Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Will you be wearing a mask around our President?
Open Carry (security vs. us)
- Thread starter Chevusa
- Start date
Xae289
.223 Rem
OK, then what statute can you be charged under if you carry in violation of the conditions in which you were issued a license under 400? If not 265, then I have no clue.
To "have" and "possess" don't mean the same thing as you rightly point out. But by the same logic, to "have" and to "carry" also don't mean the same thing. And also by the same logic, to "carry concealed" and just to "carry" mean slightly different things.
Agreed.
That letter is interesting, but I wonder what the answer would have been for a license with "full carry". It also doesn't cite any laws.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
You can get charged with a misdemeanor from Penal Law 400 itself.
15. Any violation by any person of any provision of this section is a class A misdemeanor
17. Applicability of section. The provisions of article two hundred sixty-five of this chapter relating to illegal possession of a firearm, shall not apply to an offense which also constitutes a violation of this section by a person holding an otherwise valid license under the provisions of this section and such offense shall only be punishable as a class A misdemeanor pursuant to this section. In addition, the provisions of such article two hundred sixty-five of this chapter shall not apply to the possession of a firearm in a place not authorized by law, by a person who holds an otherwise valid license or possession of a firearm by a person within a one year period after the stated expiration date of an otherwise valid license which has not been previously cancelled or revoked shall only be punishable as a class A misdemeanor pursuant to this section.
Xae289
.223 Rem
Great to know!
It would be the same permissions just not limited to hunting or target shooting. It would be valid for any carrying. A full carry or unrestricted permit would not automatically trigger a new law requiring you to carry concealed. It exists nowhere in the law. The letter doesn't need to cite any laws because it is from the judge and the court. The judge does nit need to prove anything to you or back anything up. What he says goes and he issued the permit and he has the best understanding of it. He says OC is legal.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
You realize that my letter of issuance said that carry in bars where alcohol is served is illegal. I know you really aren’t that ________.
Read this one from Suffolk county. Tell them and Herkimer to fight it out.
Elwood
.223 Rem
Xae289
.223 Rem
The problem is that the requirement to carry concealed does seem to explicitly exist somewhere in the law. The license (f) in question specifies to carry "concealed" while another statutory license (g) allows one to "carry" without the modifier "concealed". Based on the previous post, you seem to hinge the idea that the statute allows us to open carry based on the idea that to "have" implies carrying openly, but I don't see anything to back it up. To "have" doesn't mean to "possess" as you stated yourself. To "have" also doesn't mean to "carry concealed". Finally, why would they go through the effort to specify to "carry concealed" in every part of the statute but the one regarding antique weapons where the modifier "concealed" is not appended to the word "carry"? It could be an oversight, but I don't think that's a good assumption and that the distinction exists for a reason.
The letter is interesting, but because it outlines the custom in your county, not the letter of the law. Herkimer's language states you can carry openly on your way to hunt. I'm sure the police in Herkimer wouldn't be in the habit of harrassing someone in camo with a 6" revolver hanging off their hip. I also doubt a prosecutor in Herkimer would think it would be worth their time to go after you. I really don't think I would get the same reaction if a Mount Vernon PD officer were standing outside a convenience store while I went in, going about my daily business with a big iron on my hip. And I also don't think a Mount Vernon "tough-on-gun-crime" prosecutor would consider it a waste of their time to strip me of my license and lock me up on misdemeanor charges for violating 400 since it clearly says that I was licensed to "carry concealed" and wasn't even trying to conceal it.
Wow. Even the "violation of 400 is a misdemeanor" is not true as I read through it.
PL 400
Any violation by any person of any provision of this section is a
class A misdemeanor.
It then goes on to talk about unlawful disposal and registration. There is no link to any section of 400 2 (A-G). The two sections could not be further apart therefore "of this section" on it's face would not apply to anything other than the things I mentioned that are in the same area as the text "Any violation by any person of any provision of this section is a class A misdemeanor."
PL 400
Any violation by any person of any provision of this section is a
class A misdemeanor.
It then goes on to talk about unlawful disposal and registration. There is no link to any section of 400 2 (A-G). The two sections could not be further apart therefore "of this section" on it's face would not apply to anything other than the things I mentioned that are in the same area as the text "Any violation by any person of any provision of this section is a class A misdemeanor."
Xae289
.223 Rem
You're reading 400(15) there. Read 400(17), which is the same section that you correctly had in your head when you told me that once licensed, 400 protects you from 265.
Because this is what was outlawed when the law was written. Everyone open carried except for criminals. This was the purpose of the law. It gave the additional permission to conceal. The law does not say to conceal only or must conceal. The permit under limitations or conditions or whatever its called on the back where it says no NYC carry does not say must conceal only. Why not? There are so many available places to say must conceal however it is silent on it.
The court paper says restricted permit and also open carry while going to the activities. It does not just say open carry to hunt. I am unrestricted. therefore on its face the same permissions would be granted to the full permit. There would not be more limitations of mode of carry for someone with the "higher' or better permit. it doesn't stand up to immediate scrutiny.
I did. whats your point? It just says you cannot be charged in 265 if you have 400. If you have a household permit you may not be charged with 265 if you leave your house with it but may be charged with A misd. It spells that out clearly.
Xae289
.223 Rem
Sure, and when the Second Amendment was written, it protected citizens from the government trying to restrict their ability to buy a ship and stick all the cannons he wanted on it. Try and buy a fully armed and functional cruiser today. The point is that in the wrong context, it won't matter what the history was, it's the hard words in print that will matter. The prosecutor will argue what I'm arguing, your defense attorney will argue what you're arguing, and a jury of your peers will determine whether you deserve to get smacked with a Class A Misdemeanor. It sucks, but that's the reality of living in a state where the state and some local governments are hell-bent on violating 2A rights – they can violate your rights if they get even the thinnest justifications.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
household permit ?? did you mean premise permit ??
yes. same thing. "by a house owner" I believe it says. Pistol permit. Pistol license. All the same thing.
Exactly! The words "conceal only" or "open carry prohibited" exist nowhere. If it's not spelled out as illegal and defined it is legal.
The law (400) provides nowhere for me or anyone else to be charged with a Class A Misdemeanor. That text only applies to a specific section as proven in previous post. It applies to disposal and registration violations.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
i question because household could be taken as in the house only .. the other i can have it all over my 20 acres
(a) have and possess in his dwelling by a householderi question because household could be taken as in the house only .. the other i can have it all over my 20 acres
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
now i need a outhouse permit lol grr..
Xae289
.223 Rem
Man, have a good night. I have no intention to open carry. The discussion ran its course and I seriously doubt you plan to come down to Westchester and walk around Mamaroneck Ave in White Plains while open carrying until you find out what part of the statute they'll slap you with misdemeanor charges using. My bet would be on 400(17), but you already decided that the section definitely wouldn't apply. Maybe the assholes will charge you under 120(14) for brandishing. Maybe both as they throw charges at you to see what sticks. You'd probably even be right. Maybe, and this is a huge maybe, your lawyer convinces the jury of Karens and Kens and you win the case. You'll still have been put through the legal wringer.
It's not what I decide. It's what's written in the text of law. Section 17 only states that a violation of 400 SHALL NOT constitute a violation of 265.
"Brandishing" exists nowhere in NY law text.
For menacing you need to intentionally place a person in reasonable fear for their life. That in no way can apply to a holstered gun with no threats made. If it could I could swear out a complaint of menacing on a police officer I saw walking down the street. The penal law does not exempt police from menacing charges. Therefore I could have any cop arrested and charged whenever I saw their gun.
You need to set pride and feelings aside and just deal with the written text of law.
I love to open carry. It just feels right to me. On occasion, I do exactly that; I strap on a really nice leather belt and I walk around with a beautiful 1911, my favorite type of gun. I do not do this everywhere. I am not an idiot. Yeah, I have the ole badge thing to protect myself with, that is, if I am carrying said badge.
I do not think it is lawful to do, nor do I think it is unlawful to do. I think this goes back to the old saying of location, location, location.
There are places in this Great State of New York that you could open carry all day long and nothing would occur in a negative fashion.
There are places in the same State, that if you did, the jam up would hit you really quick.
Security guards, armor car guys and the like are not questioned about this for a couple of reasons; they are working the job, two, most cops do not know the law and third, very important third.... Cops do not care. The third reason stated, I think, is the most important part of this equation.
I do not think it is lawful to do, nor do I think it is unlawful to do. I think this goes back to the old saying of location, location, location.
There are places in this Great State of New York that you could open carry all day long and nothing would occur in a negative fashion.
There are places in the same State, that if you did, the jam up would hit you really quick.
Security guards, armor car guys and the like are not questioned about this for a couple of reasons; they are working the job, two, most cops do not know the law and third, very important third.... Cops do not care. The third reason stated, I think, is the most important part of this equation.
I lived in Texas at one time. There they have something called a "BBQ Gun". People wear their nicest pistols (usually a 1911) to social gatherings and cookouts. What a great state that is.
Top Breaks, Outlaw, & Frontier | Uberti USA Replica Rifles and Revolvers
www.uberti-usa.com
this used to be my BBQ. I sold it a few years ago. I would polish the shit out of it, I had a nice leather holster that I used and I would carry it cross draw, in front. Showed nearly all of the gleam and shine.
Yeah, I was that guy.
Xae289
.223 Rem
I'm not coming at you with pride or feelings. I'd love for it to mean what you think it means. Based on the words and the words alone, which we've both read, I don't think that you won't get arrested and charged with a crime if open carrying in a gun-unfriendly NY jurisdiction.
Now, you can be wrongfully charged with a crime and found innocent. You can also be wrongfully charged with a crime and found guilty. Regardless of whether your legal interpretation is correct (and you seem to be as much of a lawyer as me, i.e. not one) in the wrong place, someone open carrying will have the cops called on them, the cops will arrest them, the prosecutor will level charges against them, and whether they go free or to jail will depend on how good their lawyer is and how sympathetic their jury is.
You've resorted to making assumptions of what people who you do not know will do. You and everyone else for that matter has failed to cite the text that says open carry is illegal for Joe blow (except when hunting [LOL]) but legal for security and others. This is not how law works. It must be spelled out exactly. It isn't. What is not illegal is legal. This is the foundation of our laws. A cop cannot just decide he doesn't like something then charge you with a law that does not specifically have a provision defined for exactly what you were doing.
Funny thing is, there is nothing written, that I can find, that allows Police officers to strap a gun on their hip open either. But, we all know coppers do just that, everyday they go to work.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Implication of how it used to be and intent unfortunately have no meaning. It’sWhat’s actually written in the law. Years ago, they banned gravity knives. Those were knives that paratroopers carried that dropped from the handle and locked into an open position. Then years later, NY prosecutors charged and convicted people with regular locking folders because they can be opened via gravity and lock into an open position. Obviously that wasn’t the intent of the law but they applied it to regular locking folders anyway.
So there you have it. The 2A was intended for us to have anything a soldier carried. What does the law say now?
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Lots of things just are done. My buddy from the Marines after he got out got a regular job in construction. He also became a reserve police officer. He somehow managed to get onto a SWAT team as a reserve police officer. Probably knew someone. Anyway, Puff Daddy or P Diddy whatever that piece of shit was called back at the time hired him as security. He travelled all over the country with him as armed security with his firearm way before LEOSA was a thing. No cop in any state messed with him.
Much better things for them to do then jam up another cop making a living, a uniformed armed guard making a living, or a hunter open carrying to his blind.
Again, depends on who you are, what you are and who the cops are around you.
This is life. Fair? Nope. Reality? Yep. Sometimes we are the windshield, and sometimes, we are the splattered bug!