Dude open carrying. nobody freaked out!

[spat]

Not it doesn't. It says to have=possess and carry concealed. Nowhere does it say "MAY".

So, does that mean you may not possess it unless it is carried concealed ? How does that work when it's in your safe ? Locked in a box in the trunk ?

The law specifically says that if a gun is found in a car, not on the person of one of the occupants, but one of the occupants has a license, then it is legal. How can that be if they are not carrying it concealed ?

You may possess it. Open carry is possessing it. You may also conceal it, in contrast to most people in most states who need no license to possess, but do to conceal.

 

[nortatoga]

@Willjr75 I know you are going to hate this! But I think Charles Nichols is right about Open Carry is what is protected by the Second Amendment not Concealed Carry! Read Heller v DC it's right there.

 

[Marine Cpl]

So, does that mean you may not possess it unless it is carried concealed ? How does that work when it's in your safe ? Locked in a box in the trunk ?

The law specifically says that if a gun is found in a car, not on the person of one of the occupants, but one of the occupants has a license, then it is legal. How can that be if they are not carrying it concealed ?

You may possess it. Open carry is possessing it. You may also conceal it, in contrast to most people in most states who need no license to possess, but do to conceal.

Again. It is written poorly and you are trying to interpret it as if there is logic to it. You don't get arrested for open carrying while hunting because how the fuck else are you going to do it? So what happens, the Revenuers look the other way.

Same goes for inside the home.

 

[Marine Cpl]

@Willjr75 I know you are going to hate this! But I think Charles Nichols is right about Open Carry is what is protected by the Second Amendment not Concealed Carry! Read Heller v DC it's right there.

Charles Nichols can croak for all I care. The 2nd Amendment is clear no matter what a clown in a robe says.

It specifically says....

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That covers concealed and open carry. How the hell else can a spy or assassin from a militia get behind enemy lines for Intel? He has to carry openly? Please.

 

[spat]

Why do you keep bringing this up after explained already. You can get charged from Penal Law 400 for a Class A Misdemeanor itself which you keep ignoring but they don't because people don't do it, do it in counties where nobody cares, or do it while hunting because how the hell else are you going to do it.

For those rare times that people have been caught and an issue was made of it, the prosecutor offered the easy way out of revocation. We just don't hear about it.

Just because you say something over and over again doesn't mean it was "explained already".

You have attempted to explain it several times, I have never accepted your explanation as valid. There is a big difference.

 

[spat]

Again. It is written poorly and you are trying to interpret it as if there is logic to it. You don't get arrested for open carrying while hunting because how the fuck else are you going to do it? So what happens, the Revenuers look the other way.

Same goes for inside the home.

You are simultaneously arguing the logic of the law, and that logic doesn't matter. Which is it ?

 

[Marine Cpl]

So, does that mean you may not possess it unless it is carried concealed ? How does that work when it's in your safe ? Locked in a box in the trunk ?

The law specifically says that if a gun is found in a car, not on the person of one of the occupants, but one of the occupants has a license, then it is legal. How can that be if they are not carrying it concealed ?

You may possess it. Open carry is possessing it. You may also conceal it, in contrast to most people in most states who need no license to possess, but do to conceal.

Again. You are trying to make sense of a poorly written law. By your logic, then a courier of a bank issued that license only to have and carry concealed can do so outside of his employment for other purposes as long as it's open.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Just because you say something over and over again doesn't mean it was "explained already".

You have attempted to explain it several times, I have never accepted your explanation as valid. There is a big difference.

So let it rest then. You are the one that keeps bringing it up.

 

[spat]

Again. You are trying to make sense of a poorly written law. By your logic, then a courier of a bank issued that license only to have and carry concealed can do so outside of his employment for other purposes as long as it's open.

He can, as long as he is willing to risk losing the license. He will not be criminally charged for it.

 

[Marine Cpl]

You are simultaneously arguing the logic of the law, and that logic doesn't matter. Which is it ?

What I'm saying is that they are saying that you cannot do X but they allow you to do Y and you need to do X to do Y. It doesn't make sense and here you are trying to make sense of a law written by idiots as if it was written by scholars.

 

[Marine Cpl]

He can, as long as he is willing to risk losing the license. He will not be criminally charged for it.

Yes he can. Class A Misdemeanor. Will they do it though. It depends on the prosecutor. Most don't because then they'd have to defend their poorly written law.

It's a lot easier to just revoke the permit that they are legally allowed to do at will.

 

[nortatoga]

Charles Nichols can croak for all I care. The 2nd Amendment is clear no matter what a clown in a robe says.

It specifically says....

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That covers concealed and open carry. How the hell else can a spy or assassin from a militia get behind enemy lines for Intel? He has to carry openly? Please.

Really a Clown in a Robe?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Really a Clown in a Robe?

Yes. What do you call Ginsberg or Sotomayor? They aren't scholars. They are political clowns that do what they are told by their party.

 

[spat]

Yes he can. Class A Misdemeanor. Will they do it though. It depends on the prosecutor. Most don't because then they'd have to defend their poorly written law.

It's a lot easier to just revoke the permit that they are legally allowed to do at will.

He can charge you for planning the bay of pigs invasion, what he cannot do is make it stick.

All you need to prove me wrong is find one case that withstood an appeal, and then it's binding precedent.

 

[nortatoga]

Yes. What do you call Ginsberg or Sotomayor? They aren't scholars. They are political clowns that do what they are told by their party.

Did they rule in favor of Heller?

Also about the Spy or Assassin the would be shoot! No charges filed at the time 2A was wrote!

 

[Marine Cpl]

Did they rule in favor of Heller?

Also about the Spy or Assassin the would be shoot! No charges filed at the time 2A was wrote!

I don't understand what you mean.

 

[nortatoga]

Which part?

 

[spat]

There isn't anything to push when the law is clear.

Again. It is written poorly and you are trying to interpret it as if there is logic to it. You don't get arrested for open carrying while hunting because how the fuck else are you going to do it? So what happens, the Revenuers look the other way.

Same goes for inside the home.

Again. You are trying to make sense of a poorly written law. By your logic, then a courier of a bank issued that license only to have and carry concealed can do so outside of his employment for other purposes as long as it's open.

What I'm saying is that they are saying that you cannot do X but they allow you to do Y and you need to do X to do Y. It doesn't make sense and here you are trying to make sense of a law written by idiots as if it was written by scholars.

So, which is it, clearly written, or a mess written by idiots ?

 

[Marine Cpl]

He can charge you for planning the bay of pigs invasion, what he cannot do is make it stick.

All you need to prove me wrong is find one case that withstood an appeal, and then it's binding precedent.

Right but I'm this case, Penal Law 400 says that you can get charged for violating it if licensed by it.

Don't deflect with other ridiculous examples to take away from that.

 

[GOPerfect]

Um, clear like mud.

I'm gonna use your example, not sure if it is true, watering the grass on a Sunday, people can get charged but do it anyway. That's kind of a push back?

 

[Marine Cpl]

So, which is it, clearly written, or a mess written by idiots ?

You know the answer to that. It's a law written by idiots who banned all methods of carry by making it illegal to have and possess unless exempted. When they wrote out their exemptions, they wrote that you can have and carry concealed not taking into consideration that you need to open carry to do certain things.

And here you are trying to make sense of it.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Which part?

Your whole sentence.

 

[spat]

Right but I'm this case, Penal Law 400 says that you can get charged for violating it if licensed by it.

Don't deflect with other ridiculous examples to take away from that.

So what are you violating ? Nowhere in PL 400 does it say you can't OC, just like it doesn't say you can't leave the gun in the trunk. It says you can't be charged for possessing it, or for carrying it concealed.

The only thing keeping everyone in NY from being able to OC a handgun is the requirement to have a permit to possess. The permit under PL 400 is a permit to possess.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Um, clear like mud.

I'm gonna use your example, not sure if it is true, watering the grass on a Sunday, people can get charged but do it anyway. That's kind of a push back?

It's that they don't know and the cops aren't bothered by it.

 

[GOPerfect]

It's that they don't know and the cops aren't bothered by it.

Same with OC. Most cops have zero clue. Trust me, I talk about this a lot with cops that I know. Actually, I have never received the correct answer from any of them.

 

[nortatoga]

Your whole sentence.

They would be shot! Your example is about something at war time! I don't think have a license makes it OK to be a Spy or Assassin!!

 

[Marine Cpl]

So what are you violating ? Nowhere in PL 400 does it say you can't OC, just like it doesn't say you can't leave the gun in the trunk. It says you can't be charged for possessing it, or for carrying it concealed.

The only thing keeping everyone in NY from being able to OC a handgun is the requirement to have a permit to possess. The permit under PL 400 is a permit to possess.

It's a permit to possess and do other things it specifically allows you to do.

Why are you arguing with me? Do it if you think it's legal. Every lawyer that reads it sees it differently than you when they make up guidelines on who can carry openly state by state.

I know what it says and so do you. Do what you think it says if it means a lot to you.

 

[Marine Cpl]

They would be shot! Your example is about something at war time! I don't think have a license makes it OK to be a Spy or Assassin!!

No. What I'm saying is that the 2A is for the security of a free state. That doesn't mean open carry only. Suppose someone needed to go behind enemy lines in any state to take out or get close to a military leader, governor, ect . Would they need to do so while carrying openly?

I understand about war time but the 2A doesn't say anything about methods of carry period like that Charles Nichols likes to say or some clown in a robe says.

 

[Doc8404]

I don't understand what you mean.

Day drinking isn't always a bad thing! LOL.

 

[nortatoga]

No. What I'm saying is that the 2A is for the security of a free state. That doesn't mean open carry only. Suppose someone needed to go behind enemy lines in any state to take out or get close to a military leader, governor, ect . Would they need to do so while carrying openly?

I understand about war time but the 2A doesn't say anything about methods of carry period like that Charles Nichols likes to say or some clown in a robe says.

So Heller is not the law of the Land at this time?

This whole tread has been about laws, And at the end is a Judge in a black robe who decides the out come!

So to your thinking the Republicans should not have Blocked Judge Merrick Garland last year?