The Bruen decsion already gave us reciprocity, by incorporating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment into that decision.
While I agree that Judge Suddaby has an idea of what he is going to say, in this decision, per the dicta in his original decision, he has no reason to flip, then rule against himself. I expect him to be not only consistent, in his thought pattern and ruling verbiage but to be very precise, in the way it's presented, so that NYS does not have room to say it says anything other than what I believe he intends: FULL STOP of CCIA. The only part I see him not destroying is the semi-auto rifle license, since it was not challenged, in this suit. He can't rule on an item not incorporated in the suit.
Folks:
Your question is an excellent one and, unfortunately, the answer, to your question, is complicated and lengthy, as I first had to explain the differences, between the application of the Full Faith Clause and the Equal Protection Clause but I've done my best, to answer it and clarify the two issues at the forefront. I've attached it, as a PDF, rather than try to keep all of the highlighted areas intact, in a long, text response, here.
There is no such precedent, from what I've been able to discover. Forcing a third party, to perform some positive act, before you can exercise your Constitutionally-protected right appears, on it's face, to be unconstitutional.
