Could (*Permit) Restrictions Actually Be Law?

[Chevusa]

What they're saying is without showing cause as is spelled out in "f" you wouldn't have a license in the first place. So if the cause you showed was say "hunting and target shooting" they are saying that restriction is co-equal to the other license types "business" and "premises".

When and if nationwide concealed carry gets passed all of NY's games will come to an end. Until then be very careful!

 

[Different Drummer]

Proper or just cause are the words that have allowed licensing agents to get away with placing administrative restrictions upon licenses. As some on this forum have said in the past ( seemingly in support of administrative restrictions ) "The courts have upheld this practice". Yes, there is no doubt that the courts have upheld the practice in the past. However, as I have seen argued on the forum often, were those decisions proper and just? Really folks, we all know what side of the fence the second circuit has resided on in the past!

So here is something to ponder. The courts have upheld the practice allowing certain licensing agents to get away with applying administrative restrictions. But where in the penal law does it mandate a licensing agent to apply administrative restrictions? I do not believe that the law does in fact mandate such practice. If it did, would not all the counties that DO NOT place the administrative restrictions be violating this mandate and the law? To put it more simply there is nothing that makes or requires a licensing agent to apply administrative restrictions.

OK, next thought to ponder. When a licensing agent places administrative restrictions on a license to carry in NYS he or she is doing it based their own personal opinion and / or beliefs. So I ask, does this not make the process one that has now become arbitrary and subjective?
In my opinion it does. However, there are those who appear to disagree. Or, if they don't disagree they have a greater tolerance for the scheme than I.

Last thought to ponder. In most cases the licensing agent is a Judge. He or she places the administrative restrictions upon the Lic.
If these restrictions have the power of law, isn't that issuing Judge "legislating from the bench"? That is something that is not supposed to happen! Judges do not make laws!
If I was younger I would be challenging the practice of applying administrative restrictions. However, I know how long and drawn out the challenge would take working its way through the courts. I have other more enjoyable things to do with my remaining time, not to mention the expense.
That's my take on the subject.
Oh, to the OP. No, I don't think it is the law in regards to time and place.

 

[Cooolone]

The Executive, and the Judicial branches of Federal, State or Local Gov't cannot create law, that is reserved to the Legislative branch of our form of government.

Does that mean Judicial activism doesn't exist? Or Executive overreach via orders attempt to take powers not belonging to it? Of course not... they do, and will continue to. But it isn't Law!

Why do Dogs & Cats lick their balls... Because they can!

Plain and simple

Here's an interesting tie in worth reading:

We agree with the courts below that the licensing officers' power to determine the existence of "proper cause" for the issuance of a license necessarily and inherently includes the power to restrict the use to the purposes that justified the issuance. Without such a power to condition, the licensing officer's authority to allow possession of a handgun only for proper cause would be rendered meaningless and the obvious regulatory purpose of the statute would be frustrated.

Moreover, petitioners' argument is inconsistent with the regulatory scheme of Penal law § 400.00. The other licenses allowed by the statute are narrowly circumscribed to the circumstances justifying their issuance (see, e.g., subd 2[a] [license to possess in dwelling]; subd 2[license to possess in place of business]; subd 2[e] [license to possess during certain employment]). Were we to read the carry license of subdivision 2(f) to allow possession of firearms generally once good cause was shown, there would be no reason for applicants to seek the more restrictive licenses enumerated in the statute when they could just as easily qualify for the broader carry license. Clearly, the legislative intent behind subdivision 2(f) was to create a license co-equal to the other licenses, not one that would render the other licenses superfluous. - NY Appellate Court

The entire "need" or "proper cause" falls under "scrutiny" as apllied to so called "Rights"... There are some precedence on both sides of the argument, and to be sure, is the central issue which allows the vacuum to exist whereas municipalities place defacto restrictions upon the 2A Rights of it's citizen/residents.

Best example is going to be to wait and see how NYC behaves going forward, lol. Will be a good fishbowl

 

[Chevusa]

Here is something that is very interesting,

EXISTING LAW:
Although not specifically authorized by statute, some licensing officers
may impose certain time, place, and use restrictions on pistol and hand-
gun licenses in New York State on a county by county basis. Such
restrictions include "hunting and target shooting," "valid only during
daylight hours," "valid only if carrying X amount of cash;" and so on.
In short, licensing officers have, without legislative authority,
created new classes and versions of pistol licenses not contemplated by
statute. The result is a "patchwork quilt" effect of licensing through-
out the state, with certain licensing officers imposing additional
restrictions not authorized by law and some imposing none. In an effort
to make the licensing requirements uniform throughout New York, this
bill will prohibit county licensing officers from imposing extra-legal
restrictions.

Read more here:

NY State Senate Bill 2019-S3931

Provides that restrictions regarding the carrying of concealed weapons and licenses therefor shall be by statute only.

www.nysenate.gov

 

[Marine Cpl]

What they're saying is without showing cause as is spelled out in "f" you wouldn't have a license in the first place. So if the cause you showed was say "hunting and target shooting" they are saying that restriction is co-equal to the other license types "business" and "premises".

When and if nationwide concealed carry gets passed all of NY's games will come to an end. Until then be very careful!

That’s what they are saying. Sure. The courts say anything they want despite what the penal law actually says. The just cause to get the license is to get one of the 4 or 5 categories of licenses. It just so happens that if you show just cause for target shooting you qualify for an unrestricted license because that of the only one available.

It’s like this. If there was a need to show just cause to get a general hunting license and you said that you wanted it for deer and it was granted to you, that doesn’t mean that you can only hunt deer. That general license gives you the ability to hunt any animal in season.

 

[Different Drummer]

Seward sponsored this bill several years ago as well. Kathy Marchione was a co-sponsor. She was my Rep. I was in contact with and communicated with her office in regards to the Administrative restrictions and the varying degree of Lic. issuing policies between counties. What they call the "patchwork quilt effect". At her request ( actually an attorney in her office ) I was supplying copies of denial letters for Administrative restriction removal citing "proper cause" as the reason for denial. I think I sent her about 20 different copies of denial letters. Some here may remember supplying a denial letter to me for submission to her office.
Bottom line was nothing ever developed. As long as the NYS Legislature is Democrat controlled this just will not fly.
I believe that the only reason it keeps getting introduced is political in nature. A vote getting tool.
Really is too bad.

 

[Chevusa]

Seward sponsored this bill several years ago as well. Kathy Marchione was a co-sponsor. She was my Rep. I was in contact with and communicated with her office in regards to the Administrative restrictions and the varying degree of Lic. issuing policies between counties. What they call the "patchwork quilt effect". At her request ( actually an attorney in her office ) I was supplying copies of denial letters for Administrative restriction removal citing "proper cause" as the reason for denial. I think I sent her about 20 different copies of denial letters. Some here may remember supplying a denial letter to me for submission to her office.
Bottom line was nothing ever developed. As long as the NYS Legislature is Democrat controlled this just will not fly.
I believe that the only reason it keeps getting introduced is political in nature. A vote getting tool.
Really is too bad.

There are two ways to look at it. Either it won't get through or Cuomo won't sign it. If it were to get through, it could be a "be careful what you wish for" effect, in that licensing officers will just start saying that you do not show cause for CCW and they are no longer allowed to give a target/hunting permit therefore you are outright denied or given a home premises only permit.

 

[GOPerfect]

I think it is only a matter of time before the elected elite see the way the law is written is incorrect. I see in the near future they will change it.

 

[Saltwater60]

The next section after the one I provided here deals with NYC. It is specifically laid out that it’s off limits or invalid there.

So the law contradicts itself.

 

[Darth]

That’s what they are saying. Sure. The courts say anything they want despite what the penal law actually says. The just cause to get the license is to get one of the 4 or 5 categories of licenses. It just so happens that if you show just cause for target shooting you qualify for an unrestricted license because that of the only one available.

It’s like this. If there was a need to show just cause to get a general hunting license and you said that you wanted it for deer and it was granted to you, that doesn’t mean that you can only hunt deer. That general license gives you the ability to hunt any animal in season.

Right. Once proper cause for the issuance of the license exists, you get the license.

NOT you get the license, then these other parameters apply.

We've discussed this before on here.

 

[Acer-m14]

does anyone have a current print of the 2A .. i don't it has changed lol ..

 

[Chevusa]

It's all shit made up on the fly.. If you don't have an unrestricted permit be careful. Hopefully we are close to the day we are liberated from this. Until then use extreme caution. If a judge or cop wants to "do you" they can, and the vague penal law supports them.

 

[Chevusa]

Right. Once proper cause for the issuance of the license exists, you get the license.

NOT you get the license, then these other parameters apply.

We've discussed this before on here.

The problem is the higher courts have ruled that you only have the license for which you've shown proper cause for, and if you were to carry outside of those restrictions it would be "absurd" in their official ruling.

 

[Chevusa]

So the law contradicts itself.

No. The license is valid here and here , except here. It's laid out clearly. We dont agree with it but it is.

 

[Darth]

The problem is the higher courts have ruled that you only have the license for which you've shown proper cause for, and if you were to carry outside of those restrictions it would be "absurd" in their official ruling.

Correct. You only have the license for which you've shown proper cause.

And that license is f. To carry without regard to employment or place of possession.

They might think it's absurd, I think their laws are absurd, but either way, once you get license F, there is no limit on employment or place of possession.

 

[spat]

If a judge or cop wants to "do you" they can, and the vague penal law supports them.

They don't need PL265 for that at all.

We are very close to the old Soviet "show me the man and I'll show you the crime" paradigm.

 

[Darth]

We are very close to the old Soviet "show me the man and I'll show you the crime" paradigm.

"Close to."

 

[Grimscale]

does anyone have a current print of the 2A .. i don't it has changed lol ..

At least someone here gets it.


You guys are arguing the minutia of infringing Laws while ignoring the fact that ALL OF THIS BULLSHIT SHOULD NOT EXIST!

 

[Darth]

You guys are arguing the minutia of infringing Laws while ignoring the fact that ALL OF THIS BULLSHIT SHOULD NOT EXIST!

I don't see a single person ignoring that?

 

[Grimscale]

I don't see a single person ignoring that?

Really?
Look closer.

Everyone is arguing about this restriction or that restriction being legal, and yet only Acer mentioned the 2nd Amendment.
Seemed like a whole lot of ignoring to me.

 

[Darth]

Really?
Look closer.

Everyone is arguing about this restriction or that restriction being legal, and yet only Acer mentioned the 2nd Amendment.
Seemed like a whole lot of ignoring to me.

Possibly due to the fact this thread was about administrative restrictions on pistol permits, and not whether or not they should even exist.

 

[Chevusa]

Correct. You only have the license for which you've shown proper cause.

And that license is f. To carry without regard to employment or place of possession.

They might think it's absurd, I think their laws are absurd, but either way, once you get license F, there is no limit on employment or place of possession.

I understand your position on it, but the court has said otherwise. They found that the restrictions are co-equal with the other license types. Basically they gave the green light for the licensing officer to create their own types of licenses. If the restrictions were meaningless, everyone would just get license type "f", and the other more restricted types of licenses (home, business etc..) would be meaningless.

We don't like it, but we aren't in charge. We can kick and scream and cite the law all we want. It still won't end well for us. The judge isn't going to want to hear about how we know our rights and know what the law says. Those types of people always get the worst of it.

We should in fact hope the legislation doesn't get passed that I cited earlier. I can easily see restricted permits being recalled and either revoked or switched to premises only, because unique proper cause wasn't shown to warrant CCW under "f". In a way the restrictions are almost the licensing officer doing us a "favor" if you look at it that way. Sad huh?

 

[Marine Cpl]

I understand your position on it, but the court has said otherwise. They found that the restrictions are co-equal with the other license types. Basically they gave the green light for the licensing officer to create their own types of licenses. If the restrictions were meaningless, everyone would just get license type "f", and the other more restricted types of licenses (home, business etc..) would be meaningless.

We don't like it, but we aren't in charge. We can kick and scream and cite the law all we want. It still won't end well for us. The judge isn't going to want to hear about how we know our rights and know what the law says. Those types of people always get the worst of it.

We should in fact hope the legislation doesn't get passed that I cited earlier. I can easily see restricted permits being recalled and either revoked or switched to premises only, because unique proper cause wasn't shown to warrant CCW under "f". In a way the restrictions are almost the licensing officer doing us a "favor" if you look at it that way. Sad huh?

At the end of the day and in taking the court ruling‘s as ruled without any resistance, you still have an unrestricted license that gives you exemption from Penal Law 265 for your pistol.

If you go against the restrictions printed on your license and violated the “Just Cause” you used to get it, the very worst that can happen is the judge can render your license invalid and revoke the license which he has authorization to do as per Penal Law 400.

Those are the facts that we are stating. You cannot go to jail for violating the restrictions. It has never happened and never will because just having any carry license gives you immunity from Penal Law 265. The Penal Laws clearly state that.

Regarding opinion, to me it’s a big nothing burger. We all buy pistols for one major reason. Self defense. There are exemptions with Fudds that never carry and only use pistols for hunting and competition, but for the most part we all get into buying pistols for defense. So if you have a restricted license. what is more important to you? The defense of your life or the defense of your collection? I for one couldn’t care less if my collection got taken away if I needed my pistol on me on April 22, 2021 to stop my murder.

 

[nortatoga]

@Chevusa for your reading, some here just don't want to acknowledge this 1897 SCOTUS opinion/ruling!

ROBERTSON et al. v. BALDWIN.

www.law.cornell.edu

Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (article 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;

 

[Marine Cpl]

@Chevusa for your reading, some here just don't want to acknowledge this 1897 SCOTUS opinion/ruling!

ROBERTSON et al. v. BALDWIN.

www.law.cornell.edu

Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (article 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;

That ruling went against actual words written in the Constitution and it’s no different than a ruling issued tomorrow that says that a private citizen cannot publish material that harms a sitting president‘s reputation that will be quoted 50 years from now by a person much like yourself.

You still cannot understand that just because a group of men in black robes issue a ruling, that that ruling can be unconstitutional and rendered based on politics.

 

[nortatoga]

That ruling went against actual words written in the Constitution and it’s no different than a ruling issued tomorrow that says that a private citizen cannot publish material that harms a sitting president‘s reputation that will be quoted 50 years from now by a person much like yourself.

You still cannot understand that just because a group of men in black robes issue a ruling, that that ruling can be unconstitutional and rendered based on politics.

No Jr. what you don't understand and except is that the BOR's did not apply to the States until each was incorporated to the State's via the 14th amendment! By the SCOTUS! Which did not happen til 2010 for the Second Amendment. Do the research! Look at state Constitutions for what they said about the RTKABA.

 

[Marine Cpl]

No Jr. what you don't understand and except is that the BOR's did not apply to the States until each was incorporated to the State's via the 14th amendment! By the SCOTUS! Which did not happen til 2010 for the Second Amendment. Do the research! Look at state Constitutions for what they said about the RTKABA.

Oh not this shit again. Read Article 6. Your ass was handed to you on this subject in numerous threads by me and in 2 threads by others when I was banned for 3 weeks. You never learn. It was explained to you in detail. It always applied via Article 6 and later reaffirmed. It was explained to you that it would make no sense for the states to infringe upon a right that the feds cannot because otherwise it would be worthless. Plenty of examples were given to you. When you couldn’t counter them, you turned silent. Afterwards you came back with a sly remark like, “You don’t know how the courts work!” followed by 4 exclamation points like you always do in every sentence you write. And then when people came back with more ammunition, you went silent and bailed.

That’s your M.O. You get your ass handed to you and then stop responding. Then afterwards when the dust settles a little, you come back with the same shit as if we will forget what you refused to answer in a previous thread. You do this over and over. Someone will ask you question that you cannot answer and you’ll ignore it. Then 10 days later come back with a long post on the same damned rulings.

 

[nortatoga]

Oh not this shit again. Read Article 6. Your ass was handed to you on this subject in numerous threads by me and in 2 threads by others when I was banned for 3 weeks. You never learn. It was explained to you in detail. It always applied via Article 6 and later reaffirmed. It was explained to you that it would make no sense for the states to infringe upon a right that the feds cannot because otherwise it would be worthless. Plenty of examples were given to you. When you couldn’t counter them, you turned silent. Afterwards you came back with a sly remark like, “You don’t know how the courts work!” followed by 4 exclamation points like you always do in every sentence you write. And then when people came back with more ammunition, you went silent and bailed.

That’s your M.O. You get your ass handed to you and then stop responding. Then afterwards when the dust settles a little, you come back with the same shit as if we will forget what you refused to answer in a previous thread. You do this over and over. Someone will ask you question that you cannot answer and you’ll ignore it. Then 10 days later come back with a long post on the same damned rulings.

Sorry but the 10th Amendment trump's Article 6 you know that's why it's called an Amendment.

Please show proof that the BOR's applied to the States! And just remember the 14th Amendment was not from the founding fathers.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Sorry but the 10th Amendment trump's Article 6 you know that's why it's called an Amendment.

Please show proof that the BOR's applied to the States! And just remember the 14th Amendment was not from the founding fathers.

It’s already been done in numerous threads. Conduct a search on them and then read them from top to bottom.

 

[cgrutt]

Haven't read all the responses and I'm not a lawyer but here's my take on the OP. Section which phrase was pulled out of deals with License validity. Administrative restrictions arbitrarly placed on a license does not impair its validity otherwise one couldn't even own a pistol within NYS during such time or place the license was deemed to be invalid. You'd be in possession of a firearm. If Licencee chooses to carry outside of any administrative restrictions and is caught he would not be charged with any crime as the underlying pistol license remains valid at all times until it is revoked.

 

[Acer-m14]

and the un-safe act .. if you do get your PP revoked you loose your rifles and shot guns too ..