Man allegedly arrested for defending his land in NY

[spat]

The whole “carry concealed” part was always the forbidden thing to do. It was considered most dangerous. I believe that is why it specifically says you CAN carry concealed. In history you were always to carry openly so people knew you were armed. They didn’t want any surprises.

To have and carry concealed is an interesting choice of words. Why doesn’t it just say to carry concealed? Why does it mention to have?

I see both sides of this argument and haven’t made a definitive decision on what I think about it yet.

Also some of you should take it easy on the “violations of PL 400 are misdemeanors”. The courts have ruled numerous times that under the law the licensing officer has the power to impose restrictions. By the same logic as if you open carry it is a misdemeanor, if you carry outside of the restrictions it is also a misdemeanor. You can’t have it both ways. They are empowered to do it in accordance with PL 400 and you are violating it. Pick a side and stick with it. You can’t flip flop based on what fits your motives, desires, or opinions. It either is or it isn’t. It can’t only be so sometimes.

If you carry outside of administrative restrictions set by the issuing judge you risk having your permit revoked (and *all* your long guns confiscated too). But you do not risk a criminal prosecution.

Which brings up the absurd situation where they can come and take all your guns, but you can legally go out and buy more long guns the next day.

Absurd just comes with the territory when discussing NY gun laws though.

 

[Chevusa]

If you carry outside of administrative restrictions set by the issuing judge you risk having your permit revoked (and *all* your long guns confiscated too). But you do not risk a criminal prosecution.

Which brings up the absurd situation where they can come and take all your guns, but you can legally go out and buy more long guns the next day.

Absurd just comes with the territory when discussing NY gun laws though.

Not sure about that. The restrictions are in place in accordance with PL 400. A violation of it is a misdemeanor. I understand your opinion on the matter but you cannot prove your point anymore than I can prove mine. Unfortunately we just all need to be careful. You won’t know for sure until it’s too late.

 

[Jcp123]

I’m rubbing my forehead here.

Back when I worked auto parts, a guy came in with a rifle slung behind him. It was basically the least eventful thing of the day. Mind you, I was fairly fresh out of California then, so I went with the flow of my coworkers who, so far as I can tell, really didn’t even notice.

 

[Marine Cpl]

While I see both sides of this argument, by the logic of what you just said I could go to the bar and place my pistol on the bar in front of me. I’m not carrying it at that point, but I have it. According to your statement that is not illegal or a problem.

You have to understand that these laws are written by people who do not have guns. So they do not think of shit like that. That’s why the safe act is written the way it is. With lots of mistakes and no foresight.

In any other state even the freer ones that allow possession with no license but carry with one, it is implied that carry means on your person. Transporting isn’t carry and working on it on a table isn’t carry but if at a bar, they will consider it carry.

 

[SomeSoldier]

You have to understand that these laws are written by people who do not have guns. So they do not think of shit like that. That’s why the safe act is written the way it is. With lots of mistakes and no foresight.

In any other state even the freer ones that allow possession with no license but carry with one, it is implied that carry means on your person. Transporting isn’t carry and working on it on a table isn’t carry but if at a bar, they will consider it carry.

I think it was written so poorly on purpose to create loops that can swing in either direction given the person being arrested.

 

[Jcp123]

I think it was written so poorly on purpose to create loops that can swing in either direction given the person being arrested.

I doubt that. Seems more plausible that it’s a bunch of suits trying to sound like they know what they’re talking about, when they just don’t really understand.

Enjoy the ignorance. Imagine if a truly knowledgeable set of legislators wrote a strict set of laws. You’d be way more miserable.

 

[Acer-m14]

so how do you carry a replica BB pistol open or cc .. would you need a permit even ?? LOL ..

 

[repete]

so how do you carry a replica BB pistol open or cc .. would you need a permit even ?? LOL ..

Just drag it behind you on a string!

 

[GOPerfect]

I'll say this...

I have property in the Country. If I am there and I see someone(s) walking on my land, I will tell them to leave. I open carry fully on my land. If they do not leave when I ask them to, my gun very well may come out.

I will not be charged.

 

[spat]

Not sure about that. The restrictions are in place in accordance with PL 400. A violation of it is a misdemeanor. I understand your opinion on the matter but you cannot prove your point anymore than I can prove mine. Unfortunately we just all need to be careful. You won’t know for sure until it’s too late.

I'm not sure the restrictions *are* in accordance with PL400.

It doesn't actually have provisions for arbitrary restrictions. It has a couple license classes, but nothing that sanctions the pet policies of every issuing judge.

The judges get away with it because they have the arbitrary power to yank your license for any reason, so not following their whims has consequences, but it's not illegal.

 

[Criticalt]

The penal law makes no mention of posted signs. The only elevation is for scaling a fence, school building, public housing or doing so while possessing weapons. Your signs mean nothing in this case.

Article 140 | NYS Penal Law |Burglary Criminal Trespass Laws

Burglary - enters or remains unlawfully with intent to commit a crime therein. Criminal Trespass. Possession of Burglars's Tools. Redio Devices | NYS Laws

ypdcrime.com

Ahh yes, the fact that the 2 Amish guys arrested and convicted of criminal tresspass on my property were armed poachers might have something to do with their charges.
But im trying to remember what the judge said.....
Something about knowingly passing properly posted signs raises the charge. Damn I wish I remembered.
Maybe that they were knowingly hunting on property that was clearly posted against hunting.....or maybe just because they had guns. The judge was very long winded.
Oh well, they havent been back

 

[nortatoga]

Ahh yes, the fact that the 2 Amish guys arrested and convicted of criminal tresspass on my property were armed poachers might have something to do with their charges.
But im trying to remember what the judge said.....
Something about knowingly passing properly posted signs raises the charge. Damn I wish I remembered.
Maybe that they were knowingly hunting on property that was clearly posted against hunting.....or maybe just because they had guns. The judge was very long winded.
Oh well, they havent been back

Posted signs need to be at least 600' ( most sign are posted closer! ) apart, so if that is the case someone could unknowingly trespass on posted land but need to leave when made aware the land is posted. Poaching is a whole other crime and I think trespassing would be added.

My question here is can you hold them at gun point while waiting for law enforcement? If they made no threats to you.

 

[Criticalt]

Posted signs need to be at least 600' ( most sign are posted closer! ) apart, so if that is the case someone could unknowingly trespass on posted land but need to leave when made aware the land is posted. Poaching is a whole other crime and I think trespassing would be added.

My question here is can you hold them at gun point while waiting for law enforcement? If they made no threats to you.

Its actually no MORE than 660 ft in NYS, mine are much closer and not easy to miss.

 

[Criticalt]

My property borders state land so the DEC suggested I place signs no more than 50 ft apart in that area.
This is after we realized we had poachers.
The guys that got arrested said they saw the signs.

 

[nortatoga]

Its actually no MORE than 660 ft in NYS, mine are much closer and not easy to miss.

Okay I thought 600'

 

[SomeSoldier]

I'll say this...

I have property in the Country. If I am there and I see someone(s) walking on my land, I will tell them to leave. I open carry fully on my land. If they do not leave when I ask them to, my gun very well may come out.

I will not be charged.

Well when there is no one to complain...

 

[Doc8404]

I’m going to hunt this guy down on Facebook and see the latest.

 

[byron]

Is this the guy
NORWICH, N.Y. – A man was arrested in Norwich Saturday after police responded to a 911 hang-up call reporting a domestic incident involving a gun.
Chenango County Sheriff Ernest Cutting Jr. says deputies arrested 46-year-old Matthew S. Rolley for allegedly displaying a gun to three people during a dispute at a home in Norwich.

Rolley is charged with menacing, and since there was a 17-year-old present during the incident, he is also charged with endangering the welfare of a child.
An order of protection was issued on the teen’s behalf.
Rolley was arraigned and released on his own recognizance. He is scheduled to appear in the Town of Norwich Court at a later date.
Popular in the Community

Norwich man arrested for allegedly displaying gun during domestic dispute

A man was arrested in Norwich Saturday after police responded to a 911 hang-up call reporting a domestic incident involving a gun.

www.wktv.com

 

[DrBleachCocktail]

That's the problem in New York.
If the original post is correct, that the man was arrested for "brandishing" on his own property, then it probably falls under the whole "duty to retreat" b.s.
Not to mention we all know the NYSP are not the bastion of Rights upholders we think they should be.

If I trespass on a Officer’s property, does that officer have the duty to retreat? There should be a criminal offense for not following the constitution since NYSP are not right upholders. They’re Law Enforcement not unconstitutional upholders.

 

[Chevusa]

I'm not sure the restrictions *are* in accordance with PL400.

The courts have said exactly so. Many times. It is a function of the licensing officer to impose restrictions in accordance with PL 400. That is the exact official determination by a court of record. I have posted the official rulings here before. Don’t have time to do it again.
As far as it being illegal or not, you guys said yourselves that any violation of PL 400 is a misdemeanor. You can’t pick and choose your violations. It applies to none or it applies to all. Would you actually be arrested for it? You won’t know until it’s too late. To say otherwise is just your opinion and it carries no more weight than mine or anyone else’s.

 

[Chevusa]

Posted signs need to be at least 600' ( most sign are posted closer! ) apart, so if that is the case someone could unknowingly trespass on posted land but need to leave when made aware the land is posted. Poaching is a whole other crime and I think trespassing would be added.

My question here is can you hold them at gun point while waiting for law enforcement? If they made no threats to you.

Trespass or posted signs are just to make you feel good. They are not mentioned in penal law and carry no more weight than drawing a picture on a sheet of paper with a crayon. Walking onto someone’s property whether they have zero signs or 10,000,000 signs is exactly the same. A violation level offense. All that would happen if the officer even wanted to bother, would be a ticket being issued. I don’t even believe the offender would have to appear in court. They could most likely just mail in a fine. Maybe one of the LEO’s here will fact check me on that. Most likely they would just ask you to leave.

 

[Marine Cpl]

The courts have said exactly so. Many times. It is a function of the licensing officer to impose restrictions in accordance with PL 400. That is the exact official determination by a court of record. I have posted the official rulings here before. Don’t have time to do it again.
As far as it being illegal or not, you guys said yourselves that any violation of PL 400 is a misdemeanor. You can’t pick and choose your violations. It applies to none or it applies to all. Would you actually be arrested for it? You won’t know until it’s too late. To say otherwise is just your opinion and it carries no more weight than mine or anyone else’s.

Except it isn’t a violation of Penal law 400 since your license is have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or place of possession, by any person when proper cause exists for the issuance thereof.

You were given that class of license. You satisfied the proper cause by saying that you wanted it for target shooting for example and it was issued to you . Whether you go against the restrictions or not, it is still a carry license.

 

[Chevusa]

Except it isn’t a violation of Penal law 400 since your license is have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or place of possession, by any person when proper cause exists for the issuance thereof.

You were given that class of license. You satisfied the proper cause by saying that you wanted it for target shooting for example and it was issued to you . Whether you go against the restrictions or not, it is still a carry license.

Careful. The same courts have also made the determination that you only have the license for which you showed proper cause for. They have also ruled that the judges may restrict the license as a function of their duties under PL 400. They didn’t make that ruling with no way of enforcement. It would be silly for them to do so. All court rulings have a means of enforcement. To think that this specific one doesn’t is silly. It holds water. Again all we’re doing is speculating. You won’t know for sure until it’s too late.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Careful. The same courts have also made the determination that you only have the license for which you showed proper cause for. They have also ruled that the judges may restrict the license as a function of their duties under PL 400. They didn’t make that ruling with no way of enforcement. It would be silly for them to do so. All court rulings have a means of enforcement. To think that this specific one doesn’t is silly. It holds water. Again all we’re doing is speculating. You won’t know for sure until it’s too late.

Right. The enforcement is possible revocation since the judge has the power to revoke your license for any reason. But according to the penal law itself, no law is broken. None. A charge against a criminal can only come from the penal law. Not a court ruling.

 

[Chevusa]

Right. The enforcement is possible revocation since the judge has the power to revoke your license for any reason. But according to the penal law itself, no law is broken. None. A charge against a criminal can only come from the penal law. Not a court ruling.

What happened to “a violation of 400 is a misdemeanor”? The restrictions are in accordance with PL 400. That is the law under which gives issuance of such permit. You are violating them right? Yes. So again you cannot pick and choose what applies. It all applies or none of it does. Which is it?

 

[spat]

Careful. The same courts have also made the determination that you only have the license for which you showed proper cause for. They have also ruled that the judges may restrict the license as a function of their duties under PL 400. They didn’t make that ruling with no way of enforcement. It would be silly for them to do so. All court rulings have a means of enforcement. To think that this specific one doesn’t is silly. It holds water. Again all we’re doing is speculating. You won’t know for sure until it’s too late.

The means of enforcement is you lose the license if caught using it outside of the restrictions.

It is not a criminal penalty.

 

[Marine Cpl]

What happened to “a violation of 400 is a misdemeanor”? The restrictions are in accordance with PL 400. That is the law under which gives issuance of such permit. You are violating them right? Yes. So again you cannot pick and choose what applies. It all applies or none of it does. Which is it?

It’s not a violation of Penal law 400. You have a license to carry concealed. Not a premises license.

 

[Chevusa]

It’s not a violation of Penal law 400. You have a license to carry concealed. Not a penises license.

But the restrictions are in accordance with that law. They do not apply under any other law. PL 400 is what covers the license. The wording “any violation of 400 is a misdemeanor” is pretty broad. Anything associated with that section would be included by that. The permit restrictions are not a function of the speed limit or other law. They are functions of 400 and only 400. I’m not looking for an argument just having a discussion. I’m just pointing out that you can’t say for sure one way or the other. Neither can I. That’s why I said you won’t know for sure until you’re in that situation yourself. You don’t know for sure how it will be handled.

 

[Marine Cpl]

But the restrictions are in accordance with that law. They do not apply under any other law. PL 400 is what covers the license. The wording “any violation of 400 is a misdemeanor” is pretty broad. Anything associated with that section would be included by that. The permit restrictions are not a function of the speed limit or other law. They are functions of 400 and only 400. I’m not looking for an argument just having a discussion. I’m just pointing out that you can’t say for sure one way or the other. Neither can I. That’s why I said you won’t know for sure until you’re in that situation yourself. You don’t know for sure how it will be handled.

Not arguing either. Just disputing your point.

Your argument is that you applied for a handgun license for target shooting for example so if a restricted one was issued to you and you carried anyway, you violated the license given to you because the just cause isn’t what you initially applied for. Correct?

However, you did not because you were issued a carry license after all is said and done. The reason on what you used to demonstrate proper cause is irrelevant. Proper cause is just a reasoning to get the license under Penal law 400. After you get the license, you have it. That’s it. Full stop. That is what the penal law says the license is for. To have and carry concealed.

Restrictions added to the have and carry concealed are secondary and have no basis in the penal law. Violating those are just violating the wishes of the judge and since no actual law is broken, all that can happen is a full revocation.

There is no violation of Penal law 400 itself. Had Penal law 400 had restrictions put into carry licenses, than it would be a violation. For example. There is one category of concealed carry license for employment only. If you carry outside of employment, then it’s a violation.

But the license given to you is just one. To have and carry concealed concealed without regard to employment or place of possession.

 

[Xae289]

It’s not a violation of Penal law 400. You have a license to carry concealed. Not a penises license.

Haha, "penises license", hah.

But yea, the point here is that statutes are the word of law.

From NYPL 400.2 "A license for a pistol or revolver, other than an assault weapon or a disguised gun, shall be issued to... (f) have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or place of possession, by any person when proper cause exists for the issuance thereof; "

However, I think there is a possible argument for restrictions carrying the weight of law coming from NYPL 400.6 "Any license issued pursuant to this section shall be valid notwithstanding the provisions of any local law or ordinance. No license shall be transferable to any other person or premises. 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."

That line emphasized in bold can strictly be read to mean that the statement does not apply to premesis and employment carry licenses. It could also broadly be interpreted to give the force of law to the administrative restrictions put on by judges. I think we can fairly assume that if that argument is raised by a prosecutor, a NY judge and jury are more likely than not to smack you in the pee-pee with it in court.