Concealed Carry Training — NY Safe Inc.
Bronx Bus Shooting: How to Build a Real Concealed Carry Mindset in NY
A father of seven was heading to pick up his daughter from school. According to police sources and local reporting, he asked a teenager to stop yelling on his phone. He never made it home. For every New Yorker who carries—or is thinking about it—this story demands a direct, honest conversation about ego, discipline, and what concealed carry actually means.
By Peter Ticali • June 2026 • NY Safe Inc.
NRA Endowment Life Member • NRA & USCCA Certified Instructor • Licensed Firearms Instructor: NY, MD, DC, MA, UT • NY Pistol License Holder Since 1992
In This Article
- Who Was Jonathan Pettigrew
- This Was Not a Concealed Carry Problem
- Blame vs. Learning: A Critical Distinction
- MTA Buses Are Sensitive Locations
- What "Concealed Means Concealed" Really Means
- You Are Not the Etiquette Police
- Article 35 Does Not Protect Your Pride
- Malum In Se: Why Violent Gun Crime Is Different
- The Three-Part Mindset: Avoid, Escape, Defend
- Every Argument You Enter Now Has a Gun In It
- Carry Mindset Checklist
- Stop Punishing the Vetted, Start Prosecuting the Violent
- Frequently Asked Questions
The Core Lesson
The concealed carry mindset is not “I have a gun, so I can handle trouble.” The concealed carry mindset is “I have a gun, so I must avoid trouble earlier, faster, and more deliberately than everyone else.”
Jonathan Pettigrew was a father of seven on his way to pick up his daughter from school. According to police sources and local reporting, he was shot after a dispute that began when he asked a teenager to lower his voice on a cellphone. For responsible permit holders, the lesson is not fear. It is discipline—and a clear-eyed understanding of what carrying a firearm actually demands.
Who Was Jonathan Pettigrew
On June 8, 2026, just after 2:30 in the afternoon, Jonathan Pettigrew boarded a Bx36 MTA bus near East Tremont Avenue and White Plains Road in the Van Nest neighborhood of the Bronx. He was 41 years old. He was a father of seven. He had recently gotten his own apartment because he had just won full custody of his youngest daughter, a 7-year-old. He was coming from work at a restaurant and was heading to pick her up from school. A teenager on the bus was talking loudly on a cellphone. Pettigrew asked him to keep his voice down. The teenager pulled out a gun and shot him in the abdomen. Pettigrew stumbled off the bus, collapsed on the sidewalk, and was rushed to Jacobi Hospital. He did not survive. Surveillance video captured passengers running off the bus in panic—including at least one rider pushing a baby stroller. Published reports at the time identified the suspect as a teenage male who fled the scene. Readers should check current NYPD and local news updates for the latest arrest status. “He’s a good kid. He’s not a street person. He’s very funny. He’s very into sports,” his brother Avery told reporters. “It didn’t have to end this way.” “I just want justice and hope he pays for what he’s done,” Avery said. The victim’s cousin described hearing the news and dropping her phone in a pizzeria. “I just started screaming,” she said. “Everybody started coming to me and I was screaming. I can’t even comprehend how I’m feeling right now.” Sources including ABC7 New York, NBC New York, and the New York Post reported the core details of the shooting, the cellphone dispute, the victim’s identity, and the ongoing search for the suspect. That is the human center of this story. It should not be lost in policy arguments, training analysis, or legal commentary. A father of seven was on his way to pick up his daughter. He asked for basic decency. He was killed for it. News coverage and law enforcement will—and should—focus on finding the suspect, prosecuting the case, and examining public transit safety and juvenile violence. Those questions matter enormously. But there is a separate conversation that responsible gun owners, concealed carry applicants, and licensed permit holders must also have. This article is that conversation.“Carrying a gun should not make you more willing to confront people. It should make you far more willing to leave.”
Peter Ticali • NY Safe Inc.
This Was Not a Concealed Carry Permit Holder Problem
The first thing to establish clearly: this shooting was not committed by a licensed concealed carry permit holder. The suspect is believed to be a 15-year-old who illegally possessed and used a firearm to commit murder. He did not go through New York’s licensing process. He did not take mandated training. He did not submit fingerprints, pass a background check, or ask permission from any licensing authority. He carried a gun illegally, shot a man over a momentary insult, and ran. That is a violent criminal misusing a firearm. It has nothing to do with the person currently studying for their pistol permit application. It is important to state this directly because New York’s political environment too often blurs this line. A violent offender misuses a gun, and the proposed policy response lands on the person who already follows the rules. A prohibited possessor commits murder, and the resulting legislation burdens the licensed carrier who submitted fingerprints, paid fees, waited months, completed training, and asked for permission. A teenager commits an act that every civilized society has condemned for centuries, and somehow the lawful permit holder is treated as the risk factor. That framing is backwards. And responsible gun owners should be among the clearest voices saying so. The two categories of people involved here are not the same: One is the law-abiding citizen who goes through New York’s licensing process, completes required training, studies Article 35, understands safe storage, accepts the burden of avoiding conflict, and carries only where lawful. The other is a teenager who carries a gun illegally and shoots a man who asked him to lower his voice. Those are not the same person. They should never be discussed as if they are.Important
Violent offenders are not responsible gun owners—and that distinction cuts both ways.
Licensed carriers cannot be blamed for what criminals do. But if a licensed carrier ever uses a firearm to threaten, intimidate, bully, or win an argument, that person should be prosecuted as a violent offender. There is no category called “responsible gun owner but also I pull my gun in arguments.” Misuse is misuse. The license does not shield it.
Blame vs. Learning: A Critical Distinction
Any serious discussion of situational awareness and mindset must begin with moral clarity. Jonathan Pettigrew did not deserve to die. Nothing in this article is criticism of a man who, by every account, was simply trying to get home to his daughter. His family’s grief is real. His death is a tragedy—for seven children, for his brother, for his community, and for anyone who believes that ordinary public spaces should be safe. There is a major difference between blaming a victim and learning from a tragedy. Blame says: This was his fault. That is not what this is. Learning says: The world can be more dangerous, more unstable, and more irrational than decent people expect—and responsible self-defense training requires us to account for that reality. Good people tend to assume that other people share their basic emotional brakes. Most of the time, that assumption works. A rude person argues. A selfish person ignores you. An immature person curses. But occasionally the person you correct is not merely rude. He is dangerous. He is armed. He does not share your assumption that conflicts should stay verbal. That is the brutal lesson. Not that you should never correct someone. Not that decent people should live in silence and fear. But that responsible self-defense—and responsible carry—is about the world as it is, not the world as it should be. Jonathan Pettigrew was right to ask for basic courtesy. The world failed him. A system that allows a teenager to carry a gun illegally on a Bronx bus failed him. But the lesson for the rest of us is not that we should never speak. It is that we must be honest about the risks we take when we do.New York Law — NY Penal Law § 265.01-e
MTA Buses Are Sensitive Locations. Civilian Carry Is Generally Prohibited.
Under New York Penal Law § 265.01-e, public transportation and public transit—including buses, subway cars, train cars, ferries, stations, and terminals—are designated sensitive locations. Licensed civilian carry is generally prohibited in these locations unless a specific statutory exception applies.
This article does not suggest that a civilian carrier should have been armed on that bus. The legal point is the opposite: know exactly where you may and may not lawfully carry—and never gamble your freedom on an assumption.
In plain English: this is a mindset lesson, not a claim that an ordinary civilian permit holder could lawfully carry on an MTA bus.
For a complete breakdown of New York’s sensitive location rules: NY CCW Sensitive Locations: Where You Can and Can’t Carry
What “Concealed Means Concealed” Really Means
In gun culture, “concealed means concealed” usually refers to equipment: the gun should not print, the holster should be secure, the cover garment should work, the pistol should remain hidden from public view. All of that is true. But it is incomplete. True concealed carry is not only about concealing the firearm. It is about concealing the ego. It is about moving through the world without advertising your capability, your opinions, your frustrations, or your readiness to fight. It is about refusing to become part of the drama. It is about being the person who walks away from the insult, ignores the provocation, and creates distance before the situation becomes legally, physically, or morally dangerous. A firearm is not a tool for correcting strangers. It is not a tool for enforcing manners. It is not a tool for winning respect. It is not a tool for making someone lower their voice, move their car, apologize, stop tailgating, leash their dog, turn down their music, or stop acting like a fool in public. The firearm is a last-resort emergency tool for an unavoidable, immediate threat of death or serious physical injury. If that sentence feels too limiting, concealed carry may not be the right choice yet. The right to carry a firearm is a serious responsibility. The training requirement exists not to punish applicants but to ensure that the people carrying in public have genuinely thought through what that means—legally, tactically, and morally. Not as a slogan. As a practice.“You do not experience crime statistics. You experience incidents. A city can be safer in aggregate and still dangerous in the moment. Self-defense happens in the moment.”
Peter Ticali • NY Safe Inc.
You Are Not the Etiquette Police
Most decent people understand why someone would be frustrated by a passenger yelling into a phone on a bus. Public spaces require some basic mutual respect. When someone violates that social contract, the natural human response is to correct it. “Can you lower your voice?” “Watch where you’re going.” “You almost hit my car.” “Don’t talk to my wife that way.” “Control your dog.” Those responses may be understandable. Some may even be morally justified. But when you carry a firearm, the question is not only whether you are right. The question is whether being right is worth entering a confrontation that could spiral into violence—with someone whose mental state, substance use, criminal history, and access to weapons you know nothing about. Responsible concealed carry requires the maturity to let rude people remain rude. That feels unfair. It feels like surrender. It feels like letting bad behavior win. But that is the wrong frame. Walking away is not weakness. Walking away is mission success. Your mission is not to fix society on your way home. Your mission is not to teach manners to a stranger with unknown intent and unknown capabilities. Your mission is to return safely to the people who need you. Jonathan Pettigrew’s death is heartbreaking precisely because the reported trigger was so ordinary. A loud phone call should never end a human life. A correction should never become a killing. The lesson for the rest of us is brutal and clear: you do not know who you are correcting.Article 35 Does Not Protect Your Pride
New York self-defense law is not built around pride, anger, humiliation, or “I’d had enough.” It is built around necessity. Under New York Penal Law Article 35, a person may use physical force when and to the extent they reasonably believe it is necessary to defend against the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force. But the law also contains major limits. If the person claiming justification was the initial aggressor, provoked the encounter with intent to cause injury, or engaged in mutual combat by agreement, the justification analysis changes dramatically. For deadly physical force specifically, New York imposes a duty to retreat when the person knows they can avoid the necessity of deadly force with complete personal safety to themselves and others—subject to specific exceptions, including being in one’s dwelling and not being the initial aggressor. That means a prosecutor, judge, jury, investigator, civil attorney, licensing officer, and the public will not look only at the final second before a shot was fired. They will look at the whole timeline:- Who started the interaction?
- Who had an opportunity to disengage?
- Who escalated verbally?
- Who moved closer instead of moving away?
- Who used threatening or insulting language?
- Who blocked an exit?
- Who could have safely left but chose to continue?
- What did surveillance footage show?
- What did witnesses describe?
Malum In Se: Why Violent Gun Crime Is a Different Category
There is a legal and moral distinction that gets routinely lost in gun policy debates. Some offenses are malum prohibitum—wrong because the law prohibits them. These are regulatory or technical violations. A person may violate such a rule without intending violence, predation, or harm. That does not make the rule unimportant, but it does place it in a different moral category. Other offenses are malum in se—wrong in themselves. Murder. Robbery. Assault. Arson. Kidnapping. Shooting a man over a loud phone call. These acts are wrong regardless of whether a legislature writes them down. They are wrong because they attack innocent human beings. They have been condemned as wrong by every civilized society across recorded history. That distinction matters when we talk about gun policy. When someone uses a firearm to murder, rob, threaten, or terrorize, the moral center of gravity is the violent act and the violent actor. A person who shoots another human being because he felt disrespected is not committing a paperwork problem or a regulatory technicality. He is committing a violent crime against a person, a family, and the social order. That is where law enforcement must be serious. That is where prosecutorial priorities must be focused. That is where judges must impose sentences that actually incapacitate genuinely dangerous people. And that is why responsible gun owners should be the clearest voices on this point: violent criminals are not confused lawful gun owners. They are violent criminals. And violent crimes should be prosecuted as violent crimes. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. It does not protect criminal violence. It does not protect ego. It does not protect using a firearm as a shortcut to dominate another person’s behavior. Any licensed carrier who uses a gun to menace, threaten, intimidate, or harm should face the same moral condemnation as anyone else who uses deadly force as a tool of control.The Rule Every Permit Holder Should Memorize
If you are armed and you enter an argument, that argument now has a gun in it.
That does not mean you threatened anyone. It does not mean you touched the firearm. It does not mean you intended violence. But the firearm is present because you are present. That creates a moral obligation that does not disappear because the other person started it. The angry driver does not know you are armed. The stranger on the sidewalk does not know you are armed. But you know. And because you know, you must hold yourself to a standard that will feel unfair in the moment—and protect you in every moment after.
The Three-Part Mindset: Avoid, Escape, Defend
At NY Safe Inc., we teach firearms as part of a larger personal safety system. The firearm is not the whole plan. In fact, the firearm is the least desirable part of the plan—because if you are forced to use it, everything else has already failed. The responsible carry mindset follows a clear hierarchy.Step 1 — Avoid
Avoidance is not paranoia. Avoidance is intelligence.
If someone is acting unstable, loud, aggressive, intoxicated, or emotionally out of control, your first job is not to correct them. Your first job is to avoid being selected, targeted, or drawn in. That may mean changing seats. Leaving the store. Taking the next elevator. Letting the aggressive driver pass. Ending the conversation. Apologizing even when you are not wrong. Creating distance before distance becomes impossible. Avoidance is the cheapest, safest, most legally defensible victory you will ever get.
Step 2 — Escape
If trouble is forming, escape becomes the priority.
This matters in New York because the law scrutinizes whether deadly force was necessary and whether safe retreat was available. But even outside the legal analysis, escape is simply better. Nobody wins a lethal-force encounter. Even the justified person may face trauma, investigation, legal fees, civil litigation, license consequences, media exposure, and lifelong emotional weight. Escaping danger is not “losing.” It is protecting your future—and the futures of everyone who depends on you.
Step 3 — Defend
Defense is last. Not because your life is unimportant—it is precious.
Your family needs you. You have every moral right to survive a violent attack. But deadly force is reserved for the moment when avoidance and escape are no longer options—when the threat is immediate, unlawful, and grave. The person with the best concealed carry mindset is not eager to prove anything. The person with the best concealed carry mindset hopes the firearm stays concealed forever.
Carry Mindset Checklist
Before carrying a firearm in public, answer these honestly:
Stop Punishing the Vetted. Start Prosecuting the Violent.
Every time a violent gun crime captures public attention, responsible gun owners know exactly what comes next. Someone will demand another restriction on the people who were not involved. Another training burden. Another fee. Another waiting period. Another sensitive location. Another rule for the person who already follows the rules—and another law that violent offenders will ignore and licensed citizens will obey. That pattern does not make New Yorkers safer. Public safety improves when violent conduct is taken seriously. Public safety improves when armed robbery, murder, assault, gang violence, illegal gun trafficking, and unlawful possession by dangerous people are treated as the serious crimes they are. Public safety improves when police are supported, prosecutors prosecute, judges incapacitate genuinely dangerous individuals, and communities refuse to normalize violence against their own neighbors. Responsible licensed carriers are not the enemy of public safety. They are people who have chosen to be accountable. Their names are on licenses. Their firearms are listed. Their fingerprints are on file. Their conduct can affect their license, livelihood, family, freedom, and future. They are, by definition, people who have asked for permission from the state. The person who shot Jonathan Pettigrew asked no one’s permission. If lawmakers truly care about safety, they should stop pretending that the person completing mandated training is the same as the person shooting someone over a phone call on a Bronx bus. The moral line is clear: If you are a lawful carrier, be disciplined. If you misuse a gun, be prosecuted. If you are a violent offender, the system must not confuse you with a responsible citizen. Law-abiding citizens do not train to kill. We train to stop a threat to a life.Keep Learning — NY Safe Inc. Resources
Frequently Asked Questions
Was the Bronx bus shooting committed by a licensed concealed carry permit holder?
No. Police sources identified the suspect as a 15-year-old male who illegally possessed and used a firearm. This was not a licensed carrier problem. It was violent criminal misuse of a gun by a prohibited possessor. Responsible licensed carriers should not be held accountable for what violent criminals do.
Can a New York concealed carry permit holder carry on an MTA bus?
Generally, no. Public transportation and public transit—including buses, subway cars, train cars, ferries, stations, and terminals—are designated sensitive locations under New York Penal Law § 265.01-e. Ordinary licensed civilian carry is generally prohibited in those locations unless a specific statutory exception applies. Always verify current law and consult a qualified attorney for advice specific to your situation.
What is the concealed carry mindset lesson from the Bronx bus shooting?
Responsible carriers must avoid unnecessary confrontation. A firearm is not a tool for correcting rude behavior, enforcing manners, or winning arguments. Responsible carry requires ego control, de-escalation, distance creation, and an understanding that every argument you voluntarily enter now includes your firearm—because you are present. The mindset is not “I can handle trouble.” It is “I must avoid trouble earlier and faster than everyone else.”
Does New York have a duty to retreat?
Yes. For deadly physical force, New York Penal Law § 35.15 generally requires retreat when the person knows they can avoid the necessity of deadly force with complete personal safety to themselves and others. Specific exceptions exist, including being in one’s own dwelling and not being the initial aggressor. This is one reason New York concealed carry training must include legal judgment, not just shooting mechanics.
What does “initial aggressor” mean in New York self-defense law?
Article 35 limits justification when the person claiming self-defense was the initial aggressor, provoked the encounter with intent to cause injury, or engaged in mutual combat by agreement. In plain terms: if you start or escalate a confrontation, you may seriously damage your ability to claim self-defense later—regardless of what happens next.
Does responsible concealed carry mean never speaking up in public?
No. It means using judgment. There are times to call police, alert security, move away, document what happened, or assist someone in genuine danger. But a responsible armed citizen should be extremely cautious about personally confronting strangers over rudeness, disrespect, noise, traffic disputes, parking, or verbal insults. The question is always: is this a problem, or is this a threat? Problems get ignored or escalated to appropriate authorities. Threats may require a response.
Are licensed concealed carry holders more dangerous than average?
No. Responsible licensed concealed carry holders are not the same population as violent offenders. They have submitted to licensing, fingerprinting, background checks, training, and ongoing legal obligations. The people driving violent gun crime in New York are not the students sitting through mandated training and asking how to comply with the law. Violent offenders should not be used as a pretext to restrict responsible citizens.
What does malum in se mean, and why does it matter for gun policy?
Malum in se means wrong in itself—as opposed to malum prohibitum, wrong because a law prohibits it. Murder, robbery, assault, and shooting someone over a phone call are malum in se: they are wrong because they attack innocent people, not merely because a statute says so. Gun policy debates often conflate technical regulatory violations with malum in se violent crimes. These are different categories, and treating them differently is essential to any honest conversation about public safety.
What should I do if someone is acting aggressive or unstable near me in public?
Create distance. Avoid direct eye contact if appropriate. Move toward exits. Leave if you can—without hesitation or ego. Call police from a safe location. Do not engage verbally. Do not attempt to correct, challenge, or reason with someone who appears unstable, intoxicated, or predatory. If you are legally carrying, your obligation to avoid unnecessary confrontation is even greater than it is for someone who is unarmed.
Where can I take a New York concealed carry class?
NY Safe Inc. offers New York’s required 18-hour NY CCW class (16 hours classroom + 2 hours live fire) for applicants in Nassau County, Suffolk County, New York City, Westchester, and surrounding areas. Our training covers safe gun handling, New York self-defense law, Article 35, sensitive locations, de-escalation, and real-world judgment—not just marksmanship.
Peter Ticali
Founder & Lead Instructor, NY Safe Inc.
Peter Ticali is the founder of NY Safe Inc. and has held a New York pistol license since 1992. He is an NRA Endowment Life Member, NRA and USCCA Certified Instructor, and a Licensed Firearms Instructor in New York, Maryland, Washington D.C., Massachusetts, and Utah. He is an FBI Citizens Academy and SCPD Citizens Academy graduate, FBI InfraGard member, NYPD Shield and SCPD Shield member, and a member of the Sons of the American Legion.
NRA Endowment Life Member • NRA & USCCA Certified Instructor • Licensed Firearms Instructor: NY, MD, DC, MA, UT • NY Pistol License Holder Since 1992
Legal Disclaimer
This article is for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. New York State and New York City firearm laws are complex, subject to ongoing litigation, and change frequently. Individual facts and circumstances vary. Consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction before making any decisions about firearm ownership, carry, or use of force. News facts are based on published reports and police sources as of the date of publication; investigation details may change.
No responses yet