Man allegedly arrested for defending his land in NY

[spat]

Violation of “any part of 400”. 400 includes the authority for restrictions per the highest court in the land.

Even if your understanding is correct, violating the judges restrictions would just invalidate the license.

If I have a license that says I can be a plumber, I'm not violating that license if I do some electrical work, I'm just not authorized by that license to do the work.

You could make the argument that carrying outside your restrictions means the license isn't valid, and you could be charged under PL265, but I think that's a stretch too.

Incidentally, the courts should have ruled that there is no provision in the law for restricted licenses, so the only recourse for a judge that doesn't want to issue you a full carry would be to not issue one at all.

What if someone has a restricted to target/hunting license, but they get a job at a gun shop. They will be possessing firearms outside of their restrictions, but since they are covered by their employers license so they still can't be charged under PL265.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Penal law 400 gives you full exemption from Penal law 265 as far as possession and carry goes.

 

[spat]

Penal law 400 gives you full exemption from Penal law 265 as far as possession and carry goes.

It does. But an argument could be made that carrying outside of restrictions invalidates that license and subjects you to PL265 again.

I don't agree with that argument, but it wouldn't be completely irrational to make it.

 

[Chevusa]

Even if your understanding is correct, violating the judges restrictions would just invalidate the license.

If I have a license that says I can be a plumber, I'm not violating that license if I do some electrical work, I'm just not authorized by that license to do the work.

You could make the argument that carrying outside your restrictions means the license isn't valid, and you could be charged under PL265, but I think that's a stretch too.

Incidentally, the courts should have ruled that there is no provision in the law for restricted licenses, so the only recourse for a judge that doesn't want to issue you a full carry would be to not issue one at all.

What if someone has a restricted to target/hunting license, but they get a job at a gun shop. They will be possessing firearms outside of their restrictions, but since they are covered by their employers license so they still can't be charged under PL265.

Except it specifically says any violation is a misdemeanor. That’s where your argument falls apart. It doesn’t say any violation will invalidate said license.

What “should be” and what “is” are two very different things.

Your final point about the gun shop could be where the “to have” part comes in.

I don’t know any more than you do and I’m not claiming that I do. For the 50th time. You won’t know until it’s too late. Be careful and decide how much risk you want to take. To say there is no risk would be dishonest.

 

[Chevusa]

It does. But an argument could be made that carrying outside of restrictions invalidates that license and subjects you to PL265 again.

I don't agree with that argument, but it wouldn't be completely irrational to make it.

Completely agree.

 

[Marine Cpl]

It does. But an argument could be made that carrying outside of restrictions invalidates that license and subjects you to PL265 again.

I don't agree with that argument, but it wouldn't be completely irrational to make it.

The specific provisions for that are written in penal law 400 itself stating that it’s a misdemeanor for violating aspects of penal law 400.

That’s Chevy’s argument however according to Penal law 400 itself, it has not been amended to reflect restrictions on the category F carry license that we are all issued.

 

[spat]

Except it specifically says any violation is a misdemeanor. That’s where your argument falls apart. It doesn’t say any violation will invalidate said license.

What “should be” and what “is” are two very different things.

Your final point about the gun shop could be where the “to have” part comes in.

I don’t know any more than you do and I’m not claiming that I do. For the 50th time. You won’t know until it’s too late. Be careful and decide how much risk you want to take. To say there is no risk would be dishonest.

But, since the restrictions aren't part of PL400 violating them doesn't violate PL400.

Your court case just says that the judge can impose them, that doesn't make violating them a violation of PL400.

 

[Marine Cpl]

But, since the restrictions aren't part of PL400 violating them doesn't violate PL400.

Your court case just says that the judge can impose them, that doesn't make violating them a violation of PL400.

This! That’s what I’ve been trying to tell him. The way convictions work is that you can only be convicted of a penal law itself.

A court ruling is merely an interpretation that can be called on in a case for precedent. But in order for a criminal charge to be rendered, the penal law has to say what is illegal.

 

[Chevusa]

But, since the restrictions aren't part of PL400 violating them doesn't violate PL400.

Your court case just says that the judge can impose them, that doesn't make violating them a violation of PL400.

I am going off of many cases posted previously here in other threads. They say the restrictions are a function of the duties of the officer issuing the permit pursuant to 400. They are authorized under 400. Not under the vehicle and traffic law, but under 400 alone.

You can see how easy it would be to have a judge or jury find you guilty of this. It is not clear in any way and no party is going to take your side on it. You are the bad guy who had a gun where you shouldn’t have. The judge told you so and you disobeyed.

 

[Chevusa]

This! That’s what I’ve been trying to tell him. The way convictions work is that you can only be convicted of a penal law itself.

A court ruling is merely an interpretation that can be called on in a case for precedent. But in order for a criminal charge to be rendered, the penal law has to say what is illegal.

2+2 will = 4 though. Any violation of 400 is a misdemeanor. Your restriction was in force via the authority of 400. It’s an easy conviction if it ever goes that far. All they need to do is put the 2 piece puzzle together.

 

[Xae289]

But, since the restrictions aren't part of PL400 violating them doesn't violate PL400.

Your court case just says that the judge can impose them, that doesn't make violating them a violation of PL400.

Correct, but if the court accepts that it's legal to impose them, then it's not inconceivable to me that once imposed, the court would consider violating them as violating NYPL 400.

Here is an excerpt from Monroe County's take on the issue of restrictions:
"It is your responsibility as a registered gun owner to know when & where it is legal to possess and carry your handgun. Carrying in violation of the Restrictions imposed on your permit will result in your permit being suspended or revoked and could also constitute a violation of law. "

To me that makes one thing clear. If you're caught outside your restrictions, you can expect administrative reprecussions. It also seems to imply to me by saying "COULD also constitute a violation of law" that they aren't sure either, but depending on how hard you messed up, they might try to charge you criminally.

 

[spat]

I am going off of many cases posted previously here in other threads. They say the restrictions are a function of the duties of the officer issuing the permit pursuant to 400. They are authorized under 400. Not under the vehicle and traffic law, but under 400 alone.

You can see how easy it would be to have a judge or jury find you guilty of this. It is not clear in any way and no party is going to take your side on it. You are the bad guy who had a gun where you shouldn’t have. The judge told you so and you disobeyed.

So the judge can put anything he wants on there, and it's a misdemeanor if you don't do it ?

Ridiculous, that is fabricating statutes out of whole cloth.

Judge puts "no drinking alcohol" and suddenly you can't have a beer ? Ever ?

 

[Chevusa]

Correct, but if the court accepts that it's legal to impose them, then it's not inconceivable to me that once imposed, the court would consider violating them as violating NYPL 400.

Here is an excerpt from Monroe County's take on the issue of restrictions:
"It is your responsibility as a registered gun owner to know when & where it is legal to possess and carry your handgun. Carrying in violation of the Restrictions imposed on your permit will result in your permit being suspended or revoked and could also constitute a violation of law. "

To me that makes one thing clear. If you're caught outside your restrictions, you can expect administrative reprecussions. It also seems to imply to me by saying "COULD also constitute a violation of law" that they aren't sure either, but depending on how hard you messed up, they might try to charge you criminally.

Exactly. You won’t know until it’s too late. Who wants to be the test case? Nobody? Didn’t think so. I think a lot of people come on here and pound their chest and say they are above the restrictions and the judge was just kidding when he imposed them. Didn’t anyone tell the judge to read the law? If he did he would surely see that what he’s doing is not allowed or legally binding. Yea right. Good luck. In real life however you know they are nervous to be carrying in violation of restrictions and I bet their hearts start to race when they see a cop around. They know deep down they are at risk and aren’t doing what they’re supposed to be doing.

 

[Chevusa]

So the judge can put anything he wants on there, and it's a misdemeanor if you don't do it ?

Ridiculous, that is fabricating statutes out of whole cloth.

Judge puts "no drinking alcohol" and suddenly you can't have a beer ? Ever ?

Not going to get into hypotheticals with you. Let’s stick to what factually is. You know what the restrictions are that exist in real life. Making up your own serves no purpose except to try to confuse and distract.

 

[spat]

Not going to get into hypotheticals with you. Let’s stick to what factually is. You know what the restrictions are that exist in real life. Making up your own serves no purpose except to try to confuse and distract.

The whole discussion is pointless in the real world.

We all agree that violating your restrictions can get your permit revoked, and since the last round of infringements were added, getting your permit revoked gets all your long guns stolen too.

So whether they tack on a misdemeanor to that or not isn't really all that important.

 

[Marine Cpl]

2+2 will = 4 though. Any violation of 400 is a misdemeanor. Your restriction was in force via the authority of 400. It’s an easy conviction if it ever goes that far. All they need to do is put the 2 piece puzzle together.

No it isn’t. There are no such restrictions in Penal law 400. Court cases say that judges can issue restrictions but as far as penal law violations, there are none. Full stop. None unless it’s amended to include restrictions.

Court rulings say that a judge can put restrictions on a license but they do not say that violating them are offenses to the penal law itself.

 

[Xae289]

Exactly. You won’t know until it’s too late. Who wants to be the test case? Nobody? Didn’t think so. I think a lot of people come on here and pound their chest and say they are above the restrictions and the judge was just kidding when he imposed them. Didn’t anyone tell the judge to read the law? If he did he would surely see that what he’s doing is not allowed or legally binding. Yea right. Good luck. In real life however you know they are nervous to be carrying in violation of restrictions and I bet their hears starts to race when they see a cop around. They know deep down they are at risk and aren’t doing what they’re supposed to be doing.

In real life, if you're carrying concealed, no one should know. I'm sure that no one wants to be the test case, but I have a totally baseless hunch that not everyone follows the restrictions, yet we don't hear much about it. If I had restrictions and were carrying outside of them, I'd make damn sure the thing was very well concealed so no Karen or Officer Friendly has any reason at all to notice. Which is exactly how I would carry in NY if I didn't have restrictions. If I were carrying outside of my restrictions and had to use it, I'd be damned sure it was life-or-death... Which incidentally is when I'd use it if I didn't have restrictions. And if a handgun saves my life, then all my weapons were to be confiscated, I'd be pissed, but at least I'd be alive to be pissed.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Correct, but if the court accepts that it's legal to impose them, then it's not inconceivable to me that once imposed, the court would consider violating them as violating NYPL 400.

Here is an excerpt from Monroe County's take on the issue of restrictions:
"It is your responsibility as a registered gun owner to know when & where it is legal to possess and carry your handgun. Carrying in violation of the Restrictions imposed on your permit will result in your permit being suspended or revoked and could also constitute a violation of law. "

To me that makes one thing clear. If you're caught outside your restrictions, you can expect administrative reprecussions. It also seems to imply to me by saying "COULD also constitute a violation of law" that they aren't sure either, but depending on how hard you messed up, they might try to charge you criminally.

That paper isn’t valid for anything. If you get arrested, a prosecutor cannot quote a paper. Only a penal law can be quoted.

Hell, my county says that it is illegal to carry in places that serve alcohol. That clearly is nowhere in the penal law. All that can happen if caught is that the issuing judge can revoke your permit since the penal law gives him authorization to revoke a license at any time for any purpose.

 

[Chevusa]

No it isn’t. There are no such restrictions in Penal law 400. Court cases say that judges can issue restrictions but as far as penal law violations, there are none. Full stop. None unless it’s amended to include restrictions.

Court rulings say that a judge can put restrictions on a license but they do not say that violating them are offenses to the penal law itself.

Saying full stop doesn’t make your opinion hold any weight. The judges aren’t going to go along with your argument that they don’t have the authority. They will likely see it that you violated the restriction which is in place as a part of 400 and in penal law states that any violation of any part of 400 is a crime.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Saying full stop doesn’t make your opinion hold any weight. The judges aren’t going to go along with your argument that they don’t have the authority. They will likely see it that you violated the restriction which is in place as a part of 400 and in penal law states that any violation of any part of 400 is a crime.

No one is questioning that they do not have the authority to write whatever they want on the license or issue it for whatever reason they deem as proper cause. What is a fact however that you refuse to acknowledge is that you can only be convicted by a violation of a Penal Law as written. Full stop.

That applies to any law. You can only be proesecuted for breaking a penal law as written.

 

[Xae289]

No it isn’t. There are no such restrictions in Penal law 400. Court cases say that judges can issue restrictions but as far as penal law violations, there are none. Full stop. None unless it’s amended to include restrictions.

Court rulings say that a judge can put restrictions on a license but they do not say that violating them are offenses to the penal law itself.

Aye. Court rulings also don't say, to be best of my knowledge, that violating restrictions are not offenses against the penal law. We'll find out if they give a damn about the word of law or if they can convince a jury or judge that it is a crime against the letter of the law once they try to charge someone with it.

Just look at bump stocks. They are 100% legal per the letter of the law as written, but the ATF just ignores that inconvenient fact and apparently would charge you with possession of a machine gun for having one.

 

[Chevusa]

In real life, if you're carrying concealed, no one should know. I'm sure that no one wants to be the test case, but I have a totally baseless hunch that not everyone follows the restrictions, yet we don't hear much about it. If I had restrictions and were carrying outside of them, I'd make damn sure the thing was very well concealed so no Karen or Officer Friendly has any reason at all to notice. Which is exactly how I would carry in NY if I didn't have restrictions. If I were carrying outside of my restrictions and had to use it, I'd be damned sure it was life-or-death... Which incidentally is when I'd use it if I didn't have restrictions. And if a handgun saves my life, then all my weapons were to be confiscated, I'd be pissed, but at least I'd be alive to be pissed.

Sure. But you are always under that risk if you are doing what you were told not to do and what you agreed not to do by accepting the permit. Like I said. Everyone needs to decide how much risk they want to take.

If I’m restricted maybe I won’t carry to the local diner for breakfast but I will when making a bank deposit.

If I’m unrestricted I will carry whenever and wherever without any fear as there is no risk and you are operating fully under the law and also obeying the order by your judge.

 

[Chevusa]

No one is questioning that they do not have the authority to write whatever they want on the license or issue it for whatever reason they deem as proper cause. What is a fact however that you refuse to acknowledge is that you can only be convicted by a violation of a Penal Law as written. Full stop.

That applies to any law. You can only be proesecuted for breaking a penal law as written.

Lots of opinions here. No provable facts. Let’s agree to disagree. Sad that we’d even have to have such a debate.

 

[nortatoga]

What happened to the Trespasser?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Lots of opinions here. No provable facts. Let’s agree to disagree. Sad that we’d even have to have such a debate.

What isn’t provable? That a conviction of a penal has to be what’s written in the penal law itself?

 

[Chevusa]

What isn’t provable? That a conviction of a penal has to be what’s written in the penal law itself?

Yes. The official opinion of the highest court allows for “broad authority”. It doesn’t say “authority to revoke”. It also says restrictions are a fundamental part of 400. It says without them all permits would be the same (exactly what you argue). They said it would cause all other permits to be pointless if the restrictions weren’t upheld. They ruled that carrying against restrictions is “absurd”. Do you really think those people are going to see it your way? These aren’t bar room opinions. They are in black and white as official conclusions of the highest court in the land. They weren’t kidding. It wasn’t a joke. If I can find those cases and determinations the prosecutor surely can too. Just think of everything else they can find to present against you that we don’t have access to.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Yes. The official opinion of the highest court allows for “broad authority”. It doesn’t say “authority to revoke”. It also says restrictions are a fundamental part of 400. It says without them all permits would be the same (exactly what you argue). They said it would cause all other permits to be pointless if the restrictions weren’t upheld. They ruled that carrying against restrictions is “absurd”. Do you really think those people are going to see it your way? These aren’t bar room opinions. They are in black and white as official conclusions of the highest court in the land. They weren’t kidding. It wasn’t a joke. If I can find those cases and determinations the prosecutor surely can too. Just think of everything else they can find to present against you that we don’t have access to.

You still do not get it. In order to be charged and convicted of a crime, the penal law has to reflect the actual crime to the letter. Penal law 400 does not mention anything about restrictions. Until it does, you cannot physically get convicted of violating a provision of the penal law that is not there.

Again for the 12th time. A penal law has to list the crime to the letter for a conviction. That’s not an opinion. That’s a fact.

The court gave themselves (how convenient) the power to issue restrictions. Great. But they did not change the penal law. The legislature has to do that. And until it is changed, no crime is committed.

How can you argue that?

 

[Chevusa]

You still do not get it. In order to be charged and convicted of a crime, the penal law has to reflect the actual crime to the letter. Penal law 400 does not mention anything about restrictions. Until it does, you cannot physically get convicted of violating a provision of the penal law that is not there.

Again for the 12th time. A penal law has to list the crime to the letter for a conviction. That’s not an opinion. That’s a fact.

The court gave themselves (how convenient) the power to issue restrictions. Great. But they did not change the penal law. The legislature has to do that. And until it is changed, no crime is committed.

How can you argue that?

Because they aren’t going to play along with you. You are there to defy them and they are going to do you one way or another. They will conclude that 2+2=4 even though it’s not exactly spelled out. They will put the 2 pieces together and the judge who you just told for the last hour that he’s got no authority to do it and he’s wrong and he doesn’t know the law as well as you do, is going to convict you. You cannot win this battle. It is too broad. You cannot prove your side. They will not side with you.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Omg. Until you acknowledge the absolute fact that a conviction of a penal law requires the exact wording reflecting what one did for one to be guilty, we will get nowhere with this.

Continue thinking what you think.

 

[Chevusa]

Omg. Until you acknowledge the absolute fact that a conviction of penal law requires the exact wording for one to be guilty, we will get nowhere with this.

Continue thinking what you think.

You do as well. Regardless of what you think the process will play out the same way. Your opinion is invalid in court.