Dude open carrying. nobody freaked out!

[SteyrAug]

Day 444, I already suggested this to scat as he lives where I used to. He, of course, will not do it. He prefers to rant on about "you have to show me" etc..

Suggest you and I abandon trying to argue with these children who just want to argue for the sake of conflict.

They are wrong and just, like a child, cannot admit it. I'm surprised they have not blamed the Russians yet !

Hot air warriors with no balls to back up what they claim.

The court cases are clear, open carry is a nono.

 

[Day444]

You're saying that the permit only allows you to possess a handgun while carrying it concealed, right ? So, my guns in my safe are illegal right now ?
When I bring a couple to the range in a case in the back seat, I am also illegal, because I'm not carrying them ? I say both of those are legal, because it is a permit to possess, and a permit to carry conceald, not a permit to possess only while carried concealed.

That's not what he's saying at all. No, weapons that are being safe guarded either in a safe or some sort of case are not illegal. In fact in some jurisdictions and while traveling/transporting it's required. Yes, there are laws pertaining to this. Your examples still imply possession, if they are in a safe or case, well they are concealed. The point your making about the permit, it's both, a permit to possess and it allows you to carry concealed.

 

[spat]

That's not what he's saying at all. No, weapons that are being safe guarded either in a safe or some sort of case are not illegal. In fact in some jurisdictions and while traveling/transporting it's required. Yes, there are laws pertaining to this. Your examples still imply possession, if they are in a safe or case, well they are concealed. The point your making about the permit, it's both, a permit to possess and it allows you to carry concealed.

Ok, that was my point. It is both a permit to possess, which is why it's OK to leave your gun locked up somewhere not on your person, and a permit to carry concealed (the only permit available in most states, because the possession doesn't require one).

OC is just possession without carrying concealed, just like keeping it in a safe. That's why they don't have OC permits in any state, and in most states (absent a specific law to the contrary) if you are legal to possess you are legal to OC.

The legal authority necessary to possess is all that's necessary to OC, unless they have a specific stature to the contrary. NY does not.

 

[SteyrAug]

Day, you have to read ALL the way back. He said the very law I cited did prohibit open carry.

When the concealed carry website says it does and even cites case law to support no concealed carry it's clear he's wrong.

His comments about gun safes etc are just a diversion to get off the focus of the thread.

Someone said he was open carrying and nobody took exception. As an LEO he can do that, ordinary folks cannot.

 

[spat]

The court cases are clear, open carry is a nono.

Not any case that I am aware of, would you care to share ?

Day 444, I already suggested this to scat

Oh, and BTW, childish name calling is a great way to convince adults that your argument has no actual merit.

 

[SteyrAug]

Spat okay, you are right and the CC carry website is wrong. I look forward to seeing you hiking around Geneseo with the big iron on your hip.

Given your lack of legal training, appearance before NYS courts, any case law to support your position and the unique nature of the OP re: the issue of open carry..... I'll stick with what the CC carry website says as the actually have attorneys on staff.

Found this on the Open Carry website. Is it incorrect ?

NPL 400.00 describes the types of handgun carry licenses which are available and a license to openly carry a handgun in public is not one of them.

"This case targets the license available under section 400.00(2)(f). That section provides that a license "shall be issued to... have and carry [a firearm] concealed... by any person when proper cause exists for the issuance thereof." N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f). This is the only license available to carry a concealed handgun "without regard to employment or place of possession." Id. Given that New York bans carrying handguns openly, applicants—like Plaintiffs in this case—who desire to carry a handgun outside the home and who do not fit within one of the employment categories must demonstrate proper cause pursuant to section 400.00(2)(f)." Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit (2012) at 86. (emphasis added)

 

[spat]

Spat okay, you are right and the CC carry website is wrong. I look forward to seeing you hiking around Geneseo with the big iron on your hip.

Given your lack of legal training, appearance before NYS courts, any case law to support your position and the unique nature of the OP re: the issue of open carry..... I'll stick with what the CC carry website says as the actually have attorneys on staff.

Found this on the Open Carry website. Is it incorrect ?

NPL 400.00 describes the types of handgun carry licenses which are available and a license to openly carry a handgun in public is not one of them.

"This case targets the license available under section 400.00(2)(f). That section provides that a license "shall be issued to... have and carry [a firearm] concealed... by any person when proper cause exists for the issuance thereof." N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f). This is the only license available to carry a concealed handgun "without regard to employment or place of possession." Id. Given that New York bans carrying handguns openly, applicants—like Plaintiffs in this case—who desire to carry a handgun outside the home and who do not fit within one of the employment categories must demonstrate proper cause pursuant to section 400.00(2)(f)." Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit (2012) at 86. (emphasis added)

A license to openly carry a handgun is not available in your state either, but I see you OCing in that picture, are you breaking the law ?

It is the "given that new York bans carrying handguns openly" that is in error. They are taking it as a given, and it is not. There is nothing for them to cite for that because it does not exist. NY bans possession, not OC. If you do not have a permit and are caught OCing, is there *anything* they can add to your possession charge ?

I'm not going to OC, for multiple reasons. There is no charge they can make stick, but:

You could piss off a judge and that's all it would take to lose all your guns here.

You could panic some snowflake, and while most officers around here are pretty reasonable about such things, I wouldn't want to bet against a disturbing the peace charge or something as the easiest way for the officer who responds to the snowflake call to deal with it.

You could piss off a snowflake who would make up details in their own mind that were related to an officer as fact, and suddenly you are accused of brandishing when you briefly made eye contact across a street with a person you never met.

It puts you at a tactical disadvantage.

It draws unwanted attention in myriad other ways.

I have a nice Trump shirt a friend of mine gave me for Christmas , I'm not going to wear that around the campus just to piss off the snowflakes either.

There is some value in respectfully OCing as a political statement some places, if something were sufficiently organized I would be willing to do it here. But the guys visiting Chipotle in TX with AR's and AKs slung across their back aren't helping most of the time, and some guy wandering around main street Geneseo right now wouldn't be either. BTW, both would be well within their rights though.

In short, there are a many reasons not to OC here, but PL265 and PL400 are not among them.

 

[Marine Cpl]

You're saying that the permit only allows you to possess a handgun while carrying it concealed, right ?

So, my guns in my safe are illegal right now ?

When I bring a couple to the range in a case in the back seat, I am also illegal, because I'm not carrying them ?

I say both of those are legal, because it is a permit to possess, and a permit to carry conceald, not a permit to possess only while carried concealed.

No. The license is to have and carry concealed.

You have them. If they are in your safe, that's having them. The minute you decide to carry them, the license issued to you is to carry concealed. Had it not said concealed, you could carry it anyway you want.
.

 

[spat]

No. The license is to have and carry concealed.

You have them. If they are in your safe, that's having them. The minute you decide to carry them, the license issued to you is to carry concealed. Had it not said concealed, you could carry it anyway you want.
.

Have = possess, there is no other charge in NY but possession.

They could drop the word concealed from the law and it would not change the law one bit, since there isn't another law preventing you from carrying concealed either.

The default is that you can do anything, until it is outlawed.

 

[Day444]

....The legal authority necessary to possess is all that's necessary to OC, unless they have a specific stature to the contrary. NY does not.

I'll keep pushing sand against the tide for a bit longer.
There's no specific stature that in any way implies you can!

"OC is just possession without carrying concealed, just like keeping it in a safe. That's why they don't have OC permits in any state, and in most states (absent a specific law to the contrary) if you are legal to possess you are legal to OC."

Ahhh no, a gun on your hip is no where near the same as a gun in a safe. Where a gun in a safe does not grant easy access (in that the safe is locked). In some states that may very well be the case, in NY it doesn't seem to be.

 

[spat]

I'll keep pushing sand against the tide for a bit longer.
There's no specific stature that in any way implies you can!

"OC is just possession without carrying concealed, just like keeping it in a safe. That's why they don't have OC permits in any state, and in most states (absent a specific law to the contrary) if you are legal to possess you are legal to OC."

Ahhh no, a gun on your hip is no where near the same as a gun in a safe. Where a gun in a safe does not grant easy access (in that the safe is locked). In some states that may very well be the case, in NY it doesn't seem to be.

What is the difference *in the law* for a gun in a safe vs on your hip ?

I am well aware that there are significant real world differences, but the law makes no distinction as far as possession goes. A non permit holder caught with a pistol in the safe at home gets the same charge as a non permit holder OCing down main street.

 

[Day444]

Day, you have to read ALL the way back. He said the very law I cited did prohibit open carry.
When the concealed carry website says it does and even cites case law to support no concealed carry it's clear he's wrong.
His comments about gun safes etc are just a diversion to get off the focus of the thread.
Someone said he was open carrying and nobody took exception. As an LEO he can do that, ordinary folks cannot.

Folks don't want to do the research, some want it handed to them, it has to be easy or they form their own opinion. If I ask you to "show me where" it's because I've already done some/a lot of research, either found an answer that agrees or disagrees with what is being stated.
A web site doesn't make a statement fact unless it is some how backed by fact(s).
Gun safe/cases what ever, that's not the issue and has nothing to do with open carry.
Maybe no one said anything to this person because they didn't want to cause any problems for themselves. But from what I've read, no where did this person have creds hanging off a belt, his neck etc. Could have been any one who just forgot to cover up.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Have = possess, there is no other charge in NY but possession.

They could drop the word concealed from the law and it would not change the law one bit, since there isn't another law preventing you from carrying concealed either.

The default is that you can do anything, until it is outlawed.

Keep ignoring the Class A Misdemeanor that you do so repeatedly that says the penalty for violating any provision of Penal Law 400. It's written in Penal Law 400 itself and chargeable from Penal Law 400 itself.

And please, don't come back with the "Has anyone been charged argument?" that you always come back with that's been answered already. We don't know that if anyone has in the past and we also know it's easier to just revoke or that cops have just not bothered anyone when doing so. If caught and charged, revocation is just as easy as it is to offer pleas to other crimes as not to drag out a case in court.

 

[spat]

Keep ignoring the Class A Misdemeanor that you do so repeatedly that says the penalty for violating any provision of Penal Law 400. It's written in Penal Law 400 itself and chargeable from Penal Law 400 itself.

And please, don't come back with the "Has anyone been charged argument?" that you always come back with that's been answered already. We don't know that if anyone has in the past and we also know it's easier to just revoke or that cops have just not bothered anyone when doing so. If caught and charged, revocation is just as easy as it is to offer pleas to other crimes as not to drag out a case in court.

What provision of PL400 does OC violate ? It gives you permission to possess. That is all OC is.

Nowhere does PL 400 prohibit OC.

Explain what the *legal* difference is between a gun in a case in the back seat and OC ?

 

[Marine Cpl]

I'll keep pushing sand against the tide for a bit longer.
There's no specific stature that in any way implies you can!

"OC is just possession without carrying concealed, just like keeping it in a safe. That's why they don't have OC permits in any state, and in most states (absent a specific law to the contrary) if you are legal to possess you are legal to OC."

Ahhh no, a gun on your hip is no where near the same as a gun in a safe. Where a gun in a safe does not grant easy access (in that the safe is locked). In some states that may very well be the case, in NY it doesn't seem to be.

Incorrect. Under that logic, a guy with a Premise Permit can open carry outside the home because he's just possessing it. A guy in any other state that requires a license to carry can open carry because he's just possessing it. You would be covered federally by FOPA when transporting a handgun from NY to Florida in any state you want as long as it's open.

That's far from the truth.

 

[Marine Cpl]

What provision of PL400 does OC violate ? It gives you permission to possess. That is all OC is.

Nowhere does PL 400 prohibit OC.

Explain what the *legal* difference is between a gun in a case in the back seat and OC ?

Forget it dude. It's been explained to you already about the exemptions to Penal Law 265 by a license issued by Penal Law 400 which states how it must be carried.

Keep ignoring that and do what you want. Penal Law 400 doesn't say that you cannot carry a handgun in your hand with your finger on the trigger either when walking into Walmart. Do that too if you want. It's legal according to you and isn't a violation of having it concealed.

 

[Day444]

What is the difference *in the law* for a gun in a safe vs on your hip ? I am well aware that there are significant real world differences, but the law makes no distinction as far as possession goes. A non permit holder caught with a pistol in the safe at home gets the same charge as a non permit holder OCing down main street.

None, that I am aware of other than needing a permit to carry if it's on your person. Could be an issue of probable cause to search a safe. While it's on your person that's not the case. Charges could be the same, but then comes the issue of intent. A gun in the safe does not imply a readiness to use it. A gun on the hip does, or why carry it?

 

[spat]

Incorrect. Under that logic, a guy with a Premise Permit can open carry outside the home because he's just possessing it. A guy in any other state that requires a license to carry can open carry because he's just possessing it. You would be covered federally by FOPA when transporting a handgun from NY to Florida in any state you want as long as it's open.

That's far from the truth.

Absent other laws in the various states, OC *is* legal everywhere.

A premises permit explicitly limits *where* you are permitted, and they could argue that you are not covered, but it is still likely that a decent lawyer would get you acquitted.

PL400 says nothing about prohibiting OC, so there is nothing in it you are violating. That is why the misdemeanor charge for violating it is irrelevant.

FOPA lists specific circumstances that are required to be followed to fall under its exemption, OC is not among them. PL400 doesn't have any such provision.

 

[Day444]

Incorrect. Under that logic, a guy with a Premise Permit can open carry outside the home because he's just possessing it. A guy in any other state that requires a license to carry can open carry because he's just possessing it. You would be covered federally by FOPA when transporting a handgun from NY to Florida in any state you want as long as it's open.
That's far from the truth.

My logic is flawed? I stated nothing of the kind. Meir possession doesn't not imply open carry. Travel with weapons is outline pretty clearly in the law.

 

[spat]

None, that I am aware of other than needing a permit to carry if it's on your person. Could be an issue of probable cause to search a safe. While it's on your person that's not the case. Charges could be the same, but then comes the issue of intent. A gun in the safe does not imply a readiness to use it. A gun on the hip does, or why carry it?

Certainly there are many possible associated charges that could come with OC, we have covered most of them. A charge for brandishing, or disturbing the peace, or something else is quite possible from OC, but they are not charges *for* OC, they all require some additional allegation beyond merely that you have a firearm OCed.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Absent other laws in the various states, OC *is* legal everywhere.

A premises permit explicitly limits *where* you are permitted, and they could argue that you are not covered, but it is still likely that a decent lawyer would get you acquitted.

PL400 says nothing about prohibiting OC, so there is nothing in it you are violating. That is why the misdemeanor charge for violating it is irrelevant.

FOPA lists specific circumstances that are required to be followed to fall under its exemption, OC is not among them. PL400 doesn't have any such provision.

Ok. So you are saying that open carry is the same as transporting a weapon. Ok. Do that too.

 

[Marine Cpl]

My logic is flawed? I stated nothing of the kind. Meir possession doesn't not imply open carry. Travel with weapons is outline pretty clearly in the law.

You said that open carry is possession without carrying concealed.

 

[spat]

Ok. So you are saying that open carry is the same as transporting a weapon. Ok. Do that too.

Unless something in a specific law says otherwise, possession, transport, and OC are the same thing.

There are some specific provisions in law regulating means and methods of transport. None of them prohibit OC.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Unless something in a specific law says otherwise, possession, transport, and OC are the same thing.

There are some specific provisions in law regulating means and methods of transport. None of them prohibit OC.

You are a piece of work. Carrying, possession, and transport is all the same. Ok. I got it.

Even the Constitution differentiates between the two.

 

[spat]

You are a piece of work. Carrying, possession, and transport is all the same. Ok. I got it.

Even the Constitution differentiates between the two.

Actually it specifies that they are the same and neither shall be infringed, lest someone try to play games and claim they aren't.

They only become different when some law specifically says otherwise. Just like it's illegal for someone to drive around with a handgun in the trunk unless they have a permit, but if they have a permit holder in the passenger seat, then it is legal again.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Actually it specifies that they are the same and neither shall be infringed, lest someone try to play games and claim they aren't.

They only become different when some law specifically says otherwise. Just like it's illegal for someone to drive around with a handgun in the trunk unless they have a permit, but if they have a permit holder in the passenger seat, then it is legal again.

Incorrect. To keep and bear. To possess and carry.

Correct. Shall not be enfringed

 

[spat]

Incorrect. To keep and bear. To possess and carry.

Correct. Shall not be enfringed

Both listed right next to each other, and given the exact same weight. I am not saying they are the exact same thing, just that legally, until they are differentiated, they are considered the same.

 

[Jsmegs77]

The hair splitting legal analysis here is very insightful. I'm having to read this thread with another window open on PL265 and PL400. FU to the idiots who wrote these laws, that render this sort of discussion necessary. I do appreciate the back and forth interchange here though.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Both listed right next to each other, and given the exact same weight. I am not saying they are the exact same thing, just that legally, until they are differentiated, they are considered the same.

No they aren't.

 

[spat]

The hair splitting legal analysis here is very insightful. I'm having to read this thread with another window open on PL265 and PL400. FU to the idiots who wrote these laws, that render this sort of discussion necessary. I do appreciate the back and forth interchange here though.

In the real world it is kind of an academic discussion though, there are other legal reasons it's not a good idea to OC in NY.