Opinion: SCOTUS rejection tells anti-gun
states it's OK to ignore Bruen decision
By Roger Katz. May 13, 2025
Article Source
If you haven't yet read Arbalest Quarrel's deep dive into the Supreme Court's failure to take up Antonyuk v. James, do so soon. You'll see just how high the stakes really are. This companion piece isn't meant to replace that. It's here to underscore why the court's refusal to grant certiorari (writ to call up the records of an inferior court) is more than disappointing — it's dangerous.
Let's be blunt. The Supreme Court just told New York — and, by extension, every anti-gun state — that it's OK to ignore the Bruen ruling.
That's what the denial of Antonyuk really means in practice. And if you're someone who values your right to keep and bear arms, especially if you're young and just stepping into your role as a citizen defender of liberty, you ought to be furious.
The Bruen ruling, which should've ended "may-issue" licensing schemes, was clear: The government can't demand "extraordinary need" before you're allowed to defend yourself. But New York didn't care. They cooked up the so-called Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), which gutted Bruen before the ink was dry. Instead of proper cause, now they just ban carry in nearly every public place. It's like swapping one unconstitutional rule for a thousand mini ones — and the result is the same: disarmament through delay and denial.
Antonyuk wasn't some obscure case. It directly challenged New York's open defiance of Bruen. It was the perfect vehicle for the Supreme Court to say: "We meant what we said." But instead, they stayed silent. And in the court's silence, New York's arrogance grows.
To every young gun owner paying attention: Understand the message being sent.
You've followed the rules. You've gone through the training. You've waited months — or even years — for a permit. And still, the government treats your right like a privilege, a favor they might grant if they feel generous. That's not freedom. That's control.
And now, thanks to this denial, the control freaks in Albany just got a green light from the very court that was supposed to stop them.
Some folks will say, "Relax. There are other cases in the pipeline." And sure, that's technically true. But Antonyuk was special. It wasn't just about a specific permit rule — it was about whether states can openly rebel against the Supreme Court and get away with it. Spoiler: They just did.
So where does that leave us?
It leaves us needing to be more focused, more vocal, and more prepared than ever. Not just in the courts — but at the ballot box, in town halls, on campus, and online. It leaves us with the task of holding the line — not just for ourselves but for the generations to come.
Because here's the hard truth: If Bruen falls in practice, then Heller and McDonald are right behind it. And if that happens, the Second Amendment will exist only on paper — while your actual ability to carry a gun for self-defense gets swallowed up by red tape and restriction zones.
Don't let that happen.
Read Arbalest Quarrel's full article, The Roberts' Court Has Gone Rogue. Share it. Know the names: Antonyuk, Bruen, Heller, McDonald. Know what they mean. And remember what this fight is really about — not just gun rights, but the right to live as a free citizen in a country where your liberty doesn't expire at the city line.
Republished with permission from AmmoLand.
