Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
My opinion wouldn’t be an opinion. The words on the penal law itself are fact. Have you ever served on a jury?
Man allegedly arrested for defending his land in NY
- Thread starter Doc8404
- Start date
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Under this guy’s logic, a judge can deem a stock Mini 14 ranch model an assault weapon despite what the penal law says because he says that the intent was to ban dangerous weapons.
That’s not how it works in a courtroom.
That’s not how it works in a courtroom.
Wrong. There is no high court ruling declaring that the judges have the power to define an assault weapon. They did however say judges have broad authority over 400 and that their restrictions are fully recognized and valid. A violation of anything under 400 is a misdemeanor. The restrictions are fully recognized by the highest Court in the land. That is the precedent the prosecution will cite before your conviction. Stop with the made up hypotheticals.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Still going right over your head.
Good luck in court. I’m sure it will go exactly the way you see it going in your head.
They will probably even offer you a job as a legal scholar once you show those nasty judges and cops just how wrong they are and how only you have the proper understanding of the broad authority that has been given to them.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I just read a bunch of rulings and in all of them, they say that a judge has to the power add restrictions for just cause and to deny or revoke a license for just cause.
None of the 10 or so rulings say anything about criminal charges. None. One ruling even said that once issued, another judge cannot overturn the previous judge’s issuance and that in itself goes against all the other rulings and the penal law itself.
We all know that these rulings are BS and unconstitutional but they are there. Regardless, you cannot be convicted unless you break the stipulations in the penal law itself. That’s why all these rulings never mention criminal charges but rather revocations only. And that’s why criminals walk everyday due to the actual letter of the law despite the intent behind it.
None of the 10 or so rulings say anything about criminal charges. None. One ruling even said that once issued, another judge cannot overturn the previous judge’s issuance and that in itself goes against all the other rulings and the penal law itself.
We all know that these rulings are BS and unconstitutional but they are there. Regardless, you cannot be convicted unless you break the stipulations in the penal law itself. That’s why all these rulings never mention criminal charges but rather revocations only. And that’s why criminals walk everyday due to the actual letter of the law despite the intent behind it.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Stick to facts please. When you find anywhere that you can get convicted on things in contrary to what a penal law actually says, then we can have an intelligent conversation.Good luck in court. I’m sure it will go exactly the way you see it going in your head.
They will probably even offer you a job as a legal scholar once you show those nasty judges and cops just how wrong they are and how only you have the proper understanding of the broad authority that has been given to them.
Until then, please stop the BS statements about judges offering jobs.
The highest court in all the land said such. Read back or google it. I found it. You can too.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Please post where the highest court in all the land has said that you can get prosecuted in contrary to what a penal law or code actually says. Not that common law is law in some cases but rather that you can get prosecuted against the actual words of a penal law or code.
I’ll be waiting for it.
They said in official opinion that the restrictions were valid and legal under 400 and that broad authority applies. They said officially on record that the restrictions were as much a part of 400 as 400 is itself. Without holding them as officially authorized they said there would be no need for other permits. They said all other permits would be invalid. They called it “absurd” to ignore restrictions. You’ve got an uphill battle here and you will not win. Your opinion is mute. The highest court opinion rules.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
That’s something different from what you said earlier. Sounds like one of the ones I read.
Anyway, post the case. Let’s see if it talks about punishment for restrictions violations.
Just because something doesn’t say exactly what you want it to doesn’t make it invalid. If I’m speeding and the VT law doesn’t specify “spaghetti” doesn’t mean I’m not guilty of a violation of it. It’s not up to you. People who officially said your actions would be “absurd” if you carried whenever or wherever you wanted to on a target permit are gonna do you up good. It’s no different than the crack head who said the drugs weren’t his. He’s gonna get it just the same.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
It’s not a target permit. Please post the letter on penal law 400 specifying what license it is.
Xae289
.223 Rem
Guys, this is what this discussion looks like at this point.
The highest court said they have authority as a function of PL 400 and that the restrictions were as much of a part of 400 as 400 is itself. You don’t have to convince me. I’m with you. You have to convince the judge that he himself doesn’t know the law like you do, and that he has no power even though the letter of the law says if you violate what he legally imposed under 400 you are guilty of a misdemeanor. You will have to prove it was fake or a mistake. Maybe the judge misread the law and he couldn’t do that to you. You tell him!! Keep arguing here. It will hold no weight when you are in court in handcuffs and shackles. The judge won’t care how many times you read the law online. He won’t care how many people on a gun forum agreed with you. You will be done up.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
It’s not about convincing the judge. It’s about what’s written in the penal law itself. Your argument is that you can get a charge for a misdemeanor for disobeying a judge despite what the penal law actually says. That is false. That’s not how courts work. In fact, that misdemeanor clause says that it’s for any violation of the penal law itself. Not a court opinion. They can only go via the penal law for a conviction. What can happen however is that the judge can revoke your permit.
And that highest court case you keep quoting but won’t post again isn’t the highest court. It wasn’t even the 2nd circuit. That court case in the end was about establishing that the judge does not have to issue an unrestricted and the denial of monetary compensation for the plaintiff.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
what does it matter .. if you take it up the courts to SCOTUS FUAC will just change the law so your still fked .. 
It was the highest possible court in NY. It was also reaffirmed by lower courts. They all say the judge has the power to impose restrictions as a function of PL 400. They said if the restrictions didn’t hold water then there would be no reason for different permits. They said the restrictions lowered the bar for the issuance of permits being generated. They said you are only authorized to carry for what you showed proper cause for. If you did otherwise your actions would be “absurd”. Add all of that with “any violation is a misdemeanor” and you’ve got yourself in one hell of a problem. Stomping your feet, yelling at the judge, and swearing at the cops isn’t going to sway the ruling in your favor. You will be convicted of the blanket misdemeanor. The burden of proof needed is lower than AOC’s credit score.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
You still ignore the one relevant point that for a conviction of a crime, it has to be spelled out in the penal law. You do this in every thread. Every single one when you go on an engaging rampage and someone destroys your point, you ignore it and continue and continue going in circles as if the point was never made.
It’s a fatal flaw you have and why you aren’t taken seriously.
There is no restrictions in the penal law. You are given a license under category F.
In this case it is worded a bit differently. You are failing to connect the dots. You are the one ignoring the court findings. You are acting like they don't exist. When the judge/jury is shown the rulings that the restrictions hold water and are a function of the duties and responsibilities of PL 400, and THEN they show that any violation of PL 400 is a misdemeanor, the 2 pieces of the puzzle will be put together and you are going to be in quite a bad spot. It is a blanket misdemeanor. It does not say "only violation A is a misdemeanor when and if such person is wearing purple socks". It is very broad and gives a ton of latitude to the courts and will probably take about 35 minutes to return a guilty verdict. Your only defense will be arguing to a judge that he doesn't know the law and that he is powerless and his fellow judge who restricted you was only making a suggestion and wasn't really serious about it.
Ever see a cop show where the suspect keeps insisting that they know more than the cops and tells them they are wrong and that they can't arrest them? How does that go every single time? The person is cuffed and stuffed. That's exactly how this would go too.
Here's where they get you. This is all that is needed for conviction of "any violation".
400 (2) (f) authorizes the restrictions. You violate the restrictions. You have just violated something under the umbrella of PL 400. Full stop. Simple as that. The restrictions aren't authorized by the speed limit. They are authorized by PL 400. Also notice how to get restrictions removed it is legally referred to as "amending the license". That means the restricted version of the license is real and exists in law. Otherwise it would not require an amendment. You can say all you want that it's not spelled out in the law, but the official opinion is the only one that matters, and it is exactly the opposite of your opinion.
154 Misc.2d 694 (1992)
In the Matter of Michael V. O'Connor, as Applicant, for an Amended Pistol License.
County Court, Westchester County.
The applicant is the holder of New York State amended pistol license No. 39608. This license is "restricted to target shooting and hunting". The applicant seeks an order amending his license by removing all "restrictions" upon the grounds that such restrictions are not authorized by State law (see, Penal Law § 400.00).
The issue is whether a pistol licensing officer outside of New York City has the legal authority to place "restrictions" on a pistol license issued pursuant to Penal Law § 400.00 (2) (f). At the applicant's request, the court has received and reviewed written argument and a memorandum of law submitted by the applicant's attorney. Upon the court's review of the record and the applicable statutes, the court holds that Penal Law § 400.00 (2) (f) authorizes licensing officers to restrict a license to the purposes which justified its issuance.
If an applicant, like this applicant, seeks to carry for "hunting, target shooting and protection of property and person," and assuming the sincerity of the claims, the applicant has stated a legitimate reason to carry the weapon only in connection with target shooting and hunting activities. The applicant's narrow construction of the statute would require the issuance of an unrestricted license to carry for all purposes upon a showing of need for any limited purpose. Thus, anyone who expresses a legitimate interest in target shooting or hunting would automatically be licensed to carry a concealed weapon anytime, anywhere, and for whatever reason they wanted. Such a result would frustrate and render ineffective the obvious purpose of the statute to regulate and control the proliferation, possession, and use of handguns in this State. Such a result would be absurd and would lead to objectionable consequences contrary to the intent of the statute.
So now we can all clearly see that PL 400 includes the ability to restrict a permit. Let's keep going. Follow the bouncing ball. Let's see if we can connect the 2 dots.
15. Any violation by any person of any provision of this section is a class A misdemeanor.
It's incredibly easy to understand.
A) Can they restrict a license pursuant to PL 400? YES.
B) Is any violation of any part of PL 400 a misdemeanor? YES.
400 (2) (f) authorizes the restrictions. You violate the restrictions. You have just violated something under the umbrella of PL 400. Full stop. Simple as that. The restrictions aren't authorized by the speed limit. They are authorized by PL 400. Also notice how to get restrictions removed it is legally referred to as "amending the license". That means the restricted version of the license is real and exists in law. Otherwise it would not require an amendment. You can say all you want that it's not spelled out in the law, but the official opinion is the only one that matters, and it is exactly the opposite of your opinion.
154 Misc.2d 694 (1992)
In the Matter of Michael V. O'Connor, as Applicant, for an Amended Pistol License.
County Court, Westchester County.
The applicant is the holder of New York State amended pistol license No. 39608. This license is "restricted to target shooting and hunting". The applicant seeks an order amending his license by removing all "restrictions" upon the grounds that such restrictions are not authorized by State law (see, Penal Law § 400.00).
The issue is whether a pistol licensing officer outside of New York City has the legal authority to place "restrictions" on a pistol license issued pursuant to Penal Law § 400.00 (2) (f). At the applicant's request, the court has received and reviewed written argument and a memorandum of law submitted by the applicant's attorney. Upon the court's review of the record and the applicable statutes, the court holds that Penal Law § 400.00 (2) (f) authorizes licensing officers to restrict a license to the purposes which justified its issuance.
If an applicant, like this applicant, seeks to carry for "hunting, target shooting and protection of property and person," and assuming the sincerity of the claims, the applicant has stated a legitimate reason to carry the weapon only in connection with target shooting and hunting activities. The applicant's narrow construction of the statute would require the issuance of an unrestricted license to carry for all purposes upon a showing of need for any limited purpose. Thus, anyone who expresses a legitimate interest in target shooting or hunting would automatically be licensed to carry a concealed weapon anytime, anywhere, and for whatever reason they wanted. Such a result would frustrate and render ineffective the obvious purpose of the statute to regulate and control the proliferation, possession, and use of handguns in this State. Such a result would be absurd and would lead to objectionable consequences contrary to the intent of the statute.
So now we can all clearly see that PL 400 includes the ability to restrict a permit. Let's keep going. Follow the bouncing ball. Let's see if we can connect the 2 dots.
15. Any violation by any person of any provision of this section is a class A misdemeanor.
It's incredibly easy to understand.
A) Can they restrict a license pursuant to PL 400? YES.
B) Is any violation of any part of PL 400 a misdemeanor? YES.
Last edited:
spat
.950 JDJ
But why would the restriction be a part of PL400 ?
Just because it authorizes adding them doesn't me they are automatically incorporated into it.
It falls under no other section. It exists only under the umbrella of 400. It is not found in the traffic law. It is not found in the general business law. It is fully incorporated as a function of the licensing officer established in 400.
To argue that PL400 authorizes restrictions but a violation of them somehow removes them from PL400 is not going to work in court. They don't change classification based on the circumstances.
spat
.950 JDJ
They are not part of any law. They can't be removed from pl400 because they were never there to begin with. Just because it authorized the judge to add the restrictions doesn't mean violating them is a violation of pl400. It just doesn't work like that.
The judges ability to add restrictions is based on his authority to deny or revoke the license for any reason. That's exactly what your court case says.
So, violating the restrictions is the equivalent of having the license revoked, not of violating pl400.
At best, you can say that your license under pl400 is invalid while carrying outside your restrictions (which is actually worse than the misdemeanor that violating pl400 would be).
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Penal law 400 in itself does not say that restrictions are authorized on a category F license. The only restricted licenses are the ones in other categories like premises and employment ones.
You keep confusing the meaning of these court cases that simply say that the judge can issue based on just cause and revoke based on just cause. What they stamp on the license is irrelevant and not in the penal law. These cases do not say that category F has been altered into a whole new class of licenses.
It goes like this. You apply for target. I grant your just license and stamp target on your license because that is the just cause that I accepted to grant you one. Later you are caught carrying in contrast to what your just cause was and if Icare, I can revoke it if I want to because penal law 400 gives me the power to do so.
Category F is a full carry license. It has not been altered in the penal law. Your biggest problem here is that you do not understand what the court cases actually mean.
They don't see it your way.
"...anyone who expresses a legitimate interest in target shooting or hunting would automatically be licensed to carry a concealed weapon anytime, anywhere, and for whatever reason they wanted. Such a result would frustrate and render ineffective the obvious purpose of the statute to regulate and control the proliferation, possession, and use of handguns in this State. Such a result would be absurd and would lead to objectionable consequences contrary to the intent of the statute."
They literally say the restrictions are there so people cannot carry whenever and wherever they want. The restriction is in force to control the "proliferation, possession, and use of handguns".
The restrictions are a function of PL 400. I've shown you many times how easy it is to connect the 2 dots. By ignoring the restrictions you are "frustrating and rendering ineffective" the licensing system. If PL 400 allows for the issuing of restrictions, which is the official ruling, then violating them is violating a component of PL 400, even if just in spirit, it is the exact "intent of the statute". You might not believe it, but a jury certainly would. They even go as far as to say this is "obvious".
Licensees in violation of these (pistol permit) restrictions would therefore not be subject to criminal prosecution but would face action being taken by the court of issuance in the form of suspension or possible revocation of the license.
A pistol permit is a zero sum proposition in NY State. Either you are issued and have a pistol permit or you do not. The issuing mechanism is delegated to the county level with a designated county judge (or several depending on the size of your county) being the issuing officer.
NY state law allows the issuing officer (the judge) to place administrative restraints on your permit. In the context of this issue, Administrative restraints refers to the manner which you can carry a handgun.
The administrative function has no criminal repercussions meaning that you cannot be arrested for carrying outside of the administrative restraints placed on your permit. The judge can however suspend/revoke your permit at which time you would not be able to possess or purchase any handguns for any purpose whatsoever. It is solely at the discretion of the judge (which is the fatal flaw in our system IMO).
A pistol permit is a zero sum proposition in NY State. Either you are issued and have a pistol permit or you do not. The issuing mechanism is delegated to the county level with a designated county judge (or several depending on the size of your county) being the issuing officer.
NY state law allows the issuing officer (the judge) to place administrative restraints on your permit. In the context of this issue, Administrative restraints refers to the manner which you can carry a handgun.
The administrative function has no criminal repercussions meaning that you cannot be arrested for carrying outside of the administrative restraints placed on your permit. The judge can however suspend/revoke your permit at which time you would not be able to possess or purchase any handguns for any purpose whatsoever. It is solely at the discretion of the judge (which is the fatal flaw in our system IMO).
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
@Chevusa
Post the actual case where you are getting this from rather than a hand picked excerpt. Because if it’s the case that I think it is, that case was about getting restrictions removed and monetary compensation for the one who made the complaint.
Post the actual case where you are getting this from rather than a hand picked excerpt. Because if it’s the case that I think it is, that case was about getting restrictions removed and monetary compensation for the one who made the complaint.