Planning challenge to licensing requirements

[Grimscale]

I hope you understand where this lawsuit is coming from. I think it has a much greater likelihood of success and is much narrower in scope than asking SCOTUS to broadly declare “all licensing schemes in any manner whatsoever implemented are unconstitutional.”

I understand where you are coming from, and to some extent agree with you. A narrow-scope lawsuit does have a greater chance for success.
If/when you are successful, I hope you consider continuing the attack on these unConstitutional Laws.

 

[Cooolone]

It’s not just a licensing requirement though. That might be Constitutional.

Has been established that it is... Although based upon this recent ruling, I'm finding it hard to understand that it would be... ie, the Two Step scrutiny to exercise a Right. No Voter needs permission, but they do need to register. Interesting... So it should transition from licensing (permission) to notification of intent! (Registration) No?

It’s the fact that 1) the process to get the license required submission of irrelevant, private, and burdensome information that has no connection to a persons right to obtain a firearm / fitness to possess one, and 2) these onerous requirements are causing an enormous delay on issuing licenses/permits.

I would wonder why a considerable and concise list of the 43 other States "Shall" issue requirements be compiled and compared. This is what the Justices commented on as guidance?

My question is why does the challenge need to meet the current standards, rather than why they don't meet the guidance in Bruen? The malfeasance, burden, undo hardship placed for receiving permission to exercise 2A in NY is well established now. Why aren't we challenging why they don't meet the level of scrutiny established by the SCOTUS?

Anyways, posting to watch the thread and wish you good luck!

 

[CaliberPlus]

Since you have a client and seem personally vested, I hope the money end is taken care of. I hope to see a SHIT TON of lawsuits against the mess we have had thrown out against personal ownership of firearms and ammunition.

 

[TheRealJohnGalt]

Understood. Only ask cause while listening to GFH podcast where they were talking to a ANJRPC lawyer, they mentioned lone wolf suits in a very "bless their hearts " kind of way. Best of luck i

Understood. Only ask cause while listening to GFH podcast where they were talking to a ANJRPC lawyer, they mentioned lone wolf suits in a very "bless their hearts " kind of way. Best of luck regardless.

“True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within.”

That’s a Saul Alinsky quote, guy was a leftwing nut and threat to society but also possessed a Machiavellian level understanding about how to effectuate change. That quote always stuck with me.

I think the perception expressed by the attorney on the podcast is driven by two general sentiments: 1) a desire for money to keep flowing into the hands of certain firms and organizations who purport to be the only ones who can represent your interests, which of course is self serving because they need your donations to help fight! And 2) the fact that a lot of lone wolf actions are filed by pro se litigants or by attorneys without any real idea about how to navigate the field, or who misunderstand the law, thus giving a bad name to the idea of taking on the man by yourself.

My ego insists I inform you that I am not either of the persons categorized in section 2, above, and that my challenge doesn’t require large sums of cash. I make enough, the energy and time required to sustain this action doesn’t need to be purchased. And I am confident in my abilities...

we will see what happens!

 

[maverick52]

If I understand correctly Bruen allows NY to have a licensing scheme that is shall issue. The problem with the new law signed by Hochul is that the requirements are too subjective as opposed to objective and too onerous making it a burden to the average citizen. What about the sensitive areas? Are you challenging that as well?

 

[TheRealJohnGalt]

If I understand correctly Bruen allows NY to have a licensing scheme that is shall issue. The problem with the new law signed by Hochul is that the requirements are too subjective as opposed to objective and too onerous making it a burden to the average citizen. What about the sensitive areas? Are you challenging that as well?

Not challenging sensitive areas. Imagine that sensitive areas are an issue that would come into play AFTER you have your license, “you have it already, now where can you use it.”

Here, we will be challenging earlier steps - a point in the process where you do not even have a license yet.

And your understanding of Bruen and Heller is correct: and what Hochul is doing is implementing a licensing scheme, regardless of what it purports to be, that is de facto “may issue.”

 

[BerettaGuy]

If a group of elected officials and unelected bureaucrats can arbitrarily and at their own caprice plot to violate the civil rights of a group, is there no recourse?
Or, is this just a bunch of meaningless words in the New York Civil Rights Law?

SECTION 4 says
Right to keep and bear arms
Civil Rights (CVR) CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE 2
§ 4. Right to keep and bear arms. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.
And sorry, but requiring permission from the state just to own is infringement. We are not talking about driving license privileges here, we are talking about inalienable rights.

 

[TheRealJohnGalt]

If a group of elected officials and unelected bureaucrats can arbitrarily and at their own caprice plot to violate the civil rights of a group, is there no recourse?
Or, is this just a bunch of meaningless words in the New York Civil Rights Law?

SECTION 4 says
Right to keep and bear arms
Civil Rights (CVR) CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE 2
§ 4. Right to keep and bear arms. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.
And sorry, but requiring permission from the state just to own is infringement. We are not talking about driving license privileges here, we are talking about inalienable rights.

Let me play devils advocate: the right to obtain the arms cannot be infringed. That’s the thrust of the right?
So a registration document, or license, or receipt, or whatever you want to call it - which is issued contemporaneous with passing the 20 min fed background check - infringes on your capacity to purchase the arm how? Not does it inconvenience you, not are you uncomfortable with a registry of gun owners, does a same day permit/license/registration document actually infringe on your ability to possess the gun?
Likewise - should there be bo restriction whatsoever as to who can own a firearm, where they can carry it, or the nature of that firearm? To absurdity, should a 14 year old be permitted to carry a fully automatic Long gun into school with grenade launcher attachment?
If you agree that any regulation - an age requirement, a prohibition against felons or the mentally ill - then you agree the state maintains SOME interest in regulating firearms.
Not attacking just trying to explain.

 

[maverick52]

Not challenging sensitive areas. Imagine that sensitive areas are an issue that would come into play AFTER you have your license, “you have it already, now where can you use it.”

Here, we will be challenging earlier steps - a point in the process where you do not even have a license yet.

And your understanding of Bruen and Heller is correct: and what Hochul is doing is implementing a licensing scheme, regardless of what it purports to be, that is de facto “may issue.”

The problem with the sensitive areas is that the restrictions are so broad that you really no longer have a full carry. So you are applying for a license that is worthless.

 

[Karpteach]

Will you be going after Nassau county next?

 

[dwa12479]

I love the idea of intentionally filling out an application incomplete to generate standing to sue. Best of luck to you Sir, ill be interested to follow this case.

 

[Zerex]

Many issues here, to be resolved by the courts.

First, who would review the social media records, that you are not providing anyway?
This is chilling, and clearly anti 1st amendment censorship by Big Brother. Who sets the rules?

I support Leviticus and the Bible. Oops.

The mass shooters ,social media accounts, are replete with threats made against society, have been judged entirely legal and supported by libs, as free expression by outcasts.

No one does anything about the non binary, non gender specific shooters insane accounts, like the Binghamton kid, as they are good boys, and that is normal speech to the censors.

Would constitutional Lawyers review your social medai posts? Felons in the State legislature? Clinically inadequate personality, out of work Psychologists? Special hires, like Nina Jankowicz?

I can guarantee you that any social media post, that is not anti gun, may be cause for rejection.
Any political posts that are not lib, will be of concern.

How many have posted support for Donald Trump in the last 3 years, and against Shitty Pants Brandon? I do not have to renew until 2027, and this should be eliminated by then.
I will not buy any semi auto in the near future. I may sell some on consignment on GB, and bypass the entire NYS semi auto license deal.

What would be off limits to obtain a CC permit? Any support expressed for Donald Trump, and the facts surrounding election steal?

Requiring 4 good character references, signing for an applicant, AND SUBSEQUENT REVIEW BY A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL, all of whom are not felons............. BESIDES PASSING THE NICS CHECK, IS RIDICULOUS.

How ABOUT USING BAD CHARACTER REFERENCES?? Why not get some bad characters to sign? Are THEIR backgrounds ever reviewed? If it is now "shall issue", why the references at all?

The SCOTUS decision took care of that shit

If you need $$$$$$$$$$$ donations, let us know.

 

[spat]

I appreciate what you’re saying. I mean this in the least condescending way that an egotistical asshole lawyer like myself can possibly mean it, and I’m not suggesting you’re uneducated about firearms or the laws relating to them.

The state has a legal interest in regulating firearms to some extent. That’s not me talking, that’s actually scotus, when I get out of court later maybe I’ll send you verbatim what was said. The strength of the state’s interest in regulating firearm possession varies based on the type of firearm, the person, the location in which possession would occur, etc. And the state’s interest gets weighed against the right they’re infringing on by courts in determining whether or not the regulation is Constitutional. I’m sorry if this is pedantic.

Also not me talking, and I’ll pull the quotes, is either the majority opinion or a concurrence acknowledging that a licensing scheme is likely permissible, so long as that license SHALL be issued. It is likely that a court would uphold the concept of a license. What they would not uphold, or what they do not anticipate in agreeing a license requirement is permissible, is that getting that license involves an invasive background check with onerous and irrelevant requirements that take over a year to process.

So while I appreciate your sentiments about licensing generally, I hope you understand where this lawsuit is coming from. I think it has a much greater likelihood of success and is much narrower in scope than asking SCOTUS to broadly declare “all licensing schemes in any manner whatsoever implemented are unconstitutional.”

As a practical matter you're right of course.

As an ideological matter, requiring any form of permission to keep or bear any sort of arms is unacceptable.

 

[BerettaGuy]

Let me play devils advocate: the right to obtain the arms cannot be infringed. That’s the thrust of the right?
So a registration document, or license, or receipt, or whatever you want to call it - which is issued contemporaneous with passing the 20 min fed background check - infringes on your capacity to purchase the arm how? Not does it inconvenience you, not are you uncomfortable with a registry of gun owners, does a same day permit/license/registration document actually infringe on your ability to possess the gun?
Likewise - should there be bo restriction whatsoever as to who can own a firearm, where they can carry it, or the nature of that firearm? To absurdity, should a 14 year old be permitted to carry a fully automatic Long gun into school with grenade launcher attachment?
If you agree that any regulation - an age requirement, a prohibition against felons or the mentally ill - then you agree the state maintains SOME interest in regulating firearms.
Not attacking just trying to explain.

Not trying to argue. But as a NON-NY'er, I have been dealing with born and bred New York "gun rights advocates" that have been infringed since 1911. Many generations have been born and died not knowing any different. In fact, they think it is the same way everywhere else. ( IT IS NOT!) My personal vision would be the ability to purchase as many handguns as I want just like buying a shotgun or rifle. Now if I want to CCW those handguns, then I have no problem paying a small fee to be licensed to do so.

The only reason Sullivan Law lasted 100-plus years is that even Prosecuting Attorneys did not want to be the ones that caused it to go to appeal. Any charges resulting from Article 400 were plea-bargained down to time served to community service. No conviction no appeal. No appeal, no overturning a bad law.

I am also old enough to remember guns being sold in hardware stores prior to the 1968 GCA which created "background checks". The whole background check issue is a whole different story. The only reason it was allowed to stay was the record retention and destruction as well as the inability of the ATF to share information without due process written into the law. (for all the good that does these days) So based on that history, I think there is precedence for "common-sense restrictions" and how they were viewed historically.
They listened, they made law, and then they did what they wanted to do anyway. "They" being progressives bent on disarming America, except for them and their class of individual.

There is so much "wrong" with Article 400 that is just common group think today. Listing the make model and serial of every gun you are legally permitted to touch is one of them. Why do I say that? In the original SAFE Act, If I were to allow you to shoot a gun registered to me, I would have had to "transfer" that gun to you legally. That means getting an FFL to file a 4473 for me to allow you to use my guns. FFLs don't work for free.
They showed their hand! That is the sinister reason for and the intent behind the scheme of the listing of serial numbers of Handguns since 1911, Scary looking rifles since 2013, and soon all semi-automatic rifles since 2022. It also explains their paralyzing fear of "ghost guns". They are hell-bent on total confiscation someday and you can't confiscate without registration and serial numbers.

When I hear people try and be reasonable with "them", with reasonable arguments like you have provided, I see a lamb being led to slaughter. "They" will love you! They will pat you on your back. they will then try to destroy you. Don't ever forget that "they" are ruthless and very patient. Just look at the two lawyers that won the SCOTUS Case. They won't be on the A LIst for "progressive" cocktail parties ever again. In fact, they were let go from thier firm.

I commend your actions and wish you the best. I would like to see it done simultaneously in several other counties so show the capricious and arbitrary nature of the Statewide scheme and how it varies from county to county.

I would even donate to a crowdfunding situation to fight this if I knew that Houchl wasn't able to confiscate the funds.

ps. It is like I have stated before. Article 400 already states that an application for a premises license or a license simply to own "shall issue" without delay. Go into the Pistol Permit Office and ask for a "premises" license. When they stop laughing they will give you this: (and therein lies the rub). You must have a Carry Concealed License which requires you to show cause. (or at least it did up until last week)

A license for a pistol or revolver, other than an assault weapon or a disguised gun, shall be
issued to (a) have and possess in his dwelling by a householder

 

[BerettaGuy]

As a practical matter you're right of course.

As an ideological matter, requiring any form of permission to keep or bear any sort of arms is unaccelptable.

I agree and I ask Why does the state has a legal interest in regulating firearms to some extent.
Courts have ruled that the Police (the state) have no inherent duty to protect anyone.
So that begs the question
Why is it in the legal interest of the "state"? It is definitely in the interest of "progressives".

Police Have No Duty to Protect the Public - The American Prospect

Though often unsaid in police reform debates, numerous court precedents have established that cops aren’t obligated to act in the interests of citizens.

prospect.org

I forgot that Kathy Houcul thinks it is her duty to protect us and keep us safe.

 

[SomeSoldier]

I hope it works out better this time.

 

[Catskillkid]

Good luck to you. I'm hopeful that lawsuits like these will prove fruitful. If there ever is a need for crowdfunding set something up. I'm not a rich man but I can spare a few bucks.

 

[TheRealJohnGalt]

I hope whatever you are taking from this thread, that one thing is clear. I very much, very very much, value our second amendment rights.
Any time I say something like, “the state has a legal interest in regulating firearms to SOME extent,” it’s not because I believe that they do, or that I’m some kind of centrist on the issue, taking a “measured” or “politically reasonable” position on the matter.
To the contrary, it’s not my position at all when I restate these things, it’s the state of the law as recognized by our modern day SCOTUS. I must operate in the courts under the law of the land as it is recognized by SCOTUS, not as it SHOULD be recognized, if I want to be successful in eliminating these restrictions.
I know many of you are out for blood, are reading and understanding the second amendment in its purest and most plain reading, and that you want the whole thing undone in one fell swoop. That’s not how you attack an issue. The king is not checkmated on move one, you win small battles, positional battles, a piece here a piece there.
I appreciate the desire to see someone come in with nothing but our Bill of rights, waiving it around, quoting from it, and saying “that’s my case judge right here.” But that’s not going to work. Trust me that I have a plan and that I will, at a minimum, have a legitimate case. Whether or not I find relief from NY courts is another story. But we will just see what happens. Like I said, I have some rather good and unique arguments to make, I do not want to tip my hand but I promise they’re good.
To the person who asked for a timeline, I cannot give you one. Longer than you would want, I’m afraid, but as fast as I can.
To the person who asked about filing in Nassau and other counties, since we will be challenging a state law that is only incidentally implemented by Suffolk, a success in this case would necessarily mean success against the entire state (and all its counties).

 

[TheRealJohnGalt]

Good luck to you. I'm hopeful that lawsuits like these will prove fruitful. If there ever is a need for crowdfunding set something up. I'm not a rich man but I can spare a few bucks.

I appreciate that. I’m not looking for donations. I do not want this thread or my lawsuit to ever become a “money” thing, that’s not why we are doing it. True story. Not about money. And I don’t want my intentions questioned or perceived to be something they're not.
During the pandemic, I wondered where all the lawyers were? Why were the restrictions not being fought? I won’t go much further because I would like to preserve anonymity at this time, but it took a look in the mirror to see what the problem was. At this time, since I’m not doing much in terms of litigating this case, and won’t be until we are denied, there is no need for me to devote a disproportionate amount of time to the matter. I’m still able to run my practice profitably.
I appreciate the offer though, but let’s see where this takes us first.
Edited for grammar.

 

[BMF JK]

Following

 

[Saltwater60]

Good luck, good lawsuit, and thanks for posting and being involved.

 

[TheRealJohnGalt]

I love the idea of intentionally filling out an application incomplete to generate standing to sue. Best of luck to you Sir, ill be interested to follow this case.

You mean filling the application out correctly! hehe

 

[GOPerfect]

Hey, attorney here, I am not fishing for clients. I already have what I need. I just wanted to post in this forum - and I will update the thread periodically - our plans for challenging the “requirements” that Hochul so very recently decreed. Follow if you would like.

We will be submitting our application in Suffolk County tomorrow. We will not be providing any references.

We will be attaching an addendum to the application packet explaining that we are declining to provide any references and furthermore declining to provide any social media account information, notwithstanding the fact that social media account information isn’t yet required.

Although the application to license process is considerably longer than the six months, we anticipate a denial/rejection based on an “incomplete” submission to be issued much faster.

Upon receipt of a formal denial/rejection, we will immediately file suit. We have some...novel...ideas for that suit, too...

Please do not contact me asking me to represent you on any matters whatsoever including those relevant to the forum, to join the lawsuit, for help with applications, or for any legal advice. I am posting here solely to keep members apprised of a legal challenge that we intend to bring.

I will post more information/updates when they are available/relevant.

Thanks.

I will be watching this thread and I say, good luck with your endeavors

 

[Acer-m14]

Good luck ..

i finally found 4 references .. 2 are dogs and 2 are ferrets .. none live with me or are relatives

watching this this Thread ..

 

[Dr. Evil]

I wish you the best. Thanks for jumping on the forum to keep us abreast of the situation.

 

[pshift]

My significant other is startinhg the process (finally). We will see what new hurdles are encountered...

 

[Grimscale]

does a same day permit/license/registration document actually infringe on your ability to possess the gun?

If that permit is REQUIRED to possess the gun, then it has the potential to infringe unless it is CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY a "shall issue" with no onerous requirements, and NO FEE. If you can pass a background check you should have that registration immediately.
I should not now, nor ever, have to pay a fee/tax/bribe to be able to exercise my Rights.
And, other than stating "Mr Grimscale is hereby registered as a gun owner", it should not have any other information regarding what guns I own. The .gov has no business knowing what I possess unless I use it illegally, which there are already laws against.
The permitting scheme, as enacted within NYS, is 100% unConstitutional for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is it is based on the premise that certain classes of arms are completely banned unless special permission is given by the very government that is not allowed to ban them.

I understand your "piecemeal" statement with regard to getting these overturned. It is just extremely frustrating that they can pass dozens of infringing rules in one huge package and yet we cannot get that entire package thrown out in one shot.
If any portion of that "law" is void, the entire package must then be void as well. Make them have to waste their time resubmitting and revoting on each and every provision they think they can keep.

 

[TheRealJohnGalt]

Interested & following.

I apologize in advance if it sounds as if I am doubting you, but I tend to question why people choose certain actions. I hope you don't take my comments as much more than curiosity or healthy skepticism.

I am curious what motivated you to share your intentions with this forum. It's a foregone conclusion that it's under some level of monitoring. Assume for a moment that monitoring is robust and reactive enough to filter down and provide a granular response to the application. Since you've provided when and where you will be applying and the addendum you intend to include, lack of references, etc. couldn't that flag who your client is? And that there is a potential suit to follow pending the outcome? Why out yourself in this fashion? Or is my premise that unlikely?

You referenced chess earlier, but in this moment it seems more like poker - you've tipped your hand, now they have to decide whether you have a real hand or are just bluffing. So what if they decide you do have the hand and just approve it to avoid the suit? It sets no legal precedent, correct? Although, if there were true justice, it would, since it would put on display just how arbitrary this process is.

I am curious if you have posted this info elsewhere, or have plans to do so?

I'm not asking you to prove anything (you sound like a lawyer), but by the same token I take little at face value, mostly I am just very curious about the strategy.

A few reasons:
1. I thought it might be interesting for this community to be aware of actions being taken to fight Hochul's insanity, from inception to final decision. You can see what the legal process is like on the ground level, as much as I can make available. Timelines, responses, rulings, etc. Many people here know what the law is, or at least what the law says and is supposed to be, but unless you practice (and this is true in nearly every field of law) you don't really get it until you do it. Things don't work like they're supposed to. Knowledge is power and I think this...exercise...might provide a different set of knowledge to many on here who (understandably) are frustrated by how Hochul can just blatantly disregard SCOTUS and 2A.

2. I thought this community could use a morale boost. Or at least keep things interesting. What a kick in the balls from our Queen after SCOTUS delivered a huge victory to NYers.

3. I am not concerned about tipping my hand, trust me I have not. I don't care if they're able to identify the applicant. I also may not have been completely forthcoming about all of the information I posted on here, hehe. In any event, if they were able to identify the applicant, it matters not. Here's my fastball, come and hit it...

4. I would be lying if I said I wasn't looking to improve my knowledge through feedback. I don't know everything. I don't know if I'm 100% right - only that I DO know I have a plan and argument with legal backing. Some posts on here have challenged certain ideas, or positions, that I am taking and/or intend to take. It was good practice for me to issue rebuttals, to back my points up, to also hear new ideas and different perspectives. You don't need to be a lawyer, if you're right you're right. And I think the interaction I've had on this thread has been useful.

In the event my client was flagged, so be it. The application was submitted consistent with 2A, Heller, Bruen, etc. The applicant legitimately wants a CCW. The statements made on the application are entirely true and no falsehood was uttered. We are not trying to weasel anything by; to the contrary, the addendum blatantly states our intention to comply with all lawful and constitutional requirements, and nothing else. They can tell us we need to do 20 jumping jacks, it isn't happening.

But there is ANOTHER reason I posted on here. The main reason. I will not say it now. Can anyone figure it out? Imaginary trophy for you if you do, but I will not confirm.

 

[Bustedknees]

You mean filling the application out correctly! hehe

What are your plans IF they approve your application?

 

[TheRealJohnGalt]

If that permit is REQUIRED to possess the gun, then it has the potential to infringe unless it is CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY a "shall issue" with no onerous requirements, and NO FEE. If you can pass a background check you should have that registration immediately.
I should not now, nor ever, have to pay a fee/tax/bribe to be able to exercise my Rights.
And, other than stating "Mr Grimscale is hereby registered as a gun owner", it should not have any other information regarding what guns I own. The .gov has no business knowing what I possess unless I use it illegally, which there are already laws against.
The permitting scheme, as enacted within NYS, is 100% unConstitutional for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is it is based on the premise that certain classes of arms are completely banned unless special permission is given by the very government that is not allowed to ban them.

I understand your "piecemeal" statement with regard to getting these overturned. It is just extremely frustrating that they can pass dozens of infringing rules in one huge package and yet we cannot get that entire package thrown out in one shot.
If any portion of that "law" is void, the entire package must then be void as well. Make them have to waste their time resubmitting and revoting on each and every provision they think they can keep.

Agree with these sentiments 100%. The way I read SCOTUS discussing licensing/registration, they "assume" the process is same day. They have not been presented with evidence to the contrary. They have not addressed challenges "within" the licensing scheme.

Thus, this (future) lawsuit. It needs to be done.