Remove Sportsman Restrictions from (Rockland County) Pistol Permits!

[Raven20878]

The license.

Has already.

Been issued.

Proper cause existed for issuance of a concealed carry license without regard to employment or place of possession. That ship has sailed.

Yes, but if your issued license is restricted in any way (such as Target, Sportsperson) then that is how you met the proper cause requirement. You showed proper cause for the issuance of a pistol permit for the specific use under the issued restriction. If you carry outside of that restriction you are in effect, violating an order of the court (if your licensing official is a judge). Now you can choose to do so and deal with whatever consequences may or may not occur. That does not change the fact that the restrictions are real. They are not a suggestion. Violating them may not be a violation of Penal Law 400, but they would still be a violation of the order issued by the licensing official. Now you can argue what are the chances of being caught while carrying out of your restrictions and I will admit that for most circumstances the chances of being caught (if you are carrying properly concealed) are slim. However, I can tell you with absolute certainty that if you used your firearm, even in the most extreme life threatening circumstance, in a situation where you were carrying outside of your restrictions you would be in for a legal world of hurt of immense proportions both criminal and civil. It will be a horrible day even if you had a Full Carry/Unrestricted license. Now you may argue that you would take your chances (better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6) and that is certainly your prerogative. But that does not change the fact that everything Chevusa has stated is absolutely 100% spot on from a legal perspective. And that is something I can attest to.

 

[Chevusa]

A court order is enforceable and is not specifically in the penal law. Again see the above examples. "Be home by 9". "You failed to demonstrate a need, therefore Hunting and Target only" "SO ORDERED". Pull your pistol permit file. Submit a request for it. You will find the court order that triggered the reason for your permit to be issued. That's a legal document.

As far as finding a case of it happening, do a google search. On other forums there are people that have said it's happened to them or a personal friend. You already know this though.

 

[Darth]

es, but if your issued license is restricted in any way (such as Target, Sportsperson) then that is how you met the proper cause requirement. You showed proper cause for the issuance of a pistol permit for the specific use under the issued restriction.

That's not how it works.

The license is
(f) have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or
place of possession, by any person when proper cause exists for the
issuance thereof;

IF the proper cause FOR ISSUANCE of the license exists, THEN it is without regard to employment or place of possession.

It is NOT, in any way:

(f) have and carry concealed, with regard to employment or
place of possession, by any person when proper cause exists for the
issuance of a license with restrictions;

And I appreciate that you might be able to attest to it, but unfortunately the courts disagree.

 

[Darth]

As far as finding a case of it happening, do a google search. On other forums there are people that have said it's happened to them or a personal friend. You already know this though.

You're absolutely correct. I do.

It's right next to the NYSP document that confirms which AR stocks are NY compliant.

 

[Chevusa]

The sheer fact that the restrictions exist in the first place, and are not applied by a sole licensing official, but rather near-universally throughout the entire state, are proof that they hold the power of the court. They are therefore enforceable by a court of law. The judges aren't fooling themselves like you may think they are. If they didn't mean anything they would not take the time to review each applicant and determine the cause shown, rather every person would get the same permit.

So let me issue a call to action. If you are so sure you've got it right and know more than the judges do, write up a notice to your judge that according to Penal law 400, you can and do carry without regard to location or activity, regardless to what is printed on your permit. Let us know what he says. Be sure to upload a copy of the letter you send and the one you receive back. Will you do this? No, because you're not stupid and because you know what the consequences would be. That is the entire point and the final nail in this coffin.

 

[Darth]

The sheer fact that the restrictions exist in the first place, and are not applied by a sole licensing official, but rather near-universally throughout the entire state, are proof that they hold the power of the court.

And yet again wrong. How in your mind are you even possibly convincing yourself they have the power of the court?

The judges aren't fooling themselves like you may think they are. If they didn't mean anything they would not take the time to review each applicant and determine the cause shown, rather every person would get the same permit.

No, they are fooling people like you that are gullible enough to regurgitate bad info.

"Rather every person would get the same permit." Yeah, that's how it works in most counties...

So let me issue a call to action. If you are so sure you've got it right and know more than the judges do, write up a notice to your judge that according to Penal law 400, you can and do carry without regard to location or activity, regardless to what is printed on your permit. Let us know what he says. Be sure to upload a copy of the letter you send and the one you receive back. Will you do this? No, because you're not stupid and because you know what the consequences would be. That is the entire point and the final nail in this coffin.

It's so funny you mention this, because this is EXACTLY WHAT I DID back when I had a restricted permit.

The judge issued a regular "Target/Hunting permit." I needed to get that removed to get my PA CCW. I wrote to the judge. The response I got was "nobody ever asked before, and the Hunting/Target thing was just the standard." Now, RIGHT IN THE OFFICE where you sign up is the application to grab for "unrestricted licenses." That's exactly what my parents got when they went for their permits years later.

Now this is all anecdotal, so it doesn't mean much to an outside observer, but I do get some personal gratification know that this is exactly what I did years ago that started the entire process for this county. It's a rural county and nobody simply asked before.

 

[Chevusa]

And yet again wrong. How in your mind are you even possibly convincing yourself they have the power of the court?


Now this is all anecdotal, so it doesn't mean much to an outside observer, but I do get some personal gratification know that this is exactly what I did years ago that started the entire process for this county. It's a rural county and nobody simply asked before.

Because they are a Court Order.


Your second part is spot on. People around here complain when they get their permit and it's marked Target/Hunting. Then I ask what they applied for and they say Target/Hunting. Lol. There is a lot of bad information out there from instructors telling people not to apply for Personal Protection (Unrestricted) because they will never get it. I applied for Personal Protection and ONLY that and that is what I was given. People think that they will be flat out denied a permit if they fail to show the proper cause. This is not the case. Even if you fail to show cause you will be issued a Restricted permit (also represented in the above picture). To apply for the lesser permit only gives the judges an easy way out. Keep the heat on them and don't be afraid to ask for what you deserve.

 

[Darth]

Because they are a Court Order.
View attachment 60354

Your second part is spot on. People around here complain when they get their permit and it's marked Target/Hunting. Then I ask what they applied for and they say Target/Hunting. Lol. There is a lot of bad information out there from instructors telling people not to apply for Personal Protection (Unrestricted) because they will never get it. I applied for Personal Protection and ONLY that and that is what I was given. People think that they will be flat out denied a permit if they fail to show the proper cause. This is not the case. Even if you fail to show cause you will be issued a Restricted permit (also represented in the above picture). To apply for the lesser permit only gives the judges an easy way out. Keep the heat on them and don't be afraid to ask for what you deserve.

You can post that photograph as many times as you'd like. And it would still be as irrelevant. Just so you are clear on the "court order" the "court order" is for the permit to be granted. The bit about "hunting/target shooting" is not in any way a court order, so let's save the forum some bandwidth and not post that again.

If you want more bad information that "my friend/a cop/this guy/an FFL" spreads, it's anything along the lines of "I just want to own a pistol, I don't want one of those concealed carry permits." If you follow that "advice" you will be applying for a premises permit. Almost nobody in NYS (not NYC) does this. And for good reason. If you have a "pistol permit" in NYS, and it isn't a premises or for employment, etc. you have a full, concealed carry permit in the eyes of the law.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Chevy, I think this is the first time you’ve ever read Penal law 400.

Anyway, Penal Law 400 gives various licenses. A license for a gunsmith or dealer in firearms to possess on the premises. A license for a home dweller or a shop keeper to have an possess on the premises. A license to have and carry concealed for various specific people. A judge, a messenger for a financial institution, a regular employee of an institution of the state, or of any county, city, town or village while employed, and finally the one we all get.

F. to have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or place of possession, by any person when proper cause exists for the issuance thereof;

The proper cause is for getting the concealed carry license itself. Not proper cause for specific restrictions like hunting and target. The license no matter what is stamped on it is a concealed carry license. It isn’t a premise license or a target license or a hunting license. It’s a concealed carry license whether it has restrictions stamped on it or not.

You are twisting what the proper cause part is for. And you keep posting that court decision that just reiterates what Penal Law 400 already says that a license can be revoked by a judge for any reason. Ask any lawyer. Hell. Even the NYSP at one time had on their webpage that it was a carry license regardless what restrictions were put on it. And they were correct. Because it is a carry license.

 

[Chevusa]

F. to have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or place of possession, by any person when proper cause exists for the issuance thereof;

The proper cause is for getting the concealed carry license itself. Not proper cause for specific restrictions like hunting and target. The license no matter what is stamped on it is a concealed carry license. It isn’t a premise license or a target license or a hunting license. It’s a concealed carry license whether it has restrictions stamped on it or not..

If you have a restricted license then you didn't meet the proper cause to carry anytime, anywhere. Not my opinion, see previously cited law texts. By the judge creating a restricted class (with his broad authority on the matter [see Supreme Court official decisions]) he is allowing for the issuance of a permit you wouldn't otherwise qualify to get. It's messed up but this is NY and it's as good as it's going to get. Not everything is in the penal law. The court still has broad standing. (Ex: Home by 9pm. not in penal law. Still a lawful enforceable court order). To admit that half of what's written on a piece of paper is a court order, but not the other half that you guys dont agree with - which is written on that exact same piece of paper is silly and foolish. You have offered your opinion, most likely formed from engaging with others with the same predetermined mindset as yourself. I have provided the court decisions that do not support your opinion.

 

[Marine Cpl]

If you have a restricted license then you didn't meet the proper cause to carry anytime, anywhere. Not my opinion, see previously cited law texts. By the judge creating a restricted class (with his broad authority on the matter [see Supreme Court official decisions]) he is allowing for the issuance of a permit you wouldn't otherwise qualify to get. It's messed up but this is NY and it's as good as it's going to get. Not everything is in the penal law. The court still has broad standing. (Ex: Home by 9pm. not in penal law. Still a lawful enforceable court order). To admit that half of what's written on a piece of paper is a court order, but not the other half that you guys dont agree with - which is written on that exact same piece of paper is silly and foolish. You have offered your opinion, most likely formed from engaging with others with the same predetermined mindset as yourself. I have provided the court decisions that do not support your opinion.

Forget it. You are like a mule. Have you ever served in a Grand Jury or a case that made trial? You can only be charged with what is in the Penal Law. That’s it. As far as court orders go, they have to be specific in the Penal law.

Article 215 | NYS Penal Law | Judicial Proceedings Offenses

Bribing a witness. Tampering, Intimidating a witness or victim. Tampering with a Juror. Criminal contempt. Aggravated criminal contempt. Bail jumping.

ypdcrime.com

 

[Darth]

If you have a restricted license then you didn't meet the proper cause to carry anytime, anywhere. Not my opinion, see previously cited law texts. By the judge creating a restricted class (with his broad authority on the matter [see Supreme Court official decisions]) he is allowing for the issuance of a permit you wouldn't otherwise qualify to get. It's messed up but this is NY and it's as good as it's going to get. Not everything is in the penal law. The court still has broad standing. (Ex: Home by 9pm. not in penal law. Still a lawful enforceable court order). To admit that half of what's written on a piece of paper is a court order, but not the other half that you guys dont agree with - which is written on that exact same piece of paper is silly and foolish. You have offered your opinion, most likely formed from engaging with others with the same predetermined mindset as yourself. I have provided the court decisions that do not support your opinion.

The problem being, for the perhaps 20th time now, judges don't make laws. They can't just invent classes of permits. That is what the courts have specially upheld.

And as for the "ignoring half the written page stuff", no, that's your inability to read a court document. Working in a correctional facility and dealing with them every day, what is ORDERED is the permit to be GRANTED.

You'll see this all the time on orders to produce inmates. There will be a big long write up and then the bit at the end will say what is ordered. Because the courts *do* have that legal authority.

Whereas with reductions they have the same authority ss ORDERING you to preform the can-can naked in the street. Not how it works.

 

[Cooolone]

I love the hysteria... Of keyboard jockeys who like to promote they "think" they know what they're talking about. All hypothetical situations when, in the real world, the shit they promote online as fact just never happens. Submitting an application to be allowed to exercise "personal protection" is a hoot! Smack dab in direct conflict with SCOTUS rulings that well defined an individuals right to defense... Why would I need to ask for it, plead for it? Fuck that shit!

Run scared, just like they want you to... Because on the weak minded, it's working, the desired effect has been achieved, and what they wanted in the first place, to make you worry and rethink carrying at all, has worked. Schooling on "How to Impose Defacto Restrictions 101", without actually writing into law, or allowing a case to challenge improper laws passed, to see the inside of a courtroom, but have the mass populace believe it must be adhered to.

How about the requirement for a "Safe"... Hmmmm, guess that's required too right, ignore more SCOTUS rulings? Some counties "requiring" it in the home regardless of the circumstances which might define a necessity at all. Home inspections when in possession of an arbitrary number of firearms, etc., etc., etc. All "fails", by the authorities that believe they have a right to impose such arbitrary burdens.

For example, just because I registered a firearm in Westchester (I'm not a resident, just an example), and they want to inspect my home because I've registered 20, do you think I owe the declaration that those firearms are "not" present at the address? Maybe Lawfully in another jurisdiction, or place? Thereby rendering their so called concern invalid? Or if I do allow them to inspect, and the weapons are not present, that I owe an explanation then as to the whereabouts of said firearms? Lmao... Such a grievous intrusion and violation of another right, that they think they can, just "because"...

Just as crazy an example too, is how I love when people state emphatically, that while passing through (traveling/vehicle) NYC you need to stop, disarm yourself, lock the firearm up, separate it from it's ammunition, blah, blah, blah, and then reverse the process once outside city limits... Tell me, is that true? (Lmao)...

As it applies, any request for "purpose" on an application, is and should be, "for all legal purposes"... PERIOD! Let a judge explain denial on that!

I don't need to define to an agent of the state, my necessity, in order to exercise a Right! Carry how you want, don't carry if you're afraid of the big bad wolf that never comes. These threads never get old as they supply great entertainment, and at the same time, they never get less annoying, lol.

Fact is, on its own merit, you will never, ever have a problem just for carrying... Within, or outside, your so called administrative restrictions... Let them write whatever the fuck they want on the thing.

Fact is 99% who go along, do it just because they don't want to jeopardize their precious little world. "Permitted" and "Licensed" to exercise their rights. Lmao... Really! Ok. It's ok for those who want to do it. And it's also ok for those who voluntarily decline to acquiesce administrative requests.

Happy New Year & Have a Nice Day!

 

[Chevusa]

I love the hysteria... Of keyboard jockeys who like to promote they "think" they know what they're talking about. All hypothetical situations when, in the real world, the shit they promote online as fact just never happens. Submitting an application to be allowed to exercise "personal protection" is a hoot! Smack dab in direct conflict with SCOTUS rulings that well defined an individuals right to defense... Why would I need to ask for it, plead for it? Fuck that shit!

That's where I stopped. Because you are saying and doing two different things because you know you are wrong. Otherwise according to you the permit isn't necessary in the first place, yet you went out and got one. Why? Just do it the way you claim you can. Oh and the SCOTUS didn't say you have the right to personal defense with a weapon OUTSIDE of your home. Only inside.

I'm not "running scared" either. I was given out of the gate a Unrestricted license because I showed just cause as required by penal law 400.2(f).
Carrying in an unrestricted manner when you only showed cause to do so for hunting and fishing would be "absurd" as directly quoted by NY Supreme Court.

If you think the judges statewide are doing this to fill spare time then the joke is on you. It's not one specific case. It's widespread and has been ordered by the highest court in the state and appealed federally, that the restrictions stand.

If you have a case before the judge and he thinks you should be home by 9pm for good reason, he can so order it. It's not in the penal law that you have to be home by 9pm, but it was ordered as an administrative function of the court. The order will stand. You arguing in court that 9pm isn't in the penal law will not be a recognized defense.

You mention things that "should be", and I'm sure I would agree with most of your ideas, but that's not the way it is. I want Santa Clause to be real. But as much as I do, he's never going to come down my chimney on Dec 24th.

 

[Chevusa]

The problem being, for the perhaps 20th time now, judges don't make laws.

The highest court has ruled that when it comes to the permits the Judge has broad authority to regulate them. Sucks. I know.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Right. A court ruled that they could add restrictions. What you don’t seem to be understanding is that that doesn’t change the classification of the license. It’s still a concealed carry license. Not a target license. You can carry on that license that says target only but if caught it can be revoked. That’s it. That’s the very worst that you can get. A revocation.

No crime is committed. And as far as violating court orders, the penal law is specific on what court orders are and which ones carry what sentences. There is no broad court order. Only specific ones and certainly none that relate to carry licenses.

 

[Chevusa]

This is reducing this into the simplest possible terms. Everyone here agrees that the judge can take away your permit for anything that is determined to be "good cause". (Specific citations in previous posts) So when the court is saying that your actions are "absurd" why would you think for a minute that they wouldn't take the permit away? It defies logic.

 

[Chevusa]

Right. A court ruled that they could add restrictions. What you don’t seem to be understanding is that that doesn’t change the classification of the license. It’s still a concealed carry license. Not a target license. You can carry on that license that says target only but if caught it can be revoked. That’s it. That’s the very worst that you can get. A revocation.

No crime is committed. And as far as violating court orders, the penal law is specific on what court orders are and which ones carry what sentences. There is no broad court order. Only specific ones and certainly none that relate to carry licenses.

So you admit that doing it is wrong. That's all I was looking for. Not "they are fake" or "they don't mean anything" or "ignore them everybody". "Hey judge - it's not in the penal law!" (As he issues an order to surrender ALL of your firearms) We are now on the same page.

 

[Darth]

This is reducing this into the simplest possible terms. Everyone here agrees that the judge can take away your permit for anything that is determined to be "good cause". (Specific citations in previous posts) So when the court is saying that your actions are "absurd" why would you think for a minute that they wouldn't take the permit away? It defies logic.

"For anything" = Restrictions are literally pointless.

You can get your unrestricted permit revoked "for anything."

 

[Marine Cpl]

This is reducing this into the simplest possible terms. Everyone here agrees that the judge can take away your permit for anything that is determined to be "good cause". (Specific citations in previous posts) So when the court is saying that your actions are "absurd" why would you think for a minute that they wouldn't take the permit away? It defies logic.

Nobody is saying that they cannot revoke your permit. We have repeatedly told you that they can revoke it for any reason. At this point you do not even know what you are arguing.

 

[Chevusa]

You can get your unrestricted permit revoked "for anything."

Not so. It has been ruled (see prior posts for exact court cases) that a permit can be pulled for "good cause". Good cause is listed in my above posts. The specific reasons were listed by the court. Certainly someone intentionally violating a written restriction for which the court already ruled is "absurd" would constitute "good cause".

You are accusing me of that of which you have done. Citing misinformation and spreading fear that a permit can be pulled for no reason whatsoever.

So let me flip this around on you. Cite the person that had their permit pulled for "anything". Cite the person that was revoked because the judge woke up in a bad mood, as you have suggested. "The burden of proof is on you".

 

[Marine Cpl]

Not so. It has been ruled (see prior posts for exact court cases) that a permit can be pulled for "good cause". Good cause is listed in my above posts. The specific reasons were listed by the court. Certainly someone intentionally violating a written restriction for which the court already ruled is "absurd" would constitute "good cause".

You are accusing me of that of which you have done. Citing misinformation and spreading fear that a permit can be pulled for no reason whatsoever.

So let me flip this around on you. Cite the person that had their permit pulled for "anything". Cite the person that was revoked because the judge woke up in a bad mood, as you have suggested. "The burden of proof is on you".

Good cause fall into the category of any reason whatsoever. What’s the matter with you?

I have posted previously the relevant clause in Penal Law 400 that says that a license can be revoked or suspended by an issuing judge for any reason.

 

[Chevusa]

Everyone likes to reference "printing". An accidental print is going to be looked at a lot differently than a pre-motivated person defying the judges instructions.

"Good cause" has been defined by the State Supreme Court...
It is well established that' [a licensing officer] is vested with broad discretion in determining whether to revoke a pistol permit and may do so for any good causer' including 'a finding that the petitioner lack the essential temperament or character which should be present in one entrusted with a dangerous [weapon] . . . . , or that he or she does not possess the maturity, prudence, carefulness, good character, temperament, demeanor and judgment necessary to have a pistol permit'

It does not say "revokable at any time we want".

 

[Marine Cpl]

Everyone likes to reference "printing". An accidental print is going to be looked at a lot differently than a pre-motivated person defying the judges instructions.

"Good cause" has been defined by the State Supreme Court...
It is well established that' [a licensing officer] is vested with broad discretion in determining whether to revoke a pistol permit and may do so for any good causer' including 'a finding that the petitioner lack the essential temperament or character which should be present in one entrusted with a dangerous [weapon] . . . . , or that he or she does not possess the maturity, prudence, carefulness, good character, temperament, demeanor and judgment necessary to have a pistol permit'

It does not say "revokable at any time we want".

Look. What is it that you are arguing? First it was that you can be charged criminally. After that was proven to be false, now your argument is that it isn’t revocable at any time?

According to your court case it says that it can be revoked. Whatever the reason for the revocation is, it is irrelevant. Many different reasons are spelled in the Penal Law. Whether for a felony, domestic violence, mental health, not having good moral character, or in your case of argument, for violating the restrictions.

The point is that you cannot be charged criminally. That’s it. It can be revoked but you cannot be charged criminally. That’s all we are saying. You cannot be charged criminally. Again. You cannot be charged criminally.

So with that said, what is your argument now?

 

[Chevusa]

You cannot be charged criminally.
So with that said, what is your argument now?

Under PL 400 you are correct. I never said you could be.

How about willful failure to obey an order of the court. Sound familiar? (I'm restricted by the court but screw them! I can do what I want!) The court's power to punish (called "citing") includes fines and/or jail time (called "imposing sanctions").

Has is happened? Who knows. But it is surely plausible, and even likely. I know you read the law and think you are a legal scholar, but the fact is if someone is defying the judge there are 10 ways from Sunday that they could take enforceable action on you. Do I know them all? Nope. But neither do you.

If a new person comes on here looking for sound advice and you tell them "Go for it, restrictions are fake", they could be setting themselves up for a bad day.

 

[Darth]

How about willful failure to obey an order of the court. Sound familiar? (I'm restricted by the court but screw them! I can do what I want!) The court's power to punish (called "citing") includes fines and/or jail time (called "imposing sanctions").

No. Judges can't just make up whatever they want and it is therefor "a court order." That's the whole part you are missing.

If a new person comes on here looking for sound advice and you tell them "Go for it, restrictions are fake", they could be setting themselves up for a bad day.

So we say that, and you say now. We are now at a crossroads. How do we determine the correct path to take? By looking at the evidence.

The courts ruled the restrictions have no force of law. The NYSP said they have no force of law. Then you move on to "yeah, but your permit will get pulled." To this point we STILL have no examples of this. So considering all of this, I hope that such new members DO follow the evidence and don't run from heir own shadow and end up dead because of it.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Under PL 400 you are correct. I never said you could be.

How about willful failure to obey an order of the court. Sound familiar? (I'm restricted by the court but screw them! I can do what I want!) The court's power to punish (called "citing") includes fines and/or jail time (called "imposing sanctions").

Has is happened? Who knows. But it is surely plausible, and even likely. I know you read the law and think you are a legal scholar, but the fact is if someone is defying the judge there are 10 ways from Sunday that they could take enforceable action on you. Do I know them all? Nope. But neither do you.

If a new person comes on here looking for sound advice and you tell them "Go for it, restrictions are fake", they could be setting themselves up for a bad day.

I already told you and quoted which Court orders have sentences attached to them along with definitions. Only certain court orders are spelled out in the Penal law with a sentence attached.

 

[Chevusa]

No. Judges can't just make up whatever they want and it is therefor "a court order." That's the whole part you are missing.

You are being intentionally broad. Of course that can't make up anything they want. But what we are talking about are restricted permits and they CAN do that and they CAN take action if you disobey.

 

[Marine Cpl]

You are being intentionally broad. Of course that can't make up anything they want. But what we are talking about are restricted permits and they CAN do that and they CAN take action if you disobey.

Correct. By revoking your permit. That’s it.

 

[Darth]

Correct. By revoking your permit. That’s it.

And even that is "alleged."

Didn't we get to this point 267 posts ago?