New York law generally requires firearm licensing decisions within six months, but the NYPD faces renewed allegations of lengthy application delays. iStock-944927264
What necessitates a citizen’s desire to carry a handgun for self-defense in New York City? Much.
NYC has a crime problem. It is a matter beyond the ability of the New York City Police Department (NYPD) to cope with.
“The 2025 crime rate in New York… is 1.2 times greater than the U.S. average. It was higher than in 88.4% of U.S. cities… In the last 5 years, New York has seen rise of violent crime and increasing property crime.”
The problem is made worse by the fact that NYC is home to the largest population in the Country, almost 8.6 million people that are densely packed in an area about 22.66 square miles.
Of that 8.6 million, 175,000 are illegal aliens, and over 3,000 of those are felons. In this environment, “Public Safety,” should be given serious consideration by both the Governor, Kathy Hochul, and the NYC Mayor, Zohran Mamdani. But apparently they aren’t interested in that.
Criminal violence (and property crime often concomitant with criminal violence) is a common feature of the NYC landscape. And random acts of violence directed against innocent citizens occur with regularity in the City.
Kathy Hochul has compounded criminal violence by turning the entire State into a full-blown sanctuary jurisdiction.
Concealed Carry Applications Surged Following Bruen
It is in such an environment that conscientious Americans realize the need, apart from the fundamental right, to carry a handgun for self-defense. Second Amendment advocate, Colion Noir, noted in 2024 that despite the process permit applications doubled in New York City:
“Despite how New York City’s political leaders spin statistics to convince the populace that the metropolis is safe, the people on the street are not buying it. New numbers issued by NYPD officials revealed that license and permit applications to carry weapons more than doubled in 2023.
Unfortunately, the department will not confirm how many of these gun license and concealed carry permit applications were approved. This despite clear guidance by the U.S. Supreme Court in reestablishing that law-abiding citizens have the constitutional right to carry for self-defense.
The high court determined in 2022’s landmark Bruen decision that the state’s regulations on carrying firearms were far too restrictive. . . .
Applications to the NYPD License Division to have a rifle or handgun in the residence soared by 80% over 2022 to 13,369. That total is almost triple the number received in 2019.
Consider NYPD figures on concealed carry permit applications. In 2019, the year before the pandemic and three years before the Bruen decision, the department received only 258.
But in 2023 that number climbed to 6,751.
Even more telling are figures just from the first two months of 2024. The NYPD took in more applications for concealed carry permits in January and February than it did in 2019, 2020 and 2021 combined.
Still, the department is deathly quiet on the number of applications it approved. This could lead a critic to believe that New York officials are not in compliance with the high court’s specific guidance.”
New York Gun Owners Face High Licensing Costs and Lengthy Delays
It is not surprising the NYPD would not want to point to the number of concealed handgun carry licenses it has approved, since the License Division is sitting on thousands of unprocessed applications, many going back a couple of years.
Yet, this failure to process an application promptly isn’t a mere inconvenience for applicants who must pay a $340.00 nonrefundable licensing processing fee, including an $88.75 fingerprint fee, and another required gun safety course fee that can cost between $400.00 to $500.00, or more.
The costs of securing a license to exercise a natural law right to self-defense is mind-boggling.
Considering that an Applicant for a concealed handgun carry license in New York City must spend considerable time, money, and effort for the “privilege” of preserving one’s life and well-being, one would think the NYPD License Division would be assiduous in processing applications promptly and notifying the applicant if there is an unexpected delay in deciding whether to grant or deny issuance of a license.
But more to the point, a timely response by the NYPD License Division isn’t just a matter of common courtesy. It is a compulsory legal obligation—and one the License Division routinely shirks.
New York Law Requires Action on Gun License Applications Within Six Months
Duties imposed on the applicant, by law, are not a one-way street.
The License Division officer has a legal duty imposed on him too. The License Division must promptly notify the applicant in strict accordance with the State’s Handgun Law.
“Processing of license applications. Applications for licenses shall be accepted for processing by the licensing officer at the time of presentment. Except upon written notice to the applicant specifically stating the reasons for any delay, in each case the licensing officer shall act upon any application for a license pursuant to this section within six months of the date of presentment of such an application to the appropriate authority. Such delay may only be for good cause and with respect to the applicant. In acting upon an application, the licensing officer shall either deny the application for reasons specifically and concisely stated in writing or grant the application and issue the license applied for.”
To add to the problem there may be a question of corruption.
NYPD License Division Has a History of Corruption
Anecdotally, we have heard some License officers are accepting bribes merely to do what State law mandates from them—timely processing of handgun licenses. Unfortunately, corruption isn’t something new to the NYPD License Division.
“‘New York City, as a major city in the U.S., is one of the most restrictive cities in the country concerning gun licensing laws,’ said retired police officer Stephen D’Andrilli, a former NYPD cop who is now a consultant for clients seeking handgun licenses.
“The licensing system is meant to filter out dangerous applicants, like those with a history of domestic violence. But D’Andrilli, who extolls the ‘utmost importance’ of the Second Amendment through his website the Arbalest Quarrel, said the restrictive laws of New York have created an environment that allows a black market to exist.”
Evidently, that same corruption has resurfaced in a City now governed by a Socialist Mayor who detests the institution of policing, and by a Governor who abhors the notion of the armed civilian citizen.
This situation is untenable and begs for corrective legal action.
Roger is an attorney licensed to practice law in Ohio and Arizona, and he is CEO of Arbalest Group, LLC.
He is a graduate from Cleveland State University, Cleveland Marshall College of Law, and was an Editor of Law Review, and he has earned a Master of Public Administration Degree from Cleveland State University. Roger also holds several degrees from The Ohio State University: a Master of Arts degree in Philosophy, a Bachelor of Arts degree in English, and a Bachelor of Science in Education degree in Secondary English Education.
Roger has worked as a high school English teacher and as a university administrative assistant. On earning a law degree he worked for several years as a Trademarks Examining Attorney with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in Washington D.C., and later worked as an attorney for a boutique intellectual property law firm in New York City.
Roger’s goal, working full-time on the Arbalest Quarrel website, involves preparing comprehensive and detailed analyses of case law pertaining to First and Second Amendment issues, and analyses of Federal and State laws and bills impacting the Bill of Rights, generally, and the Second Amendment, particularly.
Roger takes as axiomatic that, to maintain a free Constitutional Republic, our Bill of Rights must be preserved. If the latter falls, the former falls.
The Justice Department is investigating whether police departments in two Connecticut cities are denying qualified gun owners their Second Amendment rights through unnecessary permit delays and a years-long appeals process.
The Justice Department opened investigations into firearm permitting practices in Waterbury and Middletown, Connecticut, on October 22, 2026. iStock-499330617
The U.S. Department of Justice has launched federal civil rights investigations into two Connecticut police departments over allegations that they are improperly delaying or denying firearm carry permits, potentially leaving law-abiding residents unable to exercise their Second Amendment rights for years.
The investigations, announced on October 22, 2026, target the Waterbury and Middletown police departments. Federal officials will examine whether the municipalities are unlawfully obstructing residents seeking permits to carry firearms for self-defense.
The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, through its Second Amendment Section, is investigating whether local authorities are unreasonably denying otherwise qualified applicants and forcing them into a lengthy administrative appeals process before they can exercise a constitutionally protected right.
The central issue is whether government officials can effectively deny Americans their right to bear arms simply by delaying the paperwork required to exercise it.
“All law-abiding Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “This right is not a luxury reserved for a privileged few, but a fundamental liberty for all, including the residents of Middletown and Waterbury, Connecticut.”
Federal Investigators Examine Alleged Second Amendment Violations
On October 22, the Justice Department sent formal notification letters to Waterbury Mayor Paul Pernerewski Jr. and Police Chief Fernando Spagnolo Jr., as well as Middletown Mayor Gene Nocera and Police Chief Erik Costa.
The Waterbury and Middletown letters explain that federal investigators will review each department’s policies and practices concerning the issuance of firearm carry permits under Connecticut General Statutes § 29-28, including the denial of applications and delays in reaching permitting decisions.
The investigations are being conducted under 34 U.S.C. § 12601, a federal civil rights statute prohibiting state and local law enforcement agencies from engaging in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives individuals of constitutional or federally protected rights.
Federal officials may interview municipal employees, police officers, and applicants who have dealt with the departments’ permitting systems. Investigators may also examine records and other information relevant to the departments’ procedures.
The Justice Department has not yet determined whether either municipality violated federal law. Both departments have been instructed to identify a point of contact within five business days of receiving their respective letters.
If investigators establish reasonable cause to believe unconstitutional practices are occurring, DOJ can publish its findings and seek corrective agreements with the municipalities. Should those efforts fail, the Attorney General is authorized to pursue litigation in federal district court.
For gun owners, the significance extends beyond the outcome of these particular investigations. Federal authorities are examining whether bureaucratic delays imposed by local law enforcement can amount to an unconstitutional denial of the right to bear arms.
Supreme Court Already Warned Against Abusive Gun Permit Delays
The Justice Department’s investigations rely heavily on the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right of ordinary, law-abiding Americans to carry firearms publicly for self-defense.
Although Bruen struck down New York’s discretionary carry licensing requirement, the Court also warned that permitting systems could violate the Constitution when officials use administrative procedures to obstruct the exercise of Second Amendment rights.
In particular, the Court recognized that lengthy application processing times and excessive fees can turn a licensing system into an unconstitutional barrier to public carry.
That warning is directly relevant to the Connecticut investigations, where federal authorities suspect that qualified residents may be forced into appeals lasting years after being denied permission to carry.
The Second Amendment does not grant government officials the authority to decide when an individual’s constitutional rights become convenient to recognize. The right to keep and bear arms is a pre-existing right, and the government cannot lawfully transform it into a privilege dependent on indefinite administrative approval.
A permitting system that leaves law-abiding Americans waiting years to exercise their right to armed self-defense raises precisely the constitutional concerns identified in Bruen. The government’s failure to process paperwork should not accomplish what an outright prohibition on carrying firearms could not.
Connecticut’s Gun Permit Appeals Backlog Exposes a Larger Problem
The federal investigations come against the backdrop of Connecticut’s longstanding problems with firearm permit appeals, where applicants challenging denials can face extraordinary delays before receiving a hearing.
According to a state audit reported in November 2025, the Connecticut Board of Firearms Permit Examiners had 1,203 unheard appeals as of March 13, 2024. Of those pending cases, 590 involved permit denials, while another 613 concerned revoked permits. At the time of the audit, hearings were already being scheduled through March 2026, illustrating just how far behind the state’s administrative appeals process had fallen.
The audit also revealed that the backlog was hardly a recent development. Similar problems had been identified in eight previous audit reports covering fiscal years 2001 through 2021.
The board reportedly scheduled 28 hearings per meeting but averaged only 12 actual hearings, in part because previously scheduled cases were resolved or withdrawn without enough notice to fill the vacant slots.
Those figures represent Connecticut’s statewide appeals system and do not establish that either Waterbury or Middletown caused the backlog. Nevertheless, they expose the consequences of a permitting structure in which citizens must rely on an already overwhelmed appeals board to challenge government decisions affecting their constitutional rights.
For an otherwise qualified applicant who has been denied a permit, an appeal that takes years offers little immediate relief. The individual remains unable to lawfully carry under the state’s permitting requirements while awaiting a government hearing that may not occur for an extended period.
The practical result is that a constitutional right can remain out of reach long after an applicant has attempted to comply with the state’s licensing requirements.
DOJ Expands Investigations Into Local Gun Permitting Abuses
The Connecticut investigations are the latest developments in a growing federal effort to confront local permitting practices that may interfere with Second Amendment rights.
As AmmoLand previously reported, federal officials are examining whether Pennsauken’s permitting procedures improperly prevent residents from exercising their right to purchase or carry firearms.
That investigation, like the Connecticut probes, invokes the Supreme Court’s warning in Bruen that licensing systems cannot be used to deprive ordinary Americans of their Second Amendment rights through unnecessary delays.
The investigations also demonstrate the expanding role of the Justice Department’s Second Amendment Section, which is using federal civil rights enforcement authority to examine alleged constitutional violations by state and local governments. Rather than limiting its attention to outright firearm bans, the department is scrutinizing the administrative obstacles that can prevent Americans from exercising their rights even when those rights are nominally recognized under state law.
A state does not need to prohibit public carry outright to obstruct it. If local officials can indefinitely delay applications, improperly deny permits, or force applicants into years of litigation and appeals, the practical consequences for the affected gun owner can resemble those of an outright ban.
A Constitutional Right Cannot Depend on Government Paperwork
The investigations into Waterbury and Middletown have not yet produced findings of wrongdoing, and federal officials have not announced when their reviews will conclude. However, the Justice Department’s willingness to examine local permitting practices under federal civil rights law represents an important development for Second Amendment enforcement.
For decades, gun owners in restrictive jurisdictions have faced layers of permits, fees, administrative requirements, and appeals simply to exercise a right expressly protected by the Constitution.
The Supreme Court made clear in Bruen that the Second Amendment protects carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home. That protection cannot be rendered meaningless by a government bureaucracy that refuses to process applications or leaves citizens trapped in an endless appeals system.
The right to bear arms does not originate with a police chief, a permitting board, or a bureaucrat behind a desk. It exists independently of government approval.
If federal investigators establish that local officials in Waterbury or Middletown have systematically delayed or denied qualified applicants their constitutional rights, those violations demand meaningful remedies for gun owners.
Connecticut residents and other Americans who believe government officials have violated their Second Amendment rights can submit complaints directly to the Justice Department’s Second Amendment Section.
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
One of the most anti-gun members of the Virginia Senate and her family have been arrested on multiple charges, including drug trafficking, money laundering, fraud, and firearms charges.
Virginia Senate President Pro Tempore L. Louise Lucas faces federal charges stemming from an alleged marijuana trafficking and public-corruption enterprise. iStock-1056779176
Senator Lillie Louise Lucas has served in the Commonwealth’s Senate since 1991 and has been the president pro tempore since 2020. As president pro tempore, she presides when the lieutenant governor is not present during Senate sessions.
Sen. Lillie Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth) is one of the strongest gun-control votes in the Virginia Senate. She has a 0% rating from the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), and she voted for the 2026 assault-weapons ban that is now law. After the 2022 Chesapeake Walmart shooting, she told NPR: “We need to do something about firearms of mass destruction.” She also said lawmakers “don’t have the backbone, the spine to stand up to the NRA.”
Federal Prosecutors Allege a Multimillion-Dollar Criminal Enterprise
The 82-year-old Lucas opened The CBD Shoppe and The Cannabis Outlet in 2019. This was a full two years before Virginia legalized marijuana for recreational use. Two years after the launch of her weed empire, her daughter, Lisa Lucas-Burke (also charged), a current mayoral candidate in Portsmouth, Virginia, also opened The Cannabis Outlet in that town. The organization became known as the Lucas Enterprise. In addition to the mother and daughter, prosecutors also charged the other daughter, Theresa Lucas-Lamb; grandson Ryan Eichelberger; business associate Carlton Upton Jr.; supplier Prince Albert William Hudson III; and Tameka Johnson.
The main charge is racketeering conspiracy (RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)). The grand jury alleges that from no later than 2019 through the return of the indictment, Lucas, her daughters Lisa Lucas-Burke and Theresa Lucas-Lamb, grandson Ryan Eichelberger, Carlton Upton Jr., Prince Albert William Hudson III, and others formed the “Lucas Enterprise.” It is described as an association-in-fact engaged in interstate commerce whose activities included marijuana trafficking, maintaining drug-involved premises, money laundering, honest-services fraud, bribery, and the use of political influence.
The organization obtained and illegally distributed large quantities of marijuana. Lucas herself was heard on a wiretap saying she was trying to generate “generational wealth” through alleged illegal means. She took her ill-gotten gains to expand the marijuana business. Lucas also used her influence over the award of recreational marijuana licenses to entities in which members held or expected a financial interest. She also used her Senate position to enact legislation and regulations that financially benefited the enterprise and to secure licenses for its members. Lucas is also accused of using her political influence to insulate the operation from state law enforcement.
The government provides evidence that Lucas knew she was breaking the law. In April of 2022, she asked a supplier whether he was law enforcement before purchasing 3–5 pounds of marijuana; payment was made by check from Virginia Freedom Life (later bounced and replaced from another account). Also in the same year, Lucas paid $750,000 for a shell company (Mama’s Chicken LLC) that was expected to obtain a recreational marijuana license; she later pressed for repayment when the license did not materialize.
Over the next few years, she acquired marijuana through controlled purchases by law enforcement. She also allegedly took delivery of boxes labeled “flower” that actually contained marijuana. The indictment also claims she took delivery of other products labeled “Sativa” and “Indica.” The damning evidence comes from a recorded call in which the government claims she said her activities were “obviously illegal.”
Count Two deals with the volume of marijuana Lucas and her co-conspirators were moving. She allegedly acquired over 100 kilograms of the drug. If convicted on this charge, she will face at least five years in federal prison. Count Two is a narrower drug conspiracy that runs parallel to the broader RICO charge. While Count One frames the marijuana distribution as one of several racketeering predicates alongside money laundering, honest-services fraud, and alleged political influence, Count Two focuses solely on the controlled-substance offense and includes an additional defendant (Johnson). Both counts cover essentially the same core conduct and time frame.
In Count Three, Lucas and the others are accused of money laundering. She is accused of conducting financial transactions involving the proceeds of the marijuana conspiracy, knowing the transactions were designed in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of those proceeds, and knowing the property represented proceeds of unlawful activity. The government is also accusing Lucas of conducting financial transactions involving the proceeds of the marijuana conspiracy with the intent to promote the carrying on of that specified unlawful activity, while knowing the property represented proceeds of unlawful activity. They point to the movement of money between LLCs and the payments to Mama’s Chicken as evidence.
Count Four is for conspiracy to commit honest-services fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1343, and 1346. The indictment alleges that from about 2022 through 2026, in the Eastern District of Virginia and elsewhere, Lillie Louise Lucas, Lisa Lucas-Burke, and Carlton Upton Jr. knowingly and intentionally conspired to devise a scheme to defraud and deprive the citizens of Virginia of their intangible right to the honest services of Louise Lucas through bribery. For the purpose of executing the scheme, they allegedly transmitted or caused the transmission of writings, signals, or sounds by wire communication in interstate or foreign commerce.
Prosecutors Say Lucas Used Political Power for Personal Gain
The conspiracy had multiple purposes. One was for Lucas to use her official position as a Virginia state senator to enrich herself by soliciting and/or accepting payments, gifts, and other things of value from others (including co-conspirators). Another was for her to take official actions—including specific official acts and other acts as needed—to benefit an unindicted co-conspirator (UCC #2), Upton, and others.
As an elected state senator and vocal proponent of legislation authorizing a retail marijuana market, Lucas sought opportunities to invest in and personally benefit from anticipated recreational marijuana licensing for herself and the Lucas Enterprise. She provided money to UCC #2 and obtained an ownership interest in an entity UCC #2 created to benefit financially from anticipated marijuana licensing and sales, in exchange for using her political influence to take official actions to steer a marijuana license to UCC #2 and/or entities he controlled or fronted.
According to the indictment, Lucas did not report her interest in that entity on her required Statement of Economic Interests forms. She demanded and accepted a partial repayment of her invested funds ($100,000) from UCC #2 in exchange for continuing to work to direct a license to him. Lucas also engaged in official acts related to marijuana legislation on an as-needed basis on behalf of UCC #2, Upton, and others. To further the scheme, the conspirators engaged in, or agreed to engage in, wire transmissions in interstate commerce and recorded conversations and calls in early 2026 in which Lucas discussed carrying marijuana legislation as chief co-patron, “generational wealth,” and directing or protecting licenses in ways that would benefit her and the enterprise. Her failure to disclose the ownership interest on required ethics filings is also noted in the indictment.
Count Five charges maintaining a drug-involved premises under 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2). This is a distinct “drug-involved premises” offense that focuses on the management and use of the physical location rather than the distribution or money-laundering conduct itself. The count does not restate the full enterprise narrative. Still, it sits within the same overall factual framework of the indictment (illegal marijuana sales conducted through the Portsmouth store while commercial sales remained illegal under Virginia law). Count Six mirrors Count Five, but for another location.
Count Seven is the firearms-related charge. It does not name Lucas. It names Ryan Eichelberger. On May 6, 2026, federal search warrants were executed at The Cannabis Outlet, The CBD Shoppe, and Hudson’s Exotic World, recovering marijuana. The count incorporates by reference the description of the marijuana conspiracy in Count Two. Authorities found Eichelberger armed with a firearm.
NRA Responds as Lucas Denounces Federal Prosecution
Gun rights activists find it ironic that one of Lucas’s co-conspirators is facing firearms charges while the sitting senator herself pushed for stricter gun laws.
“Virginia State Senator Louise Lucas spent decades pushing extreme gun-control measures—including red-flag laws, universal background checks, and bans on common firearms—while demonizing law-abiding gun owners as the problem,” an NRA spokesperson said. “She used her powerful position to try to disarm responsible citizens and treat the Second Amendment as a threat rather than a right. Today she stands indicted on federal charges alleging she led a multi-year criminal marijuana enterprise, laundered proceeds, and abused her office for personal gain, with firearms recovered at related locations. The same politician who demanded restrictions on honest Americans is now accused of crimes that allegedly involved illegal drugs and the criminal misuse of firearms—proof that some of the loudest voices for disarming the public were never about public safety.”
Although Democrats have framed this as President Donald Trump targeting his enemies, it is important to remember that the investigation into Lucas started under Joe Biden. Given the time she is facing and the minimum federal sentence, if convicted, Lucas faces a significant prison term.
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and constitutional activist with more than 26 years of experience in networking and cybersecurity for major Fortune 100 companies. John has written about firearms, the Constitution, and cybersecurity, and has interviewed people from all walks of life. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons. Follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.
A new study finds Americans become considerably less enthusiastic about firearm restrictions when asked to pay higher taxes to enforce them. iStock-1085946532
There’s an interesting report in Health Affairs Scholar which adds a new dimension to the adage that “money talks and B.S. walks.”
According to the authors— Robert Zeithammer, Supriya Kapur, Diana Silver and James Macinko—“While support for firearm restrictions in alcohol-serving venues is widespread, even modest implementation costs significantly reduce public backing.” It is an interesting read, and the authors deserve credit for broaching a subject which has gotten very little attention. Simply put: “How much are you willing to pay for the restrictive ‘feel good’ law you want to impose?”
The UCLA Anderson Review looked at the report and summed it up: Setting an annual tax of, say, $100 per taxpayer “seems to erode backing for restrictions on guns in alcohol-serving establishments.” In other words, people are keen about gun control so long as they don’t have to pay for it.
Amusingly, the UCLA Anderson Review observes, “The results suggest voters, given a price for a law, can be stingy, even in matters of public safety.”
Gun Control Support Weakens When Taxpayers Face the Bill
The discussion by Zeithammer and his colleagues focuses on a question about prohibiting firearms in establishments where alcohol is served. Regulations vary from state to state—in Washington, for example, people cannot carry firearms into areas of an establishment posted off-limits to anyone under age 21, because alcohol is served, yet someone can remain in the dining area and possibly have a cocktail, even if they’re discreetly packing, or if others at their table are drinking—while the authors note, “A recently published analysis of the current legal landscape found 10 different types of alcohol-related firearm laws, with nearly every state having passed at least 1 of these types of laws.”
The Anderson Review article notes, “These restrictions vary widely. Texas, for example, prohibits guns in establishments that get at least 51% of their revenue from alcohol sales, while New Mexico bans concealed firearms in any premise where alcohol is consumed.”
The notion of adding a cost-per-taxpayer to restricting guns in bars—and the reaction to it—may open up a broader conversation about gun control. Gun control supporters evidently get less enthusiastic about enforcing the laws they push when they have to specifically dig into their wallets to pay for it.
A $100 Tax Changes Attitudes Toward Firearm Restrictions
As noted in the study abstract, “Results show that when no enforcement costs are included, a majority of the respondent sample weighted to voting-eligible Americans (56%-74%, depending on the restricted group and venue size) supports firearm restrictions, with support exceeding 65% for restrictions in large venues. However, introducing a $100 annual cost reduces support: significant majority support remains only for restricting combinations of felons, intoxicated people, or those with alcohol-related convictions and only in large venues.”
How’s that for a strategy to cool the verbal jets of gun prohibitionists? For each restrictive law they force on gun owners, they get billed for their enthusiasm.
While this may initially seem humorous to Second Amendment activists, Zeithammer, Kapur, Silver and Macinko have actually cracked open a “Pandora’s Box” of sorts, which amounts to an uncomfortable revelation: Gun control supporters aren’t so willing to “put their money where their mouth is.” The four researchers may have done a major public service.
Their research also sought reaction to prohibitions on guns in theaters and other “large venues.”
What the Gun Control Study Reveals About Public Opinion
There are three key points in the Health Affairs Scholar report:
While a majority of respondents favor firearm restrictions in alcohol-serving venues, support is stronger for larger venues and varies modestly by the targeted population.
Introducing even modest individual costs (eg, $100 annually) substantially reduces majority support, highlighting the importance of cost framing in legislative proposals.
Support is more strongly associated with gender and political affiliation (highest among women across political parties) than firearm ownership status.
The Anderson Review article includes a link to the Brady Campaign website, where one reads this claim: “Every year, gun violence kills over 40,000 people and wounds over 75,000 others in the United States. Gun violence costs the United States $557 billion annually – equivalent to 2.6% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product. That’s more than twice what the Department of Education spent to educate US youth in FY 2022 ($235.74 billion). Every year, gun violence costs taxpayers $12.62 billion – or $273,904 per firearm death and $25,150 per nonfatal firearm injury.”
However, if one follows the links, one winds up at another report, from the Harvard Medical School in 2022, which refers to “research by Zirui Song, associate professor of health care policy in the Blavatnik Institute at Harvard Medical School and associate professor of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital.”
This report also notes, “In his newest paper, published Sept. 27 in JAMA, Song reported that the overall economic cost of firearm injuries in the United States has been estimated at $557 billion annually, or 2.6 percent of gross domestic product.”
It’s an estimate, which Brady passes off as gospel.
And for the sake of argument, one might observe that “gun violence” doesn’t kill anyone. People misusing firearms are responsible for those fatalities, not the firearms, themselves.
Should Gun Control Advocates Have to Explain the Cost?
But the discussion is now launched, courtesy of the four researchers. Should every proposed gun control law include a cost-per-taxpayer for implementation, so that supporters understand how much money their ideas might pull from their checkbooks?
It could spawn an entirely new debate that puts a price tag on anti-gun activism.
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.
A federal judge ruled that defensive body armor is protected by the Second Amendment, striking down New York’s ban on purchases by ordinary law-abiding citizens. iStock-2247234200
A federal district court judge in the Western District of New York has struck down the Empire State’s ban on body armor, finding it unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
The case, Heeter v. James (1:24-cv-00623, U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York), is a Second Amendment challenge to New York’s body armor purchase and sale restrictions. On October 21, 2026, Judge John L. Sinatra Jr. granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, struck down the ban as applied to ordinary law-abiding civilians, and denied the defendants’ cross-motions.
The complaint was filed by Benjamin Heeter, Joseph Wurtenberg, and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC). The plaintiffs sued officials, including Attorney General Letitia James, New York State Police Superintendent Steven G. James, and district attorneys for Erie and Monroe Counties.
The suit was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the ban violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Individual plaintiffs stated they intended to purchase body armor for personal safety (e.g., crime or unrest) but refrained because of the threat of enforcement.
New York’s Body Armor Ban and the Challenge Against It
The New York State law was passed in early 2022 with an effective date of July 6, 2022. It came after a neo-Nazi carried out a mass shooting at a Buffalo, New York, grocery store while wearing body armor. Because of the attack, New York State passed a slew of anti-gun laws.
The relevant provisions in this case are primarily N.Y. Penal Law §§ 270.21 and 270.22, plus General Business Law § 396-eee. They generally prohibit people who are not “engaged or employed in an eligible profession” from purchasing or taking possession of body armor (defined as personal protective body covering intended to protect against gunfire). Eligible professions include police officers, peace officers, military personnel, and others the Department of State designates (e.g., certain security, emergency, and related roles). Sellers are restricted from transferring body armor to non-eligible buyers.
First-offense purchase violations are typically Class A misdemeanors (escalating to Class E felonies for subsequent offenses). A separate provision (§ 270.20(1)) criminalizes wearing body armor while committing certain violent felonies with a firearm; the ruling does not affect that provision.
The law is the first of its kind in the nation.
How Heeter v. James Reached Summary Judgment
The plaintiffs filed the complaint on July 1, 2024, and amended it shortly after to include plaintiffs Mark Braiman (Cazenovia / Madison County resident), Joseph Wurtenberg (Fairport / Monroe County resident), and defendants William G. Gabor (District Attorney for Madison County) and Sandra Doorley (District Attorney for Monroe County). The amended complaint updated the party descriptions and standing allegations so each individual plaintiff (Heeter, Braiman, and Wurtenberg) alleged a desire and intention to buy body armor but was deterred by the threat of enforcement in their respective counties. The legal claims, the description of the ban (N.Y. Penal Law §§ 270.21 & 270.22 and Gen. Bus. Law § 396-eee), and the constitutional theory remained essentially unchanged.
On June 2, 2025, Braiman voluntarily dismissed his claims, and the claims against Gabor were also dismissed. That left Heeter, Wurtenberg, and FPC as the remaining plaintiffs, with the original state defendants plus Keane and Doorley.
The court denied New York State’s motions to dismiss in a November 8, 2024 decision, finding standing (including for the individual plaintiffs’ pre-enforcement challenge and FPC’s associational standing). Cross-motions for summary judgment followed in 2026, with extensive briefing, amicus participation, and oral argument in late August 2026.
Judge Rules Body Armor Is Protected by the Second Amendment
The court denied the defense’s motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs’ motion. Judge Sinatra held that the ban on law-abiding residents outside eligible professions from purchasing and selling body armor violates the Second Amendment.
Under the Bruen framework, the plaintiffs must prove the conduct falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment. The court said body armor qualifies as an “arm.” The court relied on District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which cited founding-era dictionaries defining “arms” to include “weapons of offence, or armour of defence” and “any thing that a man wears for his defence.” The Second Amendment extends prima facie to bearable arms, including those not in existence at the founding.
The court rejected arguments that armor was obsolete or rare in 1791 as incompatible with Heller’s textual analysis and noted that modern body armor is far more common today than many founding-era arms were then.
New York Fails the Bruen Historical Tradition Test
Once the plain text is implicated, the burden shifts to the state to show the regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of arms regulation. New York failed.
The state identified no post-ratification American laws banning civilian purchases of body armor. English history (royal proclamations, the Statute of Northampton) was deemed insufficiently analogous or probative under Bruen and Rahimi. Those earlier measures often targeted public wearing of armor to terrify the public, not a categorical prohibition on law-abiding people acquiring defensive armor for self-defense (including at home). Existing laws already address criminal misuse of body armor.
The court granted the plaintiffs’ requested relief (declaratory and injunctive) as to the civilian purchase/sale ban for non-eligible persons and denied the defendants’ cross-motions. It found no genuine issues of material fact requiring trial on the constitutional question. Judge Sinatra stayed the effect of his judgment for 14 days to give the defense time to appeal.
New York State is expected to appeal to the Second Circuit and ask the court to stay Judge Sinatra’s decision. The Second Circuit is made up of 9 judges appointed by Democrats and 6 judges appointed by Republicans.
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and constitutional activist with more than 26 years of experience in networking and cybersecurity for major Fortune 100 companies. John has written about firearms, the Constitution, and cybersecurity, and has interviewed people from all walks of life. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons. Follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.
Cook County and Connecticut challenge the common-use protection recognized in Heller, arguing that even firearms owned by millions of law-abiding Americans can be banned if governments consider them unusually dangerous.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments December 2 in challenges to AR-15 bans imposed by Cook County and Connecticut. iStock-2281848109
Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold their AR-15 bans by rejecting a central argument drawn from District of Columbia v. Heller: that firearms commonly possessed by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes cannot be categorically prohibited. Their newly submitted briefs challenge the constitutional significance of common use, arguing that governments retain authority to outlaw widely owned rifles if lawmakers and courts consider them unusually dangerous.
The arguments strike at the heart of the Supreme Court’s modern Second Amendment jurisprudence. In Heller, the Court recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms and explained that the Second Amendment protects weapons in common use for lawful purposes. Now Cook County and Connecticut want the justices to conclude that widespread lawful ownership does not prevent governments from banning America’s most popular semiautomatic rifle.
The October 21 briefs were submitted in Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238, and Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566. The consolidated cases challenge state and local prohibitions on AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles. Oral arguments are scheduled for December 2.
Neither government expressly asks the Supreme Court to overturn Heller. Instead, both advance interpretations that would substantially weaken its common-use protection, allowing legislatures to prohibit widely owned firearms based on claims about lethality, military characteristics, and public safety.
That distinction matters because the consequences could extend well beyond AR-15s. If common lawful ownership cannot protect an ordinary rifle from prohibition, the same reasoning could eventually be directed against other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, and firearms politicians consider too effective for civilian possession.
Cook County and Connecticut have just filed their briefs in Viramontes and Higgins.
This thread will look at the Cook County brief first. To the extent the Connecticut brief differs in substance, we’ll cover that here too.
Cook County Argues Common Use Does Not Determine Constitutional Protection
In its 78-page Supreme Court brief, Cook County devotes an entire section to challenging the petitioners’ reliance on Heller.
The county’s position is unmistakable. One subsection is titled “Common Use Is Not Determinative of Constitutional Protection.” Cook County argues that the widespread ownership of AR-15s cannot prevent it from restricting the firearms if its ordinance otherwise satisfies the historical-tradition analysis required by New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
The county contends that Heller’s common-use language helps determine whether a weapon falls within the Second Amendment’s text but does not automatically resolve whether the government can prohibit it. It cites Bruen’s examination of historical regulations involving handguns to argue that widely owned firearms remain subject to additional constitutional scrutiny.
That approach would allow Cook County to acknowledge the widespread ownership of AR-15s while still insisting that they fall within a category of weapons government officials may prohibit.
But the Second Amendment does not grant governments unlimited discretion to designate commonly possessed firearms as unusually dangerous. Heller recognized common lawful ownership as an important constitutional protection, not simply an inconvenient fact that lawmakers could acknowledge before proceeding with a ban.
Cook County goes further by arguing that Americans’ lawful ownership of AR-15s does not answer the government’s public-safety concerns.
The brief states:
“It is no answer that the vast majority of those who own AR-15 platform weapons pose no risk and seek to cause no harm.”
That admission exposes the danger of the county’s constitutional theory. Cook County acknowledges that the overwhelming majority of AR-15 owners are peaceful Americans, yet argues that government officials can still prohibit their firearms because of what criminals might do with similar weapons.
The Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals, not merely the interests of those whom governments consider sufficiently safe to exercise them.
Connecticut Challenges Heller’s Common-Use Rule
Connecticut’s 85-page merits brief advances a similar position, but its attack on common use is even more direct.
The state devotes an entire major section to arguing that the petitioners’ common-use-only test lacks merit. Attorney General William Tong’s office, represented in part by former U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, maintains that historically governments restricted certain weapons even after those weapons became widely possessed.
Connecticut relies on the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Bianchi v. Brown, which upheld Maryland’s restrictions on certain semiautomatic rifles, to argue:
“Just because a weapon happens to be in common use does not guarantee that it falls within the scope of the right to keep and bear arms.”
The state contends that widespread civilian ownership cannot prevent a government from prohibiting weapons it considers unusually dangerous compared with other firearms.
This interpretation would give lawmakers considerable authority to decide which firearms remain available to ordinary Americans, even after millions have selected those arms for lawful purposes.
Connecticut also attempts to turn the expiration of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban into an argument against constitutional protection.
The state reasons that if common use prevents categorical bans, Congress may have retained authority to prohibit AR-15s before widespread civilian adoption but lost that authority after the federal ban expired in 2004 and millions of Americans lawfully acquired the rifles.
Connecticut objects to that result, declaring:
“The Second Amendment does not create that one-way ratchet.”
But the question before the Supreme Court is not whether Congress should have prevented Americans from purchasing AR-15s before they became popular. It is whether a government can prohibit firearms currently possessed by millions of law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.
The hypothetical constitutional status of a newly introduced firearm cannot erase the existing protection of an arm already widely owned throughout the country.
Connecticut’s argument also raises a larger problem. If the government can prohibit firearms regardless of their common lawful use, what meaningful protection does the common-use principle actually provide?
Millions of Americans Own AR-15s for Lawful Purposes
The ownership evidence makes these cases particularly important. As AmmoLand previously reported in its comprehensive review of the Supreme Court amicus briefs, Professor William English’s 2026 National Firearms Survey estimates that approximately 26.4 million American adults own an AR-15-type or similarly styled semiautomatic rifle, with approximately 60 million such rifles in civilian possession.
These are survey estimates covering AR-15-type and similarly styled rifles, rather than an exact count of AR-15s alone. Nevertheless, they demonstrate that the firearms targeted by the challenged prohibitions are firmly established in ordinary American gun ownership.
Americans possess these rifles for home defense, recreational shooting, competition, hunting, training, and other lawful activities. Their widespread adoption is not evidence of some unusual class of weapon operating outside normal civilian use.
The right to possess a firearm for self-defense also cannot be measured by the number of times its owner actually fires it at an attacker.
Cook County argues that AR-15s are not customarily used in defensive shootings and questions whether ownership surveys establish their defensive role. But an American who keeps a rifle for home protection does not lose that purpose merely because he never experiences a home invasion.
The Second Amendment protects the right to keep arms before an emergency occurs. Requiring gun owners to demonstrate actual defensive use before recognizing constitutional protection would turn the right on its head.
Second Amendment Foundation Executive Director Adam Kraut rejected the governments’ effort to justify categorical prohibitions.
“Categorical bans on the most commonly owned rifles in America violate the Second Amendment, full stop,” said Kraut.
He also criticized laws that target ordinary semiautomatic rifles based on features such as adjustable stocks and grip configurations, arguing that the Supreme Court’s existing constitutional standards do not permit the challenged prohibitions.
To overcome the constitutional significance of common use, both governments rely heavily on historical restrictions involving other weapons.
Cook County cites laws addressing Bowie knives, trap guns, armed assemblies, and public affray. Connecticut turns to medieval English weapons restrictions, including lancegays, before discussing American laws governing Bowie knives, pistols, and other arms.
But many of those restrictions addressed conduct fundamentally different from peaceful ownership of a rifle.
Trap-gun laws targeted firearms configured to discharge through dangerous traps. Affray laws addressed threatening public conduct, while restrictions on armed assemblies concerned unlawful collective activity. Historical Bowie knife regulations frequently addressed concealed carry, public carry, sales, or taxation rather than broad prohibitions on possession.
These distinctions are central to the historical analysis required by Bruen and United States v. Rahimi. Historical regulations need not be identical to modern laws, but the burdens they impose and the problems they address must be sufficiently analogous.
A law against setting a firearm as a trap does not establish a historical tradition of prohibiting peaceful Americans from keeping an ordinary rifle.
The governments’ briefs also struggle with a more relevant historical comparison: revolvers and repeating rifles.
Henry and Winchester repeating rifles represented substantial advancements in practical firepower during the nineteenth century. Revolvers similarly expanded the capabilities of privately owned firearms. Yet the governments have not established a comparable national tradition of prohibiting peaceful ownership of these weapons simply because they were technologically superior to their predecessors.
The Second Amendment did not freeze firearms technology at the flintlock era.
The originalist argument is straightforward: Constitutional protection follows the right and the historical understanding of protected arms, not government approval of a particular generation of technology.
Cook County Treats Military Usefulness as a Reason to Ban Rifles
Cook County’s arguments also challenge the historical militia purpose of the Second Amendment.
The county emphasizes the AR-15’s military origins and similarities to military rifles, presenting battlefield suitability as evidence that the firearm is disproportionately dangerous for ordinary civilians.
But the Founders understood the militia as an armed citizenry, and privately owned arms suitable for the common defense were central to that arrangement.
Cook County addresses the United States’ argument that rifles appropriate for repelling invasions, suppressing insurrections, and resisting tyranny serve constitutionally protected purposes.
The county responds:
“Today, of course, these responsibilities are reserved for the United States military.”
It acknowledges the Founders’ distrust of standing armies but argues that the modern professional military has assumed responsibilities historically associated with armed citizens.
The existence of a professional military, however, did not repeal the Second Amendment. The government’s development of an organized standing army cannot eliminate the people’s separate constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Nor does an ordinary semiautomatic AR-15 become a machine gun because its design shares features with military rifles. Civilian AR-15s fire one round per trigger pull, and ergonomic similarities do not change their operating mechanism.
The county’s argument effectively asks the Supreme Court to turn an important purpose of the Second Amendment into a reason to narrow its protection.
Anti-gun Governments Argue AR-15s Are Too Dangerous Because They Are Effective Firearms
Both governments attempt to justify their prohibitions by emphasizing the AR-15’s ballistic capabilities.
Cook County discusses projectile velocity, kinetic energy, penetration, effective range, and the serious injuries that rifle ammunition can produce. Connecticut similarly describes the rifles as unusually dangerous because of their ability to deliver accurate semiautomatic fire.
But many of the capabilities being criticized are common characteristics of centerfire rifles generally.
Numerous traditional hunting rifles fire cartridges with greater muzzle energy than .223 Remington or 5.56 NATO. Effective range and penetration are not exclusive to the AR-15 platform, nor are accuracy and controllability constitutional defects.
If those characteristics justify banning semiautomatic AR-15s, the same reasoning could eventually be directed against ordinary bolt-action hunting rifles and other conventional firearms.
Cook County also invokes the possibility of illegally converting semiautomatic rifles into automatic weapons. But criminal modification does not change the legal or mechanical characteristics of the original, unmodified firearm.
The potential for someone to commit an illegal act with a firearm does not eliminate another person’s constitutional right to possess it.
Ultimately, these arguments ask the Supreme Court to place the government’s judgment about firearm effectiveness above the constitutional protection afforded to the people who own them.
Cook County Says Gun Owners Can Move Somewhere Else
Cook County’s approach to common use also leads it to an extraordinary argument about the geographic limits of constitutional rights.
The county contends that different states and local governments should be permitted to adopt different firearms restrictions based on their citizens’ preferences.
Quoting a federal appellate decision, the county suggests that Americans dissatisfied with local prohibitions can:
“vote with their feet and move to a jurisdiction where their views have prevailed.”
That reasoning treats an enumerated constitutional right as though it were merely a local policy preference.
The Bill of Rights does not protect liberties only in jurisdictions where elected officials approve of their exercise. Its purpose is to restrain government power, including when political majorities support restricting individual rights.
An American should not have to leave Illinois or Connecticut to exercise a right protected by the United States Constitution.
The Second Amendment applies throughout the country, and the constitutional protection of ordinary arms cannot depend on the ideological preferences of a county board or state legislature.
Supreme Court Faces a Defining Test of Heller’s Common-Use Protection
The constitutional stakes extend well beyond Cook County and Connecticut.
SAF is joined in Viramontes by the Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens. In Grant, its fellow plaintiffs include the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and three private citizens.
The Court’s eventual ruling could also affect other challenges to rifle and magazine prohibitions, including litigation involving New Jersey’s restrictions.
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb criticized the continued defense of categorical bans on widely owned rifles.
“It’s high time that assault weapons bans recede back into the primordial ooze of gun control legislation from which they emerged,” said Gottlieb.
The argument before the Supreme Court is ultimately about whether Heller’s recognition of protection for commonly possessed arms places meaningful limits on government authority.
Cook County and Connecticut want the justices to accept that widespread lawful ownership does not prevent the government from prohibiting firearms it considers unusually dangerous. Their supporting arguments about historical weapons restrictions, military utility, public safety, and ballistic effectiveness all serve that larger objective.
If the Court accepts such a broad theory, the constitutional consequences may reach far beyond the AR-15.
The Second Amendment does not give lawmakers permission to ban ordinary arms merely because government officials believe those firearms are too effective or unnecessarily dangerous. Nor should millions of peaceful Americans lose constitutional protection because criminals have misused similar weapons.
When the justices hear arguments on December 2, they will confront a fundamental question: Does the Constitution protect the firearms Americans commonly possess for lawful purposes, or can the government override that protection by declaring those arms unsuitable for civilian ownership?
Heller recognized that the Second Amendment protects arms in common use for lawful purposes. Viramontes and Grant now give the Court an opportunity to make clear whether governments can continue evading that protection by labeling America’s most popular rifle unusually dangerous.
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
