OF “SUSPENDED ANIMATION.”

WHAT IS THE SECOND CIRCUIT DOING WITH IT?

ANTONYUK FOLLOWED A MEANDERING COURSE FOR NEARLY THREE YEARS, FROM THE DISMISSAL OF THE FIRST CASE ANTONYUK I IN JULY 2022, TO AN ODDLY TRUNCATED END/STATE IN APRIL 2025 AS IT APPARENTLY STILL SITS IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT.

Governor Hochul applauded the District Court’s DISMISSAL of ANTONYUK I, but that dismissal had nothing to do with the merits of the case, since the Plaintiff, Ivan Antonyuk, was not denied refiling the case.

Why did the District Court dismiss ANTONUK I. This is worth a careful look because the District Court was amenable to Plaintiffs’ allegations as presented in their Complaint.

The Court found the Plaintiff organizations didn’t have standing to bring action, but, in the Court’s lengthy opinion, it made plain that it found the ALLEGATIONS of the Complaint, challenging the constitutionality of the amendments to the Handgun Law, had merit. 

The Court made plain that Ivan Antonyuk, who was the sole INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFF in the lawsuit, and who did have standing to sue, could refile, once the standing issue was cleared up.

While the Court could not lawfully suggest, or encourage Antonyuk to refile the case, as the Court must remain neutral, Antonyuk could rest assured the Court would be amenable to a refiling.

The Court opined,

“After carefully considering the matter, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have made a strong showing that they will experience irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction is not issued for the reasons stated in their memoranda of law. To those reasons the Court would add only that, even setting aside the unrebutted presumption of irreparable harm arising from the above-described constitutional violations, Plaintiffs have shown the adverse factual consequences that they—and especially Plaintiff Antonyuk—will suffer if an injunction is  not issued: his diminished safety in all the locations that he currently carries his concealed handgun that he will not be able to carry it. . . .[And],

After carefully considering the matter, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have made a strong showing that balance of equities tips in their favor and that the public interest would not be disserved by the Court's granting of their requested relief for the reasons stated in their memoranda of law.” [citations omitted].

Ivan Antonyuk refiled his case on November 22, 2022. Five additional individuals were added as Party Plaintiffs. Governor Hochul appeared as the principal Party Defendant. Question arose as to the propriety of adding the Governor as a Defendant in the action.

In support of keeping Hochul in the Complaint, the Plaintiffs set forth,

[The] Governor (1) has openly criticized and expressed contempt for the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen, (2) took action to circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling by merely changing] the nature of the open-ended discretion" from proper cause to good moral character . . . , (3) pushed enactment of the CCIA through the legislature and (4) signed the bill into law, and (5) subsequently has acted as the interpreter-in-chief with respect to the CCIA's provisions. The Governor has opined on the statute's proper interpretation and provided guidance and instructions to officials throughout the state of New York as to its implementation according to her desires. For example, Governor Hochul (1) has instructed that the CCIA's new licensing process applies even to those whose carry license applications are already submitted and pending prior to September 1, 2022; (2) has claimed that the 'good moral character' activity will involve door-to-door interviews of a person's neighbors; (3) has claimed that the CCIA's plain text should not apply to certain parts of the Adirondack Park in contradiction to the wishes of the bill's sponsors; and (4) has opined that the CCIA's 'restricted locations' provision creates a 'presumption . . . that they don't want concealed carry unless they put out a sign saying Concealed Carry Weapons Welcome Here. . . . Moreover, and again, the Superintendent, who is tasked with implementing and enforcing various provisions of the CCIA, is the Governor's underling . . . .”

The Court curiously seemed to acknowledge some culpability on the part of Governor Hochul, but nothing that would render her legally responsible for the harm the CCIA might cause Plaintiffs.

The Court said,

True as all this [the allegations directed to Hochul] might be, it does not appear enough to render her a proper party to this action under the case law cited in Antonyuk I. Plaintiffs have not alleged or shown how Defendant Hochul could be properly found to have the specific legal duty to enforce the CCIA. [emphasis our own].

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

As a result, it is not clear to the Court how, to the extent that Plaintiffs were to ultimately prevail on their claims, Defendant Hochul would be the individual who may provide them the (legal) relief they seek. See Antonyuk I, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157874, 2022 WL 3999791, at *11 (“[T]he question the Court must ask itself is whether (and, if so, the extent to which), if ordered to do so by the Court, [the relevant defendant] could provide Plaintiffs with the relief they seek.”). As Plaintiffs concede in their Complaint, “[t]o be sure, Governor Hochul is not the official to whom the Legislature delegated responsibility to implement the provisions of the challenged statutes.” (Dkt. No. 1, at ¶ 9 [Compl.] [internal quotation marks omitted].)

For all of these reasons, the Court dismisses Defendant Hochul as a party to this action.”

Subsequently, the U.S. District Court issued a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER against the Government, followed by the granting of a Preliminary Injunction severely hampering the State’s enforcement of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act.

The Defendants thereupon filed a Request for Reconsideration of its granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and the District Court denied Defendants’ Request.

Defendants then appealed the District Court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where they anticipated  finding a sympathetic ear. They weren’t wrong.

On December 6, 2022, in a short opinion, the Second Circuit, vacated the lower Court’s order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. In the case, still captioned Antonyuk vs. Hochul, the Court stated,

“Appellants request a stay pending appeal of the district court's order dated November 7, 2022 (N.D.N.Y. 22-cv-986, doc. 78), enjoining Appellants from enforcing certain aspects of New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act ("CCIA"). Having weighed the applicable factors, see In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 503 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2007), we conclude that a stay pending appeal is warranted. Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for a stay pending appeal is GRANTED and the district court's November 7 order is STAYED pending the resolution of this appeal. To the extent that the district court's order bars enforcement of the CCIA's provisions related to persons who have been tasked with the duty to keep the peace at places of worship, airports, and private buses, such categories are EXCEPTED from this order. Appellees' motion to expedite the resolution of the matter is GRANTED.

The Plaintiffs then appealed this INTERLOCUTORY ORDER to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Plaintiffs requested the Court to vacate the U.S. Circuit Court’s lifting of the U.S. District Court’s granting Plaintiff Petitioners’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. The U.S. Supreme Court refused the request, with this:

“Application to vacate stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court denied.”

[And] “Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins, respecting the denial of the application to vacate stay.”

But the two Justices added this statement:

The New York law at issue in this application presents novel and serious questions under both the First and the Second Amendments. The District Court found, in a thorough opinion, that the applicants were likely to succeed on a number of their claims, and it issued a preliminary injunction as to twelve provisions of the challenged law. With one exception, the Second Circuit issued a stay of the injunction in full, and in doing so did not provide any explanation for its ruling. App. to Emergency Application 2. In parallel cases presenting related issues, the Second Circuit has likewise issued unreasoned summary stay orders, but in those cases it has ordered expedited briefing. See, e.g., Order in Hardaway v. Nigrelli, No. 22-2933, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 36046 (CA2, Dec. 7, 2022), ECF Doc. 53; Order in Christian v. Nigrelli, No. 22-2987 (CA2, Dec. 12, 2022), ECF Doc. 40.

I understand the Court’s denial today to reflect respect for the Second Circuit’s procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case. Applicants should not be deterred by today’s order from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal.

JUSTICES ALITO AND THOMAS HAVE MADE AS PLAIN AS THEY COULD THAT ANTONYUK WOULD BE TAKEN UP BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. THAT THIS DID NOT COME TO PASS STRONGLY SUGGESTS THAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JOHN ROBERTS, REBUFFED THESE JUSTICES. AND NONE OF TRUMP’S NOMINEES—NOT ONE OF THEM—CAME TO THE TWO SENIOR JUSTICES’ RESCUE, SUPPORTING THEM IN TAKING UP THE CASE, AND VINDICATING THE LEGACY OF THE EMINENT LATE JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA. THE COMBINED EFFORTS OF ALL THREE JUSTICES TO DEFEND AND TO SANCTIFY THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS FOR THE SAKE OF PRESERVATION OF A FREE REPUBLIC HAS COME TO NAUGHT.

THIS FAILURE OF THE COURT TO GARNER FOUR VOTES—LESS THAN A MAJORITY, TO GARNER REVIEW OF THE MOST IMPORTANT SECOND AMENDMENT CASE TO COME BEFORE THE COURT SINCE BRUEN, FOURTEEN MONTHS EARLIER, IS MIND-BOGGLING.

JOHN ROBERTS AND TWO OR ALL THREE OF TRUMP’S NOMINEES HAVE REFUSED TO HONOR THE COURT’S OWN PRIOR LANDMARK SECOND AMENDMENT CASE DECISIONS. IN FAILING THE CONSTITUTION, THE PEOPLE, AND THE COURT’S OWN ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS, JUSTICE ROBERTS AND THREE OSTENSIBLY, CONSERVATIVE-WING JUSTICES HAVE SEVERELY WEAKENED THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURT, ALONG WITH THE COURT’S CREDIBILITY ALL OF THAT HAS GONE OUT THE DOOR.

THE ANTONYUK CASE BRINGS UP ISSUES THAT MUST BE DEALT WITH LEST ALL LOWER COURTS, FEDERAL AND STATE, AND CONGRESS AND THE BUREAUCRACY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND THE MANY ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT STATE LEGISLATURES AND GOVERNORS,  CONTINUE, BRAZENLY, TO DEFY—EVEN MOCK—THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. DO JUSTICE ROBERTS AND THE TRUMP NOMINEES EVEN CARE?

When delving into Bruen, we take note of what the New York Hochul Government was looking for in the way of preserving its Handgun Law.

The Supreme Court made plain the State’s “PROPER CAUSE” STANDARD. Having struck down that standard as illegal and unconstitutional, the New York Hochul Government had no choice but to remove PROPER CAUSE from the HANDGUN LAW.

The State could not retain PROPER CAUSE as doing so would be too obvious an act of blatant defiance.

Even with the Socialist/Marxist Biden-Harris Administration in Office and a House under the control of the “Socialist” Democrat Party, those unelected people or groups operating as DECISION-MAKERS in the OFFICE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE  U.S. GOVERNMENT DID NOT YET POWERFUL ENOUGH TO COME TO THE AID OF AN ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT STATE GOVERNMENT THAT WOULD TRANSPARENTLY DEFY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, THIRD BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. All this didn’t matter.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT SABOTAGED ITSELF, HAVING REFUSED TO GRANT REVIEW OF ANTONYUK.

The Hochul Government brazenly transformed New York City into a “GUN FREE ZONE,” thereby effectively reducing the import of a citizen’s ability to defend himself with a handgun when facing a deadly threat when in public.

Notwithstanding Justice Thomas’ warning to the New York Hochul Government, the State severely hampered the efficacy of a valid New York Concealed Handgun Carry License.

Writing for the Majority, Justice Thomas said,

Although we have no occasion to comprehensively define “sensitive places” in this case, we do think respondents err in their attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law. In their view, “sensitive places” where the government may lawfully disarm law-abiding citizens include all “places where people typically congregate and where law-enforcement and other public-safety professionals are presumptively available.” . . . It is true that people sometimes congregate in “sensitive places,” and it is likewise true  that law enforcement professionals are usually presumptively available in those locations. But expanding the category of “sensitive places” simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of “sensitive places” far too broadly. Respondents’ argument would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense that we discuss in detail below. See Part III-B, infra. Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.”

Can Governor Hochul honestly argue with a straight face that, since the State Government DIDN’T LITERALLY convert the entirety of Manhattan Island into a “SENSITIVE PLACE,”—only a GOODLY PORTION OF IT, WHICH THE STATE CAN ADD TO AT ANY TIME—the Government had nonetheless complied with “THE LETTER OF THE LAW?” The actions of Governor Hochul and her Government ARE QUESTIONABLE, actually, ACTIONABLE.

When the New York Government amended the Sullivan Act in 1913 to further constrain a civilian citizen’s exercise of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms by giving Government LICENSING OFFICERS more avenue to deny CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSES by imposing THE REQUIREMENT OF “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” and “PROPER CAUSE,” the need for the former in view of operation of the latter, reduced the former, “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” (subjective as it is), essentially redundancy.

But, with the Supreme Court STRIKING DOWN “PROPER CAUSE” as UNCONSTITUTIONAL on its face, yet, having said nothing about STRIKING DOWN “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER,” the State transferred the import of PROPER CAUSE to the MORAL CHARACTER REQUIREMENT.

This wasn’t the best substitute, since the State would still be obligated to issue more CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSES than it would have done under the PROPER CAUSE Standard. But, this manipulation could bolster GOOD MORAL CHARACTER, and, with the addition of a BRAND NEW “SENSITIVE LOCATION” RESTRICTION STATUTE, the New York Government could accomplish much the same thing. **

TRANSFORMING all UNRESTRICTED CONCEALED CARRY LICENSES into mere RESTRICTED CARRY LICENSES would accomplish much of the same thing.

Some New Yorkers, having secured a CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE FOR THE FIRS TIME, would think of it as a wonderful accomplishment since many thousands of New Yorkers could never hope to acquire a VALID NEW YORK CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE under the PROPER CAUSE Standard.

But, for those individuals who had acquired an UNRESTRICTED CONCEALED CARRY LICENCE, when the “PROPER CAUSE” Standard was still part of the HANDGUN LAW, none of them could be pleased at this development.

Moreover, New Yorkers often face long delays in the processing of applications. Nothing in that respect has changed.

Applicants are held to stringent time constraints in providing the handgun licensing officer with all the documents requested, and there is no reciprocal penalty for Government delays in processing applications. Bruen doesn’t respond to that.

GOOD MORAL CHARACTER remains A SALIENT ISSUE IN ANTONYUK as does the matter of clarifying the “HISTORICAL TRADITION” TEST that replaced “MEANS-END SCRUTINY in the HELLER case.

Bruen made substantial progress in outlining the meaning of the HISTORICAL TRADITION test that Courts must utilize when looking at STATE ACTIONS that impact the CORE of the Right but, even there, the question arises what State action is such that it impacts the CORE OF THE RIGHT?

Might not an Anti-Second Amendment Court such as the Second Circuit opine that a particular State action does not impact the CORE of the Right protected by the Second Amendment, and thereby revert back to use of MEANS-END SCRUTINY THAT INVARIABLY FAVORS THE STATE? And, wasn’t that the reason the Supreme Court in Heller revoked use of THAT TEST in the first place?

And what are we to make of HANDGUN LICENSING? Simply asserting that it has long been in use is not a sensible argument that it is legal and constitutional. That fact merely begs the question at issue: Whether STATE HANDGUN LICENSING IS LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL it ought to be retained, (OR CAN LEGALLY BE RETAINED) at all, especially since licensing of handguns (or of any firearm) entails Government involvement in the process. Once Government interposes itself between a citizen and a FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE NATURAL LAW RIGHT that the BILL OF RIGHTS makes plain no GOVERNMENT can LAWFULLY TRANSGRESS, and, as STATE RELIANCE ON HANDGUN/FIREARMS LICENSING ACCOUNTS FOR A MULTIPLICITY OF SINS, THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE IT DOWN AS FACIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND BE DONE WITH IT. MANY STATES HAVE EFFECTIVELY ABOLISHED HANDGUN LICENSING.

BUT, AMONG THOSE JURISDICTIONS THAT VIRULENTLY OPPOSE CIVILIAN CITIZEN OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF HANDGUNS, THEY HAVE NOT BUDGED FROM THAT ATYPICAL STANCE AND THEY CONTINUE TO CRAFT EVER MORE DRACONIAN FIREARMS LAWS THAT SAVAGE THE IMPORT AND PURPORT OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. THE STUBBORN RETENTION OF HANDGUN LICENSING REGIMES BY SUCH JURISDICTIONS ARE BOTH UNCONSCIONABLE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND MUST BE STRUCK DOWN.

SUCH STATES CLAIM WRONLY THAT THE U.S. SUPREME HAS HELD AND CONTINUES TO HOLD STATE HANDGUN LICENSING CONSTITUTIONAL? Yet that isn’t true at all.

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS NEVER ISSUED A CATEGORICAL RULING OR STATEMENT DECLARING THAT THE INSTITUTION OF STATE HANDGUN LICENSING SCHEMES ARE CONSTITUTIONAL.

INSTEAD THE COURT HAS TO DATE EVALUATED SPECIFIC LICENSING REQUIREMENTS AND STRUCK DOWN THOSE THAT IT DEEMS IMPERMISSIBLY BURDEN THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT, AS WAS THE CASE IN BRUEN. BUT, HAVING FAILED TO RULE HANDGUN LICENSING OR ANY FIREARMS LICENSING AS PATENTLY AND BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL SIMPLY COMPELS STATES SUCH AS NEW YORK TO BE MORE CREATIVE IN CRAFTING WORK-AROUNDS.

THE COURT'S JURISPRUDENCE SUGGESTS THAT, WHILE SOME REGULATORY MEASURES MAY BE PERMISSIBLE, LICENSING SCHEMES THAT PREVENT LAW-ABIDING CIVILIAN CITIZENS FROM EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION WILL NOT WITHSTAND CONSTITUTIONAL SCRUTINY. THE U.S. COURT MUST RULE HANDGUN LICENSING FACIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

BUT THERE IS A PRELIMINARY QUESTION. IS NOT THE ACT OF FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENT LICENSING UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS A MATTER OF LOGIC AS WELL AS LAW SINCE THE ACT OF LICENSING OF HANDGUNS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL/UNCONSCIONABLE BECAUSE GOVERNMENT INVOLVES ITSELF DIRECTLY IN A MATTER NATURAL LAW PROHIBITS AND WHICH, THREATENING THE VIABILITY OF A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, AND A FREE AND SOVEREIGN CITIZENRY.

MOREOVER, NO OTHER FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL LAW RIGHT ALLOWS BLATANT GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE THROUGH LICENSING. WHY, THEN, ARE STATE HANDGUN LICENSING REGIMES SEEMINGLY TOLERATED BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. THIS MAKES NO SENSE, AS ROGUE ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT STATES AND A TYRANNICAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN EASILY ASSERT THAT SUCH HANDGUN/FIREARMS LICENSING SCHEMES ARE LAWFUL AND THEN FURTHER PROCLAIM THAT, AS PUBLIC POLICY AND A WELL-ORDERED SOCIETY, REQUIRE/DEMAND THE PUBLIC SURRENDER THEIR FIREARMS ON PAIN OF QUICK AND SEVERE GOVERNMENT PUNISHMENT FOR FAILURE TO DO SO, THOSE WHO MAY WISH TO DESIST/RESIST THE ORDER FOR GOVERNMENT COMPLIANCE, AS PER SE CRIMINALS.

To date, the U.S. Supreme Court appears to take a case-by-case approach, evaluating each licensing scheme based on its specific requirements and the burden it places on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But, this piecemeal approach only obfuscates the inherent illegality of the process and encourages States to easily find mechanisms to make continued enforcement of licensing of handguns, and of firearms generally, palatable to the High Court.

BUT ISN’T STATE HANDGUN LICENSING (with capital “L”), GOVERNMENT LICENSING OF FIREARMS, as opposed to specific CASE-BY-CASE licensing (with lower-case “l”), WHAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT SHOULD REALLY BE LOOKING AT?

The failure of the U.S. Supreme Court to perfunctorily deny review of ANTONYUK bespeaks a serious deficiency in the operation of and jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court that has taken a MAJOR HIT, with the loss of Justice Scalia, and the sidelining of the two remaining TRUE CONSERVATIVES AND PATRIOTS, Justices Thomas and Alito.

It is said that the present Chief Justice, John Roberts’ reticence in handling major SECOND AMENDMENT CASES bespeaks the possibility that someone or something has compromised Roberts but, more likely, Roberts doesn’t want to take a stand on Second Amendment issues as he sees them as unimportant or politically problematic. His position on Heller, McDonald, and Bruen could have yielded even more profound decisional law, but the Justices who urged these cases were still constrained to weaken the rulings. And that has only delayed resolution and ALLOWED, EVEN INVITED ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT JURISDICTIONS TO CONTINUE TO EVADE THOSE RULINGS OF THE HIGH COURT THAT HAVE BEEN MADE.

And, Chief Justice Roberts doesn’t stand alone in now seeking to quarantine the THREE LANDMARK CASES and in backpedaling on PROTECTING THIS VITAL NATURAL LAW RIGHT, and in repulsing any further attempt to further clarify and strengthen THE RIGHT.

The Supreme Court has a long history, tracing back to the very ratification of the BILL OF RIGHTS in 1791, in refusing to take up SECOND AMENDMENT CASES on review.

And of the few cases the Supreme Court has taken up prior to the BIG THREE cases (RE: major, positive decisions that only came down in the 21st CENTURY, and, OF THOSE, OCCURRING within a confined TIME FRAME, 2008 through 2022), the Court has RULED AGAINST protection of our sacred Right, or has otherwise issued very narrow rulings, or has taken up Second Amendment cases that are relatively unimportant—not involving matters THAT SEVERELY CONSTRAIN BOTH THE STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM CONTINUOUSLY IMPOSING themselves on Americans’ EXERCISE of their most VITALLY IMPORTANT RIGHT.

And, when one considers THE COSTS involved in attempting to secure a HANDGUN LICENSE and THEN KEEPING IT, and the time-consuming process of engaging in COURT BATTLES, and the exorbitant costs involved—running easily into thousands of dollars and even tens of thousands of dollars—and the psychological drain on one in fighting for validation and vindication of his NATURAL LAW, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE, it is not surprising that many Americans, most Americans, just throw in the towel. Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions like New York know this.

They know that TIME AND MONEY (TAX-PAYER MONEY) are on their side. The New York Government has effectively won the war against tens of thousands of New Yorkers who wish merely to exercise their NATURAL LAW RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, especially in a CITY where the Government is both unable and unwilling to act to protect the residents of the CITY, but argue at once that individuals are not permitted to protect their own life with the most effective means available—a handgun.

OF WHAT PURPOSE ARE U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THAT HOLD A RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT AND THAT THE RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE APPLIES BOTH AT HOME AND IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND THAT THE RIGHT CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT APPLIES TO THE STATES, NO LESS THAN TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WHEN THE STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ROUTINELY INFRINGE THE RIGHT, AND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ISSUES EITHER LAME, NARROW DECISIONS DEVOID OF EFFICACY OR DENIES REVIEW OF CASES INVOLVING THE CORE OF THE RIGHT, AS IN ANTONYUK.

Organizations that defend this VITAL RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE themselves tend often to simply move to the next case when the most important cases ANTONYUK AND SNOPE end up DOA at the HIGH COURT. THERE ARE ACTIONS STILL TO BE TAKEN TO KEEP THESE CASES IN THE FOREGROUND OF THE PUBLIC CONSCIOUSNESS AND THAT OF THE LOWER COURTS AND THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND.

Couldn’t these organizations that had prosecuted these cases acted, to try, at least, to keep these cases from falling down a hole. There is much to discuss?

WE INTEND TO DO OUR PART TO LAY BARE WHAT CAN AND MUST BE DONE. TOO MUCH IS AT STAKE. THE ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT PROPONENTS AND FANATICS ARE NOT GOING TO SLEEP ON THIS. THEY FULLY INTEND TO ABOLISH EXERCISE OF THIS VITAL RIGHT. FOR THEM, IT IS A MEANS TO AN END. A FREE REPUBLIC CANNOT BE DESTROYED AND THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION OF 1776 CANNOT BE UNDONE IF PATRIOTIC AMERICANS RESIST BY MAKING THEIR VOICES HEARD.

We will look at those MYRIAD SECOND AMENDMENT CASES in the next article to prove our point that the U.S. Supreme Court’s lackadaisical attitude toward the Right codified in the Second Amendment is not of present vintage. Justices Thomas and Alito, and the late eminent Justice Scalia finally took action to bring the importance of “the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms” in the forefront of the American Public’s psyche and to do so in earnest to protect the Right.

They know that, President Trump notwithstanding, this Country is at a dangerous precipice. And, this Nation could have fallen over if Hillary Clinton had defeated Trump in 2016 or if Kamala Harris had defeated Trump in 2024. The Electorate came to its senses both in 2016 and once again in 2024. But Americans have only bought some time. Democrats have made plain their intention to take the House, and possibly the U.S. Senate, in the 2026 Midterms, and the U.S. Presidency in 2028. But the Democrats today, are puppets of the Radical Left Marxist interests and powers. The Republic will be well lost if any of this should occur.

The U.S. Supreme Court has a role in preserving a Free Republic, and it can do that if it plays its part and takes up cases for review that involve clear infringement of our Bill of Rights. This piecemeal and half-hearted approach is insufficient.

We will not let this vitally important matter die.

We will follow-up by rebutting commentary—the few that exist—that suggest the Supreme Court could not have granted review of Antonyuk, that the case was not in condition for review. We will look at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s handling of the case and of the present tacit suspension of the case. We will also look at the Pro-Second Amendment organizations that have themselves dropped ball on Antonyuk and on Snope, the two most crucial Second Amendment cases to come before the High Court.

We will also point out the major Second Amendment cases that have come before the Court since the early 1800s. There aren’t a lot of them, and those the Court has reviewed have mostly favored the States or the Federal Government. It is only in the first few decades of the 21st Century that Americans have seen a concerted effort by the U.S. Supreme Court—at least through the actions of some of the Justices—to take an active, avid, interest in protecting the Second Amendment “Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms,” and have made the first tentative steps to return the Country back to the true sovereign of the Nation and Government—the American people. The Court has done this by pointing to the RIGHT (and POWER) through which the PEOPLE EXERT THEIR SOVEREIGNTY and PROTECT THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE—THROUGH NATURAL LAW RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

This is no small matter. The fate of our Republic depends on securing THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

___________________________________

*From Shakespeare’s “The Tragedy of Macbeth

Act 5, Scene 8,

Macbeth to MacDuff during their Swordfight:

“I will not yield,
To kiss the ground before young Malcolm’s feet,
And to be baited with the rabble’s curse.
Though Birnam wood be come to Dunsinane,
And thou opposed, being of no woman born,
Yet I will try the last. Before my body
I throw my warlike shield. Lay on, Macduff,
And damn’d be him that first cries, ‘Hold, enough!’” [Emphasis our own]

_____________________________

**Other virulent Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions have taken their cue from New York. Illinois is one such jurisdiction.

See the article, “Seventh Circuit Upholds Illinois’s Carry Ban on Public Transportation,” by John Crump, posted on September 3, 2025, in Ammoland Shooting Sports News. https://www.ammoland.com/2025/09/seventh-circuit-upholds-illinoiss-carry-ban-on-public-transportation/

____________________________________