License Canceled After 50 years?

[Robin]

Fuck you asshole.
Robin

 

[Chevusa]

Robin: “He shouldn’t give up his personal information. It’s unconstitutional!”

Applies for his own permit: *Gives up everything asked for immediately without question.*

 

[Robin]

Well, now you are a lying fucking asshole.
Robin

 

[Chevusa]

Well, now you are a lying fucking asshole.
Robin

Riiiiight. I’m sure you didn’t turn in a completed application packet and got a permit anyhow. I bet they danced that permit right over to you. That’s believable

good grief.

 

[Criticalt]

So in your scenario, let's imagine he just continues on without a permit.

What do you agree is the correct step for law enforcement to take next?

The CORRECT thing would be nothing.
The thing that WILL happen is that he will be arrested if caught.

My point with all these type posts is that there is a difference between what the law SHOULD be and what the law currently IS.

The problem is that with many people here the end to the conversation is, "this should not be a law anyways.....end of story." And, "you dont support the 2nd amendment".

For instance in this story.....
The guy did not show enough proof for " proper cause", so he does not get his permit.
That is the current law where he lives.
Should it be? No
But just responding with, "thats unconstitutional and shouldnt be the law", means absolutely nothing.
Not that anything we say means anything anyways.....but thats a topic for another thread.

 

[Criticalt]

Riiiiight. I’m sure you didn’t turn in a completed application packet and got a permit anyhow. I bet they danced that permit right over to you. That’s believable

good grief.

To be completely honest, I could have put Mickey Mouse and the Hulk for my references..... None of the 4 I listed were contacted.

 

[Criticalt]

So, I disagree with diver licenses too...

Did your statement right there change the law of NYS?

 

[Darth]

The CORRECT thing would be nothing.
The thing that WILL happen is that he will be arrested if caught.

My point with all these type posts is that there is a difference between what the law SHOULD be and what the law currently IS.

The problem is that with many people here the end to the conversation is, "this should not be a law anyways.....end of story." And, "you dont support the 2nd amendment".

For instance in this story.....
The guy did not show enough proof for " proper cause", so he does not get his permit.
That is the current law where he lives.
Should it be? No
But just responding with, "thats unconstitutional and shouldnt be the law", means absolutely nothing.
Not that anything we say means anything anyways.....but thats a topic for another thread.

However, the way I worded the question was not an accident.

If your answer is anything besides "they should do nothing", then as mentioned, you are not pro 2A.

If it is "they should do nothing", you understand that laws that go against the constitution should not be followed or enforced.

 

[Darth]

Did your statement right there change the law of NYS?

No. Did it change who enforces them?

 

[Criticalt]

You shouldn't need approval.

"She should have just sat in the back of the bus like she was told, it's the law."

To be fair, he has said you shouldnt need approval multiple times.
But again, thats not the current law and he will not get his permit and like we know, if he. gets caught, NYS will prosecute him.

 

[Criticalt]

No. Did it change who enforces them?

Nope, they are a bunch of dicks.
But my statement didnt change the fact that they will arrest me if I drive without one.

 

[Darth]

Nope, they are a bunch of dicks.
But my statement didnt change the fact that they will arrest me if I drive without one.

So we have determined where the problem lies...

 

[Criticalt]

However, the way I worded the question was not an accident.

If your answer is anything besides "they should do nothing", then as mentioned, you are not pro 2A.

If it is "they should do nothing", you understand that laws that go against the constitution should not be followed or enforced.

" should not be followed or enforced " isnt gonna keep you from being prosecuted.
So after youve been arrested, convicted and paid your fine, you have in fact, followed the law.

 

[Darth]

" should not be followed or enforced " isnt gonna keep you from being prosecuted.
So after youve been arrested, convicted and paid your fine, you have in fact, followed the law.

Sure, if they want to arrest the cops for pulling this stunt, I'm all for it.

 

[Criticalt]

So we have determined where the problem lies...

I believe that has been determined for years by most of us.
But I also have determined that cancer is where the problem lies with my cousin.
But alas....he will be dead by this time next year.

 

[Darth]

I believe that has been determined for years by most of us.
But I also have determined that cancer is where the problem lies with my cousin.
But alas....he will be dead by this time next year.

At any point did you say "I know he shouldn't really have it, but I mean it is God's will... "?

 

[Criticalt]

Sure, if they want to arrest the cops for pulling this stunt, I'm all for it.

Cool, where do we start?
Im gonna call Cuomo, Shumer, and Gillibrand right now!!!

 

[Darth]

Cool, where do we start?
Im gonna call Cuomo, Shumer, and Gillibrand right now!!!

Start with the street level guys.

 

[Criticalt]

At any point did you say "I know he shouldn't really have it, but I mean it is God's will... "?

Ummmmm, no
But I did ask him if I could have his truck when he dies.

 

[Criticalt]

Start with the street level guys.

My street level guys cant even make change for a twenty.

 

[nortatoga]

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.

Thank you for clearing up my misunderstanding of that.

 

[Acer-m14]

Satire ... i think .. lol

walk into NYC 1PP .. .. i need to apply for a pistol permit for my business ..
1pp .. whats your business ..
im a crack dealer and handle lots of money
1pp .. permit granted ..

 

[Bob]

Satire ... i think .. lol

walk into NYC 1PP .. .. i need to apply for a pistol permit for my business ..
1pp .. whats your business ..
im a crack dealer and handle lots of money
1pp .. permit granted ..

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

 

[Saltwater60]

Yea. Suggests he is going for the harder to get permit. Nowhere does it say he already has it or has had it. I guess we can both interpret it differently because it is not explicitly stated. Shitty job just like the headline.

Suggests he’s been carrying a firearm and had a carry permit for the past 50 years.
Max Leifer is suing the NYPD because the department’s License Division shot down his gun permit renewal application — after nearly 50 years of him safely carrying a firearm.

also this
In July 2020, for the first time since he started using handguns for protection in 1973, his renewal application on was denied.

Also suggests since he didn’t submit the additional information that they NYPD claims his circumstances have changed and he no longer needs the business carry license.

The NYPD concluded, “the activities which justified granting a Business Carry License in the past, do not exist anymore. You no longer carry or transport cash. You no longer transact business involving expensive watches and artifacts. You no longer collect rent from rental properties. This amounts to a change in circumstance.”

Can you admit you were wrong??

 

[masterswimmer]

Can you admit you were wrong??

 

[libertysnake]

But just responding with, "thats unconstitutional and shouldnt be the law", means absolutely nothing.
Not that anything we say means anything anyways.....but thats a topic for another thread.

it means that it's a call to action to organize and strategize politically. Clearly, the current incarnation of the GOP is a failure at outreach and action, whether intentional or not.

 

[Saltwater60]

They also said he has automatic weapons. None of it is credible. Let’s put this one to bed. Not enough credible info to draw a conclusion.

Many articles refer to semi automatic weapons as automatics. It’s been fairly common for the past few years.

 

[Saltwater60]

I can see how you may see it that way, but he did not say say he was renewing the harder to get license.


Leifer said he needs the harder-to-get “carry” permit because he does business deals and takes client retainers that sometimes involve a “substantial amount of cash.” He’s also a partner in two bars — Brandy Library in Tribeca and Copper & Oak on the Lower East Side — which “also generate cash.”

In July 2020, for the first time since he started using handguns for protection in 1973, his renewal application on was denied.

And by the way his timing sucks as should the NYSRPA case go our way it may not matter!

He needs it because of his job and that job is nothing new. It’s a renewal for the same license.

 

[Truebeliever]

I understand. However my take is he didn’t apply properly because he cannot product the docs. He should produce them regardless and if denied he should sue with standing.

I would argue, true or not I don’t know, that he negotiates cash deals for clients and can not disclose receipts and possibly violate attorney client privilege.

 

[spat]

I would argue, true or not I don’t know, that he negotiates cash deals for clients and can not disclose receipts and possibly violate attorney client privilege.

I think he got fed up and wanted to fight this in court.

Being a good lawyer, he knew that if he provided the documents they would have approved the renewal and then he wouldn't have been able to sue.