Remove Sportsman Restrictions from (Rockland County) Pistol Permits!

[Criticalt]

This is a very nuanced topic with good. points on both sides.
Everyone is caught up on the word "law".
It is not a violation, a misdemeanor or a felony to carry outside of restrictions.....period, so, it is not illegal or "against the law" to do so.
This is a rules vs law argument....kinda like "No gun" signs at Walmart. Breaking a rule is not breaking the law.
Restrictions are RULES added to your permit by a judge or issuing agent.
Some counties strictly enforce these rules and some dont.
Others, like our local judge says restrictions are unconstitutional and unnecessary...therefore he has never used them.
This isnt a black and white issue which makes this topic the definition of arbitrary and capricious.
Ive seen people of nearly identical demographic and background have different outcomes, one gets unrestricted, the other restricted.

 

[Chevusa]

Your restriction isn't a local law or ordinance. You are mixing your terms and definitions up to fit your opinion. I have provided you with many examples of the power of the licensing officer as determined by the Courts. Just because it's not in the penal law, doesn't mean they can't do it. That genie is out of the bottle. It is well known case law. The precedent has already been set. I know it's not what you want to hear. I don't like it either. But if you get jammed up you quoting the penal law to the judge and telling him he can't do that is not going to help you. True, you wouldn't be arrested for unlawful possession, (although as the courts have ruled in the past the violation of restrictions is violating the intent of the law in the first place, so I wouldn't test them) but I would be a little concerned about losing thousands and thousands of dollars worth of firearms. Just be careful out there.

 

[Chevusa]

My county is very upfront about the consequences of carrying against your restrictions:

 

[Criticalt]

Your restriction isn't a local law or ordinance. You are mixing your terms and definitions up to fit your opinion. I have provided you with many examples of the power of the licensing officer as determined by the Courts. Just because it's not in the penal law, doesn't mean they can't do it. That genie is out of the bottle. It is well known case law. The precedent has already been set. I know it's not what you want to hear. I don't like it either. But if you get jammed up you quoting the penal law to the judge and telling him he can't do that is not going to help you. True, you wouldn't be arrested for unlawful possession, (although as the courts have ruled in the past the violation of restrictions is violating the intent of the law in the first place, so I wouldn't test them) but I would be a little concerned about losing thousands and thousands of dollars worth of firearms. Just be careful out there.

I sure hope you arent replying to my post, im not the one mixing things up.
Using terms like "spirit of the law" can give people the idea they are breaking the law. The "spirit of the law" is a garbage term that we gun owners face everyday with the 2nd amendment and none of it holds water in the actual LETTER of the law.
As I said before, each county in NYS handles this differently. If someone is dumb enough to disobey their licencing officers orders, they better know how their licencing officer will react.
Heres the thing......
I can show you in court papers where a judge says the 2nd amendment was meant for militias. And that the 2nd does not allow carrying outside the home. Thats how they see the 2nd through the spirit of the law.
So I sure hope you agree with those two "spirit of the law" interpretations.
Anyways, of course a LO can revoke your permit for just about anything but that diesnt mean the will....or should be allowed to.
Spirit of the law means nothing.

 

[Robin]

My county is very upfront about the consequences of carrying against your restrictions:
View attachment 60212

Exactly, and if you don't play by his rules, you won't be arrested, but he "may" eject you from the game.
Robin

 

[Darth]

Just quickly like to point out that not a single instance of this perpetual fear mongering "they'll yank your permit!" has been posted yet.

Or ever.

 

[Chevusa]

Just quickly like to point out that not a single instance of this perpetual fear mongering "they'll yank your permit!" has been posted yet.

Or ever.

Do you have access to every court order in the history of the state? I don't.

 

[Chevusa]

Exactly, and if you don't play by his rules, you won't be arrested, but he "may" eject you from the game.
Robin

And the cost (losing your guns) of being "ejected" from the game would be dire.

 

[Robin]

Just quickly like to point out that not a single instance of this perpetual fear mongering "they'll yank your permit!" has been posted yet.

Or ever.

"may" is the operative word. You may be called in to make your case orally.
Robin

 

[Chevusa]

I sure hope you arent replying to my post, im not the one mixing things up.
Using terms like "spirit of the law" can give people the idea they are breaking the law.

The penal law referencing local laws or ordinances has noting to do with the restrictions. Those are completely different things. That is saying town ABC can't make a law saying no guns on Main St. between the hours of 7am-3pm on weekdays.

I'm not using any terms. I am relaying the exact text used by the Court in their official decisions.

 

[Chevusa]

"may" is the operative word. You may be called in to make your case orally.
Robin

Where does it say that? There isn't a set procedure. As far as everything I've read, you aren't entitled to due process. The licensing officer may use broad authority to revoke when good cause exists. Has it happened before? Maybe. Maybe not. Want to be the first person? I wouldn't.

 

[Marine Cpl]

My county is very upfront about the consequences of carrying against your restrictions:
View attachment 60212

Isn’t that what we have been saying? I don’t understand what your angle is? What we are saying is that carrying outside of restrictions isn’t illegal. Period. And a judge can revoke your license for failure to obey the rules. Period.

What is your argument? That you can face Criminal Possession of a Weapon for carrying outside of your restrictions? If that is your argument than you are mistaken.

 

[Criticalt]

The penal law referencing local laws or ordinances has noting to do with the restrictions. Those are completely different things. That is saying town ABC can't make a law saying no guns on Main St. between the hours of 7am-3pm on weekdays.

I'm not using any terms. I am relaying the exact text used by the Court in their official decisions.

Right, thats exactly what I said.
You made it a point to bring up "spirit of the law" which is what judges who do not agree with a law say to show their interpretation of the law or what they themselves believe the writers of the law meant.
Its not their job to decide what the writers meant, its their job to follow the LETTER of the law whether they like it or not.
Spirit of the law is what arrogant judges say when they dont want to follow the actual law.
The "Spirit of the law" is one way we will eventually lose our 2nd amendment rights.

 

[Chevusa]

Right, thats exactly what I said.
You made it a point to bring up "spirit of the law" which is what judges who do not agree with a law say to show their interpretation of the law or what they themselves believe the writers of the law meant.
Its not their job to decide what the writers meant, its their job to follow the LETTER of the law whether they like it or not.
Spirit of the law is what arrogant judges say when they dont want to follow the actual law.
The "Spirit of the law" is one way we will eventually lose our 2nd amendment rights.

Just telling you what the State Supreme Court said about it, my friend. The point is if you got into a jam your defense can't be telling the court how they are wrong and cannot do that to you. Wether you think they are right or wrong is irrelevant. That is the precedent they have set.

 

[Criticalt]

My county is very upfront about the consequences of carrying against your restrictions:
View attachment 60212

And our local licencing officer is a NYS Supreme court judge who says restrictions are unconstitutional, unnecessary and should be eliminated.
Even if you ask for a target permit, you get unrestricted.

 

[Chevusa]

And our local licencing officer is a NYS Supreme court judge who says restrictions are unconstitutional, unnecessary and should be eliminated.
Even if you ask for a target permit, you get unrestricted.

Perfect. You're in the clear then. Carry as you wish without a worry in the world.

Edit: I see you're in WNY making Boller your judge. He absolutely issues target/hunting permits to people on a regular basis. His bar for showing justification for an Unrestricted permit may be lower than others, but he does not issue them exclusively.

 

[Criticalt]

Just telling you what the State Supreme Court said about it, my friend. The point is if you got into a jam your defense can't be telling the court how they are wrong and cannot do that to you. Wether you think they are right or wrong is irrelevant. That is the precedent they have set.

Correct, you are arguing yourself at this point.
My point is that just because one judge says something doest mean other judges will or that its constitutional or even legal.
The only way these restrictions go away is for people to fight them. In order to fight them, people need to suffer the consequences of arbitrary and capricious rules set forth by an arrogant judge who refuses to follow the constitution.

 

[Criticalt]

Perfect. You're in the clear then. Carry as you wish without a worry in the world.

Edit: I see you're in WNY making Boller your judge. He absolutely issues target/hunting permits to people on a regular basis. His bar for showing justification for an Unrestricted permit may be lower than others, but he does not issue them exclusively.

Ummm no
Im in Chautauqua Co
The Honorable Stephen W Cass, Supreme court justice.
He not only will not add restrictions, he is vehemently against them.

 

[Criticalt]

Cass is also the judge that recently threw out the states only SafeAct conviction on its ass.

 

[Criticalt]

First Ever SAFE Act Conviction Dismissed with Prejudice – 2AWNY

www.2awny.com

 

[Chevusa]

Ummm no
Im in Chautauqua Co
The Honorable Stephen W Cass, Supreme court justice.
He not only will not add restrictions, he is vehemently against them.

Our judge here in Erie is the Supervising Supreme Court Justice. Not sure what difference that makes. A licensing officer is a licensing officer. The authority is all the same in regards to this.

 

[Chevusa]

Cass is also the judge that recently threw out the states only SafeAct conviction on its ass.

But what about the children?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Chevy? So what is it that we are saying about it not being illegal and judges revoking your permit incorrect? Because at this point, I have no idea what you are arguing.

 

[Chevusa]

Isn’t that what we have been saying? I don’t understand what your angle is? What we are saying is that carrying outside of restrictions isn’t illegal. Period. And a judge can revoke your license for failure to obey the rules. Period.

What is your argument? That you can face Criminal Possession of a Weapon for carrying outside of your restrictions? If that is your argument than you are mistaken.

From my previous post
...But if you get jammed up you quoting the penal law to the judge and telling him he can't do that is not going to help you. True, you wouldn't be arrested for unlawful possession, (although as the courts have ruled in the past the violation of restrictions is violating the intent of the law in the first place, so I wouldn't test them) but I would be a little concerned about losing thousands and thousands of dollars worth of firearms...

 

[Marine Cpl]

From my previous post
...But if you get jammed up you quoting the penal law to the judge and telling him he can't do that is not going to help you. True, you wouldn't be arrested for unlawful possession, (although as the courts have ruled in the past the violation of restrictions is violating the intent of the law in the first place, so I wouldn't test them) but I would be a little concerned about losing thousands and thousands of dollars worth of firearms...

So we are in agreement then? Because all we have said is that you cannot be subject to arrest. Penal law 265 is very clear on that.

As far as losing your collection, it all depends on the person. Is your collection worth your life? That’s up to the person. For me personally, it isn’t. My collection intact isn’t worth my life if I’m subjected to a mass shooting at a mall or in church here in NY.

Some people violate their restrictions and others even with a full carry, ccw in places and nearby states that aren’t legal to carry. That’s all up to the individual and what his priority is.

I know someone who has even carried in Canada. I’m not sure I would be as bold to do that and go through security there but I understand his logic.

 

[Chevusa]

The scary part is the people here taking advise form other people that have the same motivations as themselves. If two people who don't want the restrictions to matter tell each other that they don't matter what have they actually gained? It's like 2 guys with blue cars telling each other that blue cars are the best. It's meaningless. Your decision has already been predetermined. If you have a problem is the plan to tell the judge that other restricted permit holders told you online that it was ok and he has no force of law?

At the end of the day it is ones personal decision to make if and where they will carry. In my opinion it's nobody's business. However for someone to say the restrictions are meaningless or cannot be enforced that person would be fooling themselves. To think you've got it all planned out is silly. Jail is full of bank robbers that had it all planned out in their head too. It didn't go how they thought it would. We don't agree with it but that's the way it is. To think that your permit can't or won't be pulled is a little bit foolish. If restrictions didn't mean anything they wouldn't be issued in the first place.

We all know deep down if we are honest with ourselves that violating the restrictions is wrong (so is issuing restrictions, but we're not in charge here). You are going against what you agreed to with your judge. That person for whatever reason doesn't want you carrying a gun whenever you want to. The State Supreme Court ruled that weapons are only to be carried based upon the original justification that triggered the issuance of the permit in the first place. It sucks but that's the way it is. It all comes down to the risk you are willing to take. Are you breaking the law? Most likely not. Are you breaking the rules? Absolutely. You are playing a dangerous game. Some more so than others. Proceed with caution, and good luck!

 

[Marine Cpl]

The scary part is the people here taking advise form other people that have the same motivations as themselves. If two people who don't want the restrictions to matter tell each other that they don't matter what have they actually gained? It's like 2 guys with blue cars telling each other that blue cars are the best. It's meaningless. Your decision has already been predetermined. If you have a problem is the plan to tell the judge that other restricted permit holders told you online that it was ok and he has no force of law?

At the end of the day it is ones personal decision to make if and where they will carry. In my opinion it's nobody's business. However for someone to say the restrictions are meaningless or cannot be enforced that person would be fooling themselves. To think you've got it all planned out is silly. Jail is full of bank robbers that had it all planned out in their head too. It didn't go how they thought it would. We don't agree with it but that's the way it is. To think that your permit can't or won't be pulled is a little bit foolish. If restrictions didn't mean anything they wouldn't be issued in the first place.

We all know deep down if we are honest with ourselves that violating the restrictions is wrong (so is issuing restrictions, but we're not in charge here). You are going against what you agreed to with your judge. That person for whatever reason doesn't want you carrying a gun whenever you want to. The State Supreme Court ruled that weapons are only to be carried based upon the original justification that triggered the issuance of the permit in the first place. It sucks but that's the way it is. It all comes down to the risk you are willing to take. Are you breaking the law? Most likely not. Are you breaking the rules? Absolutely. You are playing a dangerous game. Some more so than others. Proceed with caution, and good luck!

I fail to see what the relevance of your post actually is. All that is being said is that you aren’t subject to prosecution from Penal Law 265. That’s it. Your license can get revoked or it can not if an LEO decides not to contact the judge. That’s it. It’s a rare occurrence for it to happen and it’s up to the individual to take a chance for that rare occurrence. People do it everyday. Nobody is forcing you to do anything and nobody is saying that the judge if alerted will do nothing. All that is being said is that it isn’t illegal.

 

[Avner Benner]

I signed and shared on my FB yesterday. Saw a few ppl share it from me.

I would love to have my restrictions lifted without having to pay 1500 bucks and jump through hoops...

That is amazing lets hope it goes somewhere!

 

[Criticalt]

Our judge here in Erie is the Supervising Supreme Court Justice. Not sure what difference that makes. A licensing officer is a licensing officer. The authority is all the same in regards to this.

Again, correct.
Two Supreme court judges who see things completely different.
One who reads the constitution the way the founders meant it and one who puts his own ideals into a constitutionally protected right.
So, the the law is the law.
These two judges would not be able to use different criteria to issue permits if restrictions were part of the law.
Hence.....restrictions are arbitrary rules set fourth by a fellow human who believes he is above the law and knows better than others how your rights should be "given" to you.

 

[Chevusa]

I fail to see what the relevance of your post actually is.

The point, getting back to where we started, is that violating restrictions is more than something to laugh off. There are big risks involved. You nor I know the extent of what you might be charged with depending on the situation. The issuance of your permit is an official court order. Could you be charged for violating it? Maybe. I wouldn't want to find out.

Take your classes, and come up with a justification. When you get Unrestricted you lose all of the risks. To get caught is a small chance if you're doing it the right way. But once you are caught a lot of things have to go just your way to get out unscathed. Is it worth the risk? That's your call.