Appellate Court and Restricted Permits = BE CAREFUL

[Chevusa]

Wow. I just came across this wile reading up on something else. It's a bit of a read but basically it all boils down to the Appellate Court (highest court in NY) saying carrying out of restrictions on your pistol permit could result in criminal prosecution for the violation under subdivision 15 of section 400.00.

I know this has been discussed here before but I do not remember anyone referencing this ruling by the high court. Oh and this is the least of your worries. In this case the prosecutor argued that carrying out of restrictions means you don't have a license at all when in violation. They weren't successful, but ouch. Be careful out there.

People v. Parker, 70 AD 2d 387 - NY: Appellate Div., 1st Dept. 1979 - Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

 

[Phazer]

The permit reads: "The licensee is authorized to possess and carry the following pistols."

 

[libertysnake]

Mine just says "Full Carry."

When I applied, the PPO told me to put "all lawful purposes" or the judge would not approve it.

 

[Chevusa]

The permit reads: "The licensee is authorized to possess and carry the following pistols."

Understood. The point of thread is the highest court in the state set precedent that a violation of restrictions could be criminally prosecuted as a misdemeanor. Doesn’t mean you will be but you sure could be. The case is linked for your reading pleasure. The scary part is when you read what the prosecution wanted to do. Yikes.

 

[Briwesk85]

my permit says "unrestricted"

 

[Chevusa]

my permit says "unrestricted"

You got one of the good ones. This doesn’t apply to you sir!

 

[kev74]

my permit says "unrestricted"

#me too

 

[Celt]

If you are a freedom loving person that chooses to exercise your 2nd Amendment right, in an anti freedom state like NY, then be careful as they are trying to call us domestic terrorists. This kind of shit makes me sick.

 

[C3D]

The case you cite was overturned on appeal in People v. Parker, 52 NY2d 935 (1981). (As an FYI, the decision cited by the OP was a case in the First Department of the Appellate Division, which is the second level of NY’s court system - Supreme -=> Appellate Division -=> Court of Appeals (highest).). It is no longer good law.

The Court of Appeals did not write an opinion but simply adopted the dissent of Justice Bims in the Appellate Divison opinion cited by the OP.

 

[Chevusa]

The case you cite was overturned on appeal in People v. Parker, 52 NY2d 935 (1981). (As an FYI, the decision cited by the OP was a case in the First Department of the Appellate Division, which is the second level of NY’s court system - Supreme -=> Appellate Division -=> Court of Appeals (highest).). It is no longer good law.

The Court of Appeals did not write an opinion but simply adopted the dissent of Justice Bims in the Appellate Divison opinion cited by the OP.

Read it completely please. They said they dismiss the prosecution attempt to charge unlawful possession but go on to say they may seek criminal charges for misdemeanor violating restrictions per the PL 400-15. It is clear as day. He says exactly such. And the appellate court sets precedents with all of their rulings and decisions in this state.

 

[Chevusa]

Oh and the Appellate Division is a division of the Supreme Court. They rule on and resolve cases in question in the Supreme Court making then above the Supreme.

There are four Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court, one in each of the four judicial departments. These courts resolve appeals from judgments or orders of the superior courts (Supreme, County, Family and Surrogate) in civil and criminal cases. Justices of the Appellate Division are appointed by the governor from amongst sitting Supreme Court Justices. Each Appellate Division Department has a Presiding Justice of that court who, in addition, serves as the overall supervising judge of the districts encompassed within the department.

Ny courts website

 

[C3D]

ChevUSA, a response and a question:

Read it completely please. They said they dismiss the prosecution attempt to charge unlawful possession but go on to say they may seek criminal charges for misdemeanor violating restrictions per the PL 400-15. It is clear as day. He says exactly such. And the appellate court sets precedents with all of their rulings and decisions in this state.

Can you please post the portion of the case that you think supports your statement? I don’t see that in the Court of Appeals decision or the dissent cited by the Court of Appeals.

Oh and the Appellate Division is a division of the Supreme Court. They rule on and resolve cases in question in the Supreme Court making then above the Supreme.



Ny courts website

That’s not correct. The Supreme Court is the lowest level court of general jurisdiction in New York State and the Appellate Division is the next highest level to which Supreme Court decisions can be appealed. Given I have tried multiple cases in each I am pretty sure about that answer .

 

[Chevusa]

ChevUSA, a response and a question:




Can you please post the portion of the case that you think supports your statement? I don’t see that in the Court of Appeals decision or the dissent cited by the Court of Appeals.






That’s not correct. The Supreme Court is the lowest level court of general jurisdiction in New York State and the Appellate Division is the next highest level to which Supreme Court decisions can be appealed. Given I have tried multiple cases in each I am pretty sure about that answer .

1- it’s at the bottom of the text I linked to. The last few paragraphs. I’m mobile so that’s the best direction I can point you in.
2- I said exactly the same thing. Appellate is a higher division of Supreme. Their decisions do absolutely set precedent as I’m sure you know.

 

[spat]

1- it’s at the bottom of the text I linked to. The last few paragraphs. I’m mobile so that’s the best direction I can point you in.
2- I said exactly the same thing. Appellate is a higher division of Supreme. Their decisions do absolutely set precedent as I’m sure you know.

While the Appellate sets precedent, it can be over ruled by a higher jurisdiction, which in this case it was. The higher division's decision (Court of Appeals) would then be the binding precedent.

Since the Court of Appeals adopted the dissent from the Appellate as their decision, that is the binding precedent from the case you cited, not the majority opinion.

You should maybe Google this a bit more.

I'll get you started.

Court Structure | NYCOURTS.GOV

The mission of the Unified Court System is to promote the rule of law and to serve the public by providing just and timely resolution of all matters before the courts.

ww2.nycourts.gov

 

[Chevusa]

While the Appellate sets precedent, it can be over ruled by a higher jurisdiction, which in this case it was. The higher division's decision (Court of Appeals) would then be the binding precedent.

Since the Court of Appeals adopted the dissent from the Appellate as their decision, that is the binding precedent from the case you cited, not the majority opinion.

You should maybe Google this a bit more.

I'll get you started.

Court Structure | NYCOURTS.GOV

The mission of the Unified Court System is to promote the rule of law and to serve the public by providing just and timely resolution of all matters before the courts.

ww2.nycourts.gov

While the Appellate sets precedent, it can be over ruled by a higher jurisdiction, which in this case it was.

Please cite. All I saw was the unlawful possession was overruled but they said illegal restriction violation could be prosecuted.

 

[spat]

While the Appellate sets precedent, it can be over ruled by a higher jurisdiction, which in this case it was.

Please cite. All I saw was the unlawful possession was overruled but they said illegal restriction violation could be prosecuted.

You didn’t read the case that @C3D cited. The one that overruled the one you are talking about.

For someone who spent most of the other thread belittling others for their lack of ability to understand a courts decision (that they do and you don’t) it's not a good look.

You can't just latch on to the decision of a mid level court and decide it's gospel without seeing if it was overturned on appeal.

 

[Criticalt]

When I applied for my pp years ago I had a questionable "thing" in my past. Our permit issuing judge sent me a letter with a date to come talk to him.
After I cleared up the "thing" within the first 2 minutes.....he laughed it off........we talked for about an hour.
Whether this is an issue or not, he said this was one of the reasons that he ONLY issues unrestricted permits.......because state legislators and courts will try to define and redefine restricted permits and the merits of the judges restrictions.
He made it clear that most NYS courts and many judges do not want you carrying a gun.....period. He said the ONLY reason some judges MUST grant permits is the pesky 2nd amendment.
Of course his main reasons he only gives unrestricted permits is that its our right......and he loves guns.

 

[Chevusa]

You didn’t read the case that @C3D cited. The one that overruled the one you are talking about.

For someone who spent most of the other thread belittling others for their lack of ability to understand a courts decision (that they do and you don’t) it's not a good look.

You can't just latch on to the decision of a mid level court and decide it's gospel without seeing if it was overturned on appeal.

Haven’t seen said case or had time to review. I am on mobile taking care of business. If I’m wrong I’m wrong. Just as I stated in previous cited thread. Just telling people to be careful that’s all. Read what the prosecutor tried to do. That’ll cost a boss load to defend against if it happens to you.

 

[dsdmmat]

Haven’t seen said case or had time to review. I am on mobile taking care of business. If I’m wrong I’m wrong. Just as I stated in previous cited thread. Just telling people to be careful that’s all. Read what the prosecutor tried to do. That’ll cost a boss load to defend against if it happens to you.

Until you sue them for everything they and their jurisdiction is worth for malicious prosecution and use the court of appeals ruling as your evidence.

*thanks for the correction @spat

 

[spat]

Until you sue them for everything they and their jurisdiction is worth for malicious prosecution and use the appellate court ruling as your evidence.

Court of appeals ruling. The Appellate court is the one that got overruled.

NY courts are named so poorly, it could only be in NY.

I see an Abbot and Costello sketch coming on.

Who in their right mind names the lowest court "Supreme" and the other 2 levels "Appellate" and "Court of Appeals".


That's like naming the finish order in a foot race "winner" for the guy who comes in 3rd and calling the second guy "champion" and the first guy across the finish line "victor"

 

[Edwardteach72]

 

[Chevusa]

Until you sue them for everything they and their jurisdiction is worth for malicious prosecution and use the appellate court ruling as your evidence.

Yep. Sadly not many are willing to spend a fortune to do so so they are subject to the rulings.

 

[That_FNG]

#me too

Mine as well.

 

[Darth]

Something something your Google fu lawyer degree won't outsmart the law something something watch me outsmart the law.

 

[Chevusa]

Something something your Google fu lawyer degree won't outsmart the law something something watch me outsmart the law.

Huh? Just linked directly to a written court decision right from the source. Just a caution to people. Not sure what youre trying to twist up but, it is what it is.

 

[Darth]

Huh? Just linked directly to a written court decision right from the source. Just a caution to people. Not sure what youre trying to twist up but, it is what it is.

Well, using your words, you linked to a bunch of legalese that only a lawyer could understand, and then explained how you know what it actually means.

Now the NYSP disagrees with you, and while thet often have no idea of the law, they are the ones that will just be fllowing orders.

 

[Chevusa]

Well, using your words, you linked to a bunch of legalese that only a lawyer could understand, and then explained how you know what it actually means.

Now the NYSP disagrees with you, and while thet often have no idea of the law, they are the ones that will just be fllowing orders.

Huh? I linked directly to the judgers exact statement. He explicitly said they could pursue criminal charges for misdemeanor ignoring restrictions. That is all. Do as you wish with the information. I am not accusing anyone of a crime. Just sharing a written court statement.

 

[Darth]

Huh? I linked directly to the judgers exact statement. He explicitly said they could pursue criminal charges for misdemeanor ignoring restrictions. That is all. Do as you wish with the information. I am not accusing anyone of a crime. Just sharing a written court statement.

You are interpreting a staments.

You just happen to be interpreting it incorrectly, if the NYSP is to be believed

 

[Chevusa]

You are interpreting a staments.

You just happen to be interpreting it incorrectly, if the NYSP is to be believed

He explicitly said they may pursue the charge. There is no interpreting. It is a short, basic and direct sentence.

 

[Darth]

He explicitly said they may pursue the charge. There is no interpreting. It is a short, basic and direct sentence.

If you say so.

Again, of course, the law disagrees, but whatever helps you sleep at night.