Open Carry (security vs. us)

[Chevusa]

Have in F specifically says not limited to place or time.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Nope. A premises is license says to possess in a household specifically. Type F says to have and carry concealed. Premises makes no mention of to have.

F gives you the possession exemption with the words “To Have”. “To carry concealed” which is another act in addition to having is the other exemption. If “To Have” meant that you can carry openly, then there would be no need for a concealed exemption because all methods of carry would be included by default with the phrase “To Have”.

Give it up already. Or do what you want and test the waters. Start carrying 100 percent openly for the next month rather than deliberately printing. Be a man and stand by your words if it is indeed legal like you say in contrast to every legal counsel found on the internet by lawyers.

 

[Chevusa]

There is the smoking gun. (In addition to everyone else carrying openly with the same license language).

The household license says to Have and Possess. Therefore Have cannot mean the same as possess. Therefore Have in type F also cannot just mean to possess.

Have is to have with you. Carry concealed is to cover it.

 

[Chevusa]

F gives you the possession exemption with the words “To Have”. “To carry concealed” which is another act in addition to having is the other exemption. If “To Have” meant that you can carry openly, then there would be no need for a concealed exemption because all methods of carry would be included by default with the phrase “To Have”.

Give it up already. Or do what you want and test the waters. Start carrying 100 percent openly for the next month rather than deliberately printing. Be a man and stand by your words if it is indeed legal like you say in contrast to every legal counsel found on the internet by lawyers.


comically wrong. The entire formation of concealed carry law was open carry is legal and concealed must be regulated. See my latest lost about home permits. And read up on your law history to grasp the context.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Have in F specifically says not limited to place or time.

Correct. You can have it wherever you want not limited to time or place. And? What does that have to do with carrying which is an action in addition to having it? Seems like you are have a tough time with reading comprehension.

 

[spat]

No. Possession and carry are 2 different things. Possession alone is having it. Possession on your body is still possessing it as well as carrying it. That’s why if you read Penal law 400, the words aren’t interchangeable. That’s why they are mentioned separately in multiple sentences all over Penal Law 400. There is a clear distinction between the two. That’s why premises licenses only give you an exemption to possess. If open carrying was legal, then anyone with a premises license would be able to OC it. That clearly isn’t the case.

If a person without a permit carries a firearm concealed, what are they charged with ?

Oh, yeah, possession. The exact same thing they are charged with if they open carry it, or it's found in their safe at home.

The exact same thing that PL400 exempt license holders from.

 

[Chevusa]

Correct. You can have it wherever you want not limited to time or place. And? What does that have to do with carrying which is an action in addition to having it? Seems like you are have a tough time with reading comprehension.

See latest replies and read up on history of said les existence

 

[stokes]

Wrong. License type is E. It’s right above F. It clearly lists the professions in plain English. Peace officers are not exempt the way police officers are. You have to dig deep but the law is there. Look up exemptions in 265. It clearly states a license under 400 is needed for peace officers. The language under 400 is the same for E as it is for F. Don’t make statements that you don’t know as absolute fact

Dont know as absolute fact?So for 30 years I was working I was breaking the law?There are different levels of peace officer.You have been talking out your ass for 6 pages.You talk just like a jail house lawyer.Just open carry so everybody will know what a tough guy you think you are and go away.Dick

 

[Chevusa]

Dont know as absolute fact?So for 30 years I was working I was breaking the law?There are different levels of peace officer.You have been talking out your ass for 6 pages.You talk just like a jail house lawyer.Just open carry so everybody will know what a tough guy you think you are and go away.Dick

Ok fake cop. Low intelligence loser.

 

[Marine Cpl]

comically wrong. The entire formation of concealed carry law was open carry is legal and concealed must be regulated. See my latest lost about home permits. And read up on your law history to grasp the context.

Incorrect. All possession was outlawed with the passage of Penal law 265.

 

[Marine Cpl]

If a person without a permit carries a firearm concealed, what are they charged with ?

Oh, yeah, possession. The exact same thing they are charged with if they open carry it, or it's found in their safe at home.

The exact same thing that PL400 exempt license holders from.

Carrying is possessing. You can possess and not carry. You seem to be confused.

 

[Chevusa]

Incorrect. All possess was outlawed with the passage of Penal law 265.

Of which I am exempt

 

[stokes]

Ok fake cop. Low intelligence loser.

Never said I was a cop.I was a peace officer for NYS for 30 yrs.Never had a permit til I retired.So,counselor,or should I say fake lawyer,explain how I did that

 

[spat]

Carrying is possessing. You can possess and not carry. You seem to be confused.

You are correct, however of possessing and carrying, only possessing is illegal. A license under PL400 exempts you of that.

But it's all irrelevant. Nobody in 100 years has been conviceted the way you say people will be.

Blowjobs were illegal in many states until just a few years ago, and those laws are still on the books some places.

As recently as 2014 cops and prosecutors were trying to enforce sodemy laws that SCOTUS has explicitly invalidated. Those laws were also irrelevant.

So, while I disagree with your interpretation of the text of PL265 and PL400, even *if* you were correct, it would be irrelevant.

 

[Chevusa]

Carrying is possessing. You can possess and not carry. You seem to be confused.

If you want to go by 400 exactly then you must go by the household language which separates the have and to possess. Clearly a gun sitting on a table is different and separate than one carried or the language would not need to say to have and possess. It would all be possess. The have is different as evident in 400.

 

[Chevusa]

It train boy was correct it would be legal to have a gun sitting on your table but illegal to have it on your hip in your home with the home permit type.

 

[Chevusa]

Never said I was a cop.I was a peace officer for NYS for 30 yrs.Never had a permit til I retired.So,counselor,or should I say fake lawyer,explain how I did that

265 clearly lists the exemptions in plain written English

Pease officers is referred to Criminal Procedure Law 2.10 for definitions. There it lists Sheriffs so on and so forth. When you get to certain job titles such as the examples I gave it has a clear disclaimer stating

"provided, however, that nothing in this subdivision shall be deemed to authorize such employee to carry, possess, repair or dispose of a firearm unless the appropriate license therefor has been issued pursuant to section 400.00 of the penal law ."

BOOM! Not all peace officers may carry a gun. If they want to they must get license 400 2 E and the language of law for such is identical to my 400 2 F.

Case closed. Sorry.

PROOFS:

Article 265 Penal Law Firearms - Dangerous Weapons | NY Law

Firearms and Other Dangerous Weapons. A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree

ypdcrime.com

New York Consolidated Laws, Criminal Procedure Law - CPL § 2.10 | FindLaw

New York Criminal Procedure Law CPL NY CRIM PRO Section 2.10. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

 

[nortatoga]

 

[Chevusa]

Cuck fool

 

[Marine Cpl]

You are correct, however of possessing and carrying, only possessing is illegal. A license under PL400 exempts you of that.

But it's all irrelevant. Nobody in 100 years has been conviceted the way you say people will be.

Blowjobs were illegal in many states until just a few years ago, and those laws are still on the books some places.

As recently as 2014 cops and prosecutors were trying to enforce sodemy laws that SCOTUS has explicitly invalidated. Those laws were also irrelevant.

So, while I disagree with your interpretation of the text of PL265 and PL400, even *if* you were correct, it would be irrelevant.

Correct. Hardly anyone has been convicted. Just the same as no one in the last 20 years has been convicted of adultery or sodomy for anal sex. Doesn’t mean anything. All that can change on a whim with another governor or AG in the future.

 

[Marine Cpl]

If you want to go by 400 exactly then you must go by the household language which separates the have and to possess. Clearly a gun sitting on a table is different and separate than one carried or the language would not need to say to have and possess. It would all be possess. The have is different as evident in 400.

You should read it. That’s not what it says. It says to have and carry concealed. Not to have and possess.

 

[Marine Cpl]

It train boy was correct it would be legal to have a gun sitting on your table but illegal to have it on your hip in your home with the home permit type.

That is correct. You should really read the Penal Law and if you cannot, pay someone to rad it for you.

Such license shall specify the weapon covered by calibre, make, model, manufacturer's name and serial number, or if none, by any other distinguishing number or identification mark, and shall indicate whether issued to carry on the person or possess on the premises, and if on the premises shall also specify the place where the licensee shall possess the same.

Notice the clear distinction that rips apart Spat’s and your argument. Just read rather than argue. It’s all right there.

 

[Chevusa]

You should read it. That’s not what it says. It says to have and carry concealed. Not to have and possess.

100000% WRONG "You should read it".

(a) have and possess in his dwelling by a householder

Article 400 | NYS Penal Law | Licensing Provisions Firearms

Any owner in possession of a firearm who suffers the loss or theft shall within twenty-four hours report the loss...

ypdcrime.com

If "Have" and "Possess" have different meanings as they clearly and obviously do as proven in the language of 400 2 A, then "Have" cannot mean just to possess at home like you claim. It is clear and plain English and it is in writing for all to see.

 

[Chevusa]

You should really read the Penal Law and if you cannot, pay someone to rad it for you.

Do what now? If you cannot spell you should pay someone to do it for you.

 

[Marine Cpl]

100000% WRONG "You should read it".

(a) have and possess in his dwelling by a householder

Article 400 | NYS Penal Law | Licensing Provisions Firearms

Any owner in possession of a firearm who suffers the loss or theft shall within twenty-four hours report the loss...

ypdcrime.com

If "Have" and "Possess" have different meanings as they clearly and obviously do as proven in the language of 400 2 A, then "Have" cannot mean just to possess at home like you claim. It is clear and plain English and it is in writing for all to see.

Did you read what I posted?

Such license shall specify the weapon covered by calibre, make, model, manufacturer's name and serial number, or if none, by any other distinguishing number or identification mark, and shall indicate whether issued to carry on the person or possess on the premises, and if on the premises shall also specify the place where the licensee shall possess the same.

Notice the distinction. What else are you going to say now?

 

[Chevusa]

Did you read what I posted?

Such license shall specify the weapon covered by calibre, make, model, manufacturer's name and serial number, or if none, by any other distinguishing number or identification mark, and shall indicate whether issued to carry on the person or possess on the premises, and if on the premises shall also specify the place where the licensee shall possess the same.

Notice the distinction. What else are you going to say now?

You posted have and possess does not appear. That was easily debunked. It is clear as day. It is right there and you were completely wrong.

(a) have and possess in his dwelling by a householder

 

[Chevusa]

Have and possess clearly do not mean the same thing. The evidence is in A. If they did the law would as written mean "to possess and to possess". That would not make any sense. It says to HAVE and POSSESS. They mean different things.

What you posted "shall indicate whether issued to carry on the person or possess on the premises" is also silent on method of carry. It just says your permit will say if you can carry or if you must keep it in your house. Mine says I can carry.

 

[Marine Cpl]

You posted have and possess does not appear. That was easily debunked. It is clear as day. It is right there and you were completely wrong.

(a) have and possess in his dwelling by a householder

Because we are talking about our license. Anyway, will you acknowledge the distinction in the text that I posted or does that not exist in your world?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Have and possess clearly do not mean the same thing. The evidence is in A. If they did the law would as written mean "to possess and to possess". That would not make any sense. It says to HAVE and POSSESS. They mean different things.

What you posted "shall indicate whether issued to carry on the person or possess on the premises" is also silent on method of carry. It just says your permit will say if you can carry or if you must keep it in your house. Mine says I can carry.

OMG. What is your license for? What type of license do you have? Category F?

 

[Chevusa]

OMG. What is your license for? What does this phrase say?



What type of license do you have?

You cannot ignore one part of 400 and try to change the meanings of another part of the same law. Have and Possess are two different things. 400 2 A provides that proof. Therefore you cannot say in 400 2 F that Have just means to possess. It has been established in written law that they are different. If they were the same then in 400 2 A it would not say "have and possess". It would just say have OR possess. Not both.


My license is the same language as others who OC. Jail guards security armored cars. They all say have AND carry concealed. They carry openly and do not exercise the other additional permission of "AND concealed". You cannot move further until you overcome that by a written law distinguishing the difference. Please cite the exact text in NY law. Otherwise you are pissing into the wind. I will need to see the words openly carried in an exemption for certain types of employment or you are done and your rambling will be ignored.