License Canceled After 50 years?

[gun_slinger_boy]

The NYPD claims Leifer, 75, did not fully cooperate with its investigator by failing to produce, among other things, “three months of bank statements and the corresponding deposit slips, and documentation of being in extraordinary personal danger.”

So you need to prove that you're in extraordinary danger before you can get a permit. SMH. I'm so glad I left that shithole aka NY.

 

[Chevusa]

So, I disagree with diver licenses too...

Again, different subject. I stated numerous times now that he shouldn’t need a permit. But he still does. You keep arguing something that we are in agreement about and I’m not sure why. You aren’t focusing on the actual argument.

 

[@thewheels]

So in your scenario, let's imagine he just continues on without a permit.

What do you agree is the correct step for law enforcement to take next?

Does he have a dog? Cuz that changes my answer.

 

[Chevusa]

I mean you wrote the same thing 12 times in this thread. You must be a sad man to care THAT much about defending this particular story.

But you do you, boo boo.

Give your mom a kiss once in a while. She misses you.

You’re the one who doesn’t even know what this thread and argument is about. You can’t make this shit up. If it’s been said 12 times it’s because you still don’t understand it. How embarrassing.

 

[Bananabandit]

Oh Im so embarrassed. Oh got me so good.

Such a tough guy. Does your boyfriend know you talk this tough?

 

[Chevusa]

Oh Im so embarrassed. Oh got me so good.

Such a tough guy. Does your boyfriend know you talk this tough?

You haven’t shown even the slightest ability to discuss this subject in an intelligent manner, therefore I will not respond to you further. I hope you can find your way in future threads. Best of luck, Don.

 

[Bananabandit]

Look at that pot calling the kettle black.

To be fair, you did say intelligent.

Good day Donald.

 

[fresch]

After 50 YEARS of no law infractions why is a permit needed. If they don't know w,w,w,w,w,h, by now they should go back to flipping burgers.
Probably should review the constitution too.

 

[Saltwater60]

Slightly misleading. They didn’t just take it. He applied for the carry permit and then didn’t cooperate with investigators. How did he think he was going to get approved without following the process and submitting the information requested?

If you want to debate the licensing guidelines that is a different discussion. In this case the guy simply didn’t do what was required.You’d be denied too if you submitted your application and didn’t provide references, for example.

At some point you stop jumping through hoops.
Why should he do what is required? Submit bank and deposit statements and prove he’s in extreme danger. How do you even prove that?

 

[Chevusa]

At some point you stop jumping through hoops.
Why should he do what is required? Submit bank and deposit statements and prove he’s in extreme danger. How do you even prove that?

Well if you don’t submit the completed application how you you expect to be approved? That’s all.

 

[spat]

Have nothing logical to say on the subject at hand after that huh?

Sad!

BTW, it’s a silly Internet forum and people are just typing things quickly on phones while out living their lives. If I had Nothing to do I’m sure I could track your history and point out multiple grammar and punctuation errors. Nobody cares though. Lighten up Francis.

Guy has his fundamental rights violated by an oppressive government.

I could tell you what should have happened to all the government agents involved in the oppression, but it would probably not be a good idea on a public forum.

"He should have just worn the yellow star, it's his fault he got hauled off...."

 

[spat]

Well if you don’t submit the completed application how you you expect to be approved? That’s all.

You shouldn't need approval.

"She should have just sat in the back of the bus like she was told, it's the law."

 

[spat]

You’re the one who doesn’t even know what this thread and argument is about. You can’t make this shit up. If it’s been said 12 times it’s because you still don’t understand it. How embarrassing.

I think there's a dozen people in this thread that agree, and you're the odd man out.

Maybe it's you who doesn't understand what the thread is about ?

 

[Saltwater60]

Well if you don’t submit the completed application how you you expect to be approved? That’s all.

Where does it say he didn’t complete the application? The article makes no mention of that. It says he failed to cooperate with the investigation and provide documents. This is a simple renewal and not a new application? He still owns the businesses so there has been no substantial change in this mans life.
I just renewed my carry permit for NYS and no investigation was done. This is meant to be a hinderance. This man has had a carry permit for 50 years and any investigation is a mismanagement of resources.
Glad to know you side with the NYPD licensing scheme that is pure BS.

 

[Saltwater60]

Nope

I think there's a dozen people in this thread that agree, and you're the odd man out.

Maybe it's you who doesn't understand what the thread is about ?

Nope he’s right. We all missed where for all other rights you need to pay fees, apply, have an investigation, renew your rights, and submit documentation on why you need that right.

 

[Chevusa]

Guy has his fundamental rights violated by an oppressive government.

I could tell you what should have happened to all the government agents involved in the oppression, but it would probably not be a good idea on a public forum.

"He should have just worn the yellow star, it's his fault he got hauled off...."

True but not really relevant to the facts as they stand. I’m all for eliminating the permitting process. I’ve called for constitutional carry numerous times. Having a fit online isn’t going to change the licensing requirements unfortunately so this guy will need to actually apply properly if he wants to get the permit.

 

[Chevusa]

You shouldn't need approval.

"She should have just sat in the back of the bus like she was told, it's the law."

Seeprior posts.answered. Should does not equal what is. Gotta deal in reality here. You applied for a permit. Why? You should have just been able to carry. Yet you followed the process. If you want the permit which is currently required you must apply for one properly. You aren’t just going to be mass mailed permits.

 

[Chevusa]

I think there's a dozen people in this thread that agree, and you're the odd man out.

Maybe it's you who doesn't understand what the thread is about ?

Nope. Go back and read my first post. I cannot state it anymore. Constitutional carry. That’s not the way it is though no matter how many times you repeat it. Therefore you must get the permit. The permit will not appear as an act of magic. You must apply for it. Also santa isn’t coming down your chimney. These are the facts.

 

[Chevusa]

Where does it say he didn’t complete the application? The article makes no mention of that. It says he failed to cooperate with the investigation and provide documents. This is a simple renewal and not a new application? He still owns the businesses so there has been no substantial change in this mans life.
I just renewed my carry permit for NYS and no investigation was done. This is meant to be a hinderance. This man has had a carry permit for 50 years and any investigation is a mismanagement of resources.
Glad to know you side with the NYPD licensing scheme that is pure BS.

It is not a renewal. It is a change of license. He wants a carry permit. Part of the application process is to submit required docs. Absent those you have an incomplete packet. No different than you applying and leaving your references out or your name blank or no safety certificate. Etc. etc. etc.

 

[Chevusa]

Nope

Nope he’s right. We all missed where for all other rights you need to pay fees, apply, have an investigation, renew your rights, and submit documentation on why you need that right.

Didn’t say it’s right. I said it’s the way it is. If it’s not put your money where your mouth is. You’re advocating for the guy to carry without a permit yet you won’t do so yourself. You applied and followed the rules. Why? 2A! Shall not be…! Yet you did the opposite of what you say here. Why?

 

[spat]

True but not really relevant to the facts as they stand. I’m all for eliminating the permitting process. I’ve called for constitutional carry numerous times. Having a fit online isn’t going to change the licensing requirements unfortunately so this guy will need to actually apply properly if he wants to get the permit.

Or he could, you know, sue to get the unconstitutional infringements overturned.


But, yea, just licking the boots is probably going to get the problem fixed faster.

 

[spat]

True but not really relevant to the facts as they stand. I’m all for eliminating the permitting process. I’ve called for constitutional carry numerous times. Having a fit online isn’t going to change the licensing requirements unfortunately so this guy will need to actually apply properly if he wants to get the permit.

How is the process going to get fixed if everyone just follows it, instead of doing what this guy did to establish standing to sue and get it overturned.


People who follow the process and get a permit don't have standing to sue.

 

[Chevusa]

Or he could, you know, sue to get the unconstitutional infringements overturned.


But, yea, just licking the boots is probably going to get the problem fixed faster.

Sure could. Probably won’t have standing though since he never actually applied properly. He’s should do so (as already stated several times) and when he is denied he has a case and we can all be behind him. The simple fact is the headline and reporting is dishonest. I never said the outside was right. Not sure why nobody can understand that. The problem is the half fake article. Not the guy trying to carry a gun.

 

[Chevusa]

How is the process going to get fixed if everyone just follows it, instead of doing what this guy did to establish standing to sue and get it overturned.


People who follow the process and get a permit don't have standing to sue.

He likely won’t get approved for carry in nyc. He has no standing ad of now because he didn’t follow the application process. It’s incomplete.

 

[spat]

Sure could. Probably won’t have standing though since he never actually applied properly. He’s should do so (as already stated several times) and when he is denied he has a case and we can all be behind him. The simple fact is the headline and reporting is dishonest. I never said the outside was right. Not sure why nobody can understand that. The problem is the half fake article. Not the guy trying to carry a gun.

If they create unconstitutional hoops for you to jump through, and you jump through them and get the permit, then you can't sue.

The judge would say "you got the permit, there's nothing to sue over".

Nobody in NY with a full carry permit can sue to get the permit process overturned. Any suit you bring would be immediately thrown out.

 

[spat]

He likely won’t get approved for carry in nyc. He has no standing ad of now because he didn’t follow the application process. It’s incomplete.

Your understanding of "standing" is exactly backwards.

 

[Chevusa]

If they create unconstitutional hoops for you to jump through, and you jump through them and get the permit, then you can't sue.

The judge would say "you got the permit, there's nothing to sue over".

Nobody in NY with a full carry permit can sue to get the permit process overturned. Any suit you bring would be immediately thrown out.

It’s nyc. He’s not getting approved lol. As is the judge will say you didn’t submit the documents for your application. Go try again. Dismissed. The point is the news article. Focus on the headline. Compare it to the facts. Very simple.

 

[Chevusa]

Your understanding of "standing" is exactly backwards.

He didn’t apply. His denial is based on his own actions. The application is incomplete. Judge will say if you want a permit apply like everyone else. Until then we’ve got nothing but a news article of what may be. Patently dishonest reporting. The license wasn’t revoked out of the blue as is suggested.

 

[wirehairfan]

It is not a renewal. It is a change of license. He wants a carry permit. Part of the application process is to submit required docs. Absent those you have an incomplete packet. No different than you applying and leaving your references out or your name blank or no safety certificate. Etc. etc. etc.

No sir. That is not correct. Re-read the article. He already had a carry permit. It was not a change of license, merely a renewal.

 

[spat]

He didn’t apply. His denial is based on his own actions. The application is incomplete. Judge will say if you want a permit apply like everyone else. Until then we’ve got nothing but a news article of what may be. Patently dishonest reporting. The license wasn’t revoked out of the blue as is suggested.

If you want to sue to overturn *the requirements* you *have to* do what he did.

If he had applied and jumped through the hoops, they could just give him the permit and the suit goes away. They literally do this all the time.

Once he has the permit, he no longer has standing to sue.

What's so hard to understand about that ?