License Canceled After 50 years?

[Chevusa]

To every permit holder here who “wouldn’t comply”,

When you got your permit you:

-Filled out every form
-Submitted every document
-Provided every reference
-Took every class
-Did everything else required of you

Now all of a sudden because we’re here online, you “wouldn’t comply”.

Yea. Ok.

 

[nortatoga]

Thanks for clarification

His entire quote I posted in #102 did not hide anything.

If it make you feel better here is what I think you want to see * In July 2020, for the first time since he started using handguns for protection in 1973, his renewal application on was denied. *

And I will concede a little on this (@spat ) he may not have been upgrading his license, But not giving the documentation required he would lose his Special Carry License.

Special Carry License
This special license is issued only to persons possessing a basic county license that has been provided according to the NYS Penal Law terms of article 400. The special carry license is voided if that basic license is cancelled or revoked.

 

[Edwardteach72]

His entire quote I posted in #102 did not hide anything.

No one fucking said you hid anything
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[nortatoga]

No one fucking said you hid anything
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Guess you just can't help the Snarky comments then...

 

[Celt]

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.

There are a couple points to make and i think people are talking past each other on this topic.

Sounds like he didnt submit the NYC required paperwork. Obviously, NYC makes it as hard as possible to get a handgun permit and will look to revoke or not renew for anything includingvtraffic tickets. It may be their policy that they have been getting away with, but it doesnt make it right.

This guy can ABSOLUTELY sue NYC for denying him his 2a rights. NYC may feel justified in not renewing his business carry license based on THEIR requirements, but that doesnt mean its not in violation of the 2a.

Him suing them for a Constitutional rights violation is a great move. This could be a great case to challenge THEIR UNCONSTITUTIONAL requirements.

To add: I believe you understand this, and would even support it. I think past threads where you "seem" to side with government control over citizens makes it harder for people to take your opinions without bias.

 

[Bob]

And I will concede a little on this (@spat ) he may not have been upgrading his license, But not giving the documentation required he would lose his Special Carry License.

Special Carry License
This special license is issued only to persons possessing a basic county license that has been provided according to the NYS Penal Law terms of article 400. The special carry license is voided if that basic license is cancelled or revoked.

His license was Business Carry, not Special Carry.

Special Carry License is not a factor here.
As a NYC resident, the subject of the article is not eligible for a Special Carry License. The NYC Special Carry License is an 'endorsement' that allows persons who have been issued carry licenses elsewhere in the state to carry in NYC.

NYS Penal Law article 400 states "A license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver, not otherwise limited as to place or time of possession, shall be effective throughout the state, except that the same shall not be valid within the city of New York unless a special permit granting validity is issued by the police commissioner of that city." The NYC Special Carry license is that special permit.

 

[Edwardteach72]

Guess you just can't help the Snarky comments then...

Which one

 

[Jmac00]

Some explain why you would need to submit you bank statement to get a pistol permit? My banking is a private matter and has nothing to do with a permit to Carry concealed

 

[Edwardteach72]

Some explain why you would need to submit you bank statement to get a pistol permit? My banking is a private matter and has nothing to do with a permit to Carry concealed

Because the crown said so so just accept it

 

[Jmac00]

Because the crown said so so just accept it

Uuum, that's going to be a hard NO

 

[Celt]

Some explain why you would need to submit you bank statement to get a pistol permit? My banking is a private matter and has nothing to do with a permit to Carry concealed

In NYC 99.9999999% of people will not get a full carry (unless you paid off the licensing bureau, are a movie star, a politician or super rich), so the next best thing is BUSINESS carry. But to get that in NYC you need to PROVE that you need it for business... because the masters say so... its 100% UNCONSTITUTIONAL and i hope this guy follows through with his lawsuit!

 

[pshift]

5 pages for this thread? Amazing!

 

[Chevusa]

Unconstitutional to request bank records? Yes. But so is requiring me to take a safety class and handle a rubber gun. Point is it’s their rules and if you don’t go along with it you’re not getting the license. Do I hope he sues and NY becomes a constitutional carry state? Absolutely. Is it going to happen? Nope.

 

[Edwardteach72]

Uuum, that's going to be a hard NO

For most of us yes, just like the guy who is in the article who I'm guessing is now suing(?)

But as you can read in the comments there are plenty who say they aren't okay with it but are glad he was denied because the law is the law and fuck him that's why

 

[nortatoga]

This will again be ignore!! As many here just don't want to believe facts and SCOTUS rulings and opinions!

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since

caselaw.findlaw.com

Here is the whole paragraph...

But we are also of opinion that, even if the contract of a seaman could be considered within the letter of the thirteenth amendment, it is not, within its spirit, a case of involuntary servitude. The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the 'Bill of Rights,' were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions, arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. 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 [165 U.S. 275, 282] to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (article 5) does not prevent a second trial, if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree, or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion (U. S. v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 627 , 16 S. Sup. Ct. 1192); nor does the provision of the same article that no one shall be a witness against himself impair his obligation to testify, if a prosecution against him be barred by the lapse of time, a pardon, or by statutory enactment (Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 , 16 Sup. Ct. 644, and cases cited). Nor does the provision that an accused person shall be confronted with the witnesses against him prevent the admission of dying declarations, or the depositions of witnesses who have died since the former trial.

 

[spat]

Unconstitutional to request bank records? Yes. But so is requiring me to take a safety class and handle a rubber gun. Point is it’s their rules and if you don’t go along with it you’re not getting the license. Do I hope he sues and NY becomes a constitutional carry state? Absolutely. Is it going to happen? Nope.

Would you have given the same advice to Dick Heller ?

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

Here. Hope this actually does something.

 

[Chevusa]

Would you have given the same advice to Dick Heller ?

Different case. Glad he got the outcome he did though. Just as I would be glad if this guy does. There are cases pending now. One is NY permit process. Also I believe it touches on 2A rights outside the home. We’ll see.

 

[Chevusa]

This will again be ignore!! As many here just don't want to believe facts and SCOTUS rulings and opinions!

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since

caselaw.findlaw.com

Here is the whole paragraph...

But we are also of opinion that, even if the contract of a seaman could be considered within the letter of the thirteenth amendment, it is not, within its spirit, a case of involuntary servitude. The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the 'Bill of Rights,' were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions, arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. 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 [165 U.S. 275, 282] to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (article 5) does not prevent a second trial, if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree, or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion (U. S. v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 627 , 16 S. Sup. Ct. 1192); nor does the provision of the same article that no one shall be a witness against himself impair his obligation to testify, if a prosecution against him be barred by the lapse of time, a pardon, or by statutory enactment (Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 , 16 Sup. Ct. 644, and cases cited). Nor does the provision that an accused person shall be confronted with the witnesses against him prevent the admission of dying declarations, or the depositions of witnesses who have died since the former trial.

So…. Open carry it is then?!

 

[Chevusa]

Wow thank you for posting. I hope everyone watches it. It gave me a warm and fuzzy feeling. I think Trumps pics come through for us. You’ll see libs heads explode if they do. A lot of people have said they are now deciding to hear this case because they know they have the numbers to get the desired outcome. I think it was Kav. who played the game and put off a 2A case until he knew they had the numbers. I’m excited about this one.

 

[Celt]

Unconstitutional to request bank records? Yes. But so is requiring me to take a safety class and handle a rubber gun. Point is it’s their rules and if you don’t go along with it you’re not getting the license. Do I hope he sues and NY becomes a constitutional carry state? Absolutely. Is it going to happen? Nope.

Just because its their rules doesnt make it right. And thats the point everyone is making. Neither is a safety class or any other hoop you have to jump through, but most citizens dont have the means to fight these things, and gun orgs cant take up every case either. They take cases with the best chances. If we had billionaires funding pro gun groups, donating to help elect pro gun AGs and judges then we would be far better off.

Your "tone" makes it seem that you support the rules even though you say otherwise.

 

[Robin]

“I would not supply that information”, well then you’re not getting the permit. That’s the law. Look into the mirror and blame that person for the reason you don’t have it. Until the law changes, which isn’t likely to ever happen, you need to apply accordingly. Or don’t. Nobody will care either way.

Again for the people who can’t comprehend, I’m not saying I agree or that it’s right. It’s just the way it is.

"well then you’re not getting the permit." Well duh, you simple minded fool.
Now run to the mod's asshole, I'll be glad to take the ban.
Robin

 

[prambo]

Can't believe 2 morons, 1 in particular, hijacked another thread with their typical bullshit. The "Ignore" button works.

 

[Bob]

Can't believe 2 morons, 1 in particular, hijacked another thread with their typical bullshit.

Can't tell if sarcasm or...

 

[Chevusa]

"well then you’re not getting the permit." Well duh, you simple minded fool.
Now run to the mod's asshole, I'll be glad to take the ban.
Robin

Huh? You ok?

I think the fool might be the guy who said he wouldn’t give up the documents online but in real life gave up everything - immediately when he applied for his own permit. Doah!

 

[prambo]

Can't tell if sarcasm or...

Not sarcasm - there are many posts in this thread from some members that are repetitive in content and, at times, insulting.

There is no "discussion", just continuous repetition of the same mantra with different words.

I find that it's a waste a my time to even bother to read ludicrous and repetitive diatribes.

Don't need the agro. So I "ignore" their posts.

 

[Chevusa]

Yea I wish people would actually read and not keep trying to argue something that has already been explicitly stated.

“I think grass is green”

“oh yeah! Well the grass is green, asshole”

“yea that’s what I said”

“yeah well it is is!”

 

[Robin]

Huh? You ok?

I think the fool might be the guy who said he wouldn’t give up the documents online but in real life gave up everything - immediately when he applied for his own permit. Doah!

Fuck you asshole.
Robin

 

[Chevusa]

Fuck you asshole.
Robin

Triggered by facts