Correct. We agree. Unfortunately we are not in charge. The guys issuing the restrictions are.
Remove Sportsman Restrictions from (Rockland County) Pistol Permits!
- Thread starter Avner Benner
- Start date
Now thats where you are wrong.
Judges dont make laws, politicians do.
Politicians work for us, so we should have a say in howcarry laws are written.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
So now you are going in circles again. Here it is in Penal Law 265.
S 265.20 Exemptions.
a. Paragraph (h) of subdivision twenty-two of section 265.00 and
sections 265.01, 265.01-a, subdivision one of section 265.01-b, 265.02,
265.03, 265.04, 265.05, 265.10, 265.11, 265.12, 265.13, 265.15, 265.36,
265.37 and 270.05 shall not apply to:
3. Possession of a pistol or revolver by a person to whom a license
therefor has been issued as provided under section 400.00 or 400.01 of
this chapter or possession of a weapon as defined in paragraph (
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
I didn’t say anything about being charged under penal law 400. I said maybe you could be charged for violation of a court order. Do you know for a fact that you cannot? The point is, be very careful. They can come up with many ways to get you - especially if your attitude towards them is their restrictions are a joke and they can shove them up their ass. That isn’t going to work out well for you.
The judge wasn’t kidding when he said only to carry when at the range or hunting. I get it. You waited and waited, then got the shit permit. It’s terrible. But 2+2=4 whether you believe it or you don’t. See the previous court rulings cited. They make it clear you are to follow the original justification for the issuance there of. Call up your judge and ask if they knew ahead of time that you would violate your permits restrictions, if the permit would be issued in the first place. We all know the obvious answer. Do what you need to do to get the real permit (I know, I know, all permits are concealed carry. Tell the State Supreme Court. They ruled that is not the case. It’s called case law). You arguing with a cop or a judge after the fact will not go your way. The police and courts don’t care about your interpretation of the penal law. The precedent has been set.
Do we all agree that it violates your rights? Yes. Does it matter what we think? No. We aren’t driving the bus. The guys that gave you the shit permit are. And they aren’t making any stops.
The restrictions are accepted as allowed by law by the State Supreme Court. To suggest that they are fake and unenforceable is silly, and doesn’t pass the smell test. Therefore to assume nobody has lost a permit for violating them is unreasonable. Nobody has access to every court record in the state. But we can see the decisions cited as I have posted. We can see the ruling that carrying on a target or hunting permit is “absurd”. That is the courts official opinion on record. But let’s assume nobody has ever been charged with anything whatsoever, or has never had a permit revoked. There is always somebody that will be the first person. Get out and vote. I wouldn’t want to be the one caught with my pants down.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Contempt of Court? Are you serious? That’s a stretch if I have ever heard one. And for the 5th time. No one is talking about grandstanding a judge. Only you are saying that. The only thing being said is that you aren’t going to jail for Criminal Possession of a Weapon from Penal law 265 because you are licensed to carry via Penal law 400. That’s it.
The license issued to you is to have and carry concealed.
The only stretch is thinking you’ve got one over on the judge. They can come up with 20 things if they want to that you nor I know about. They know the in’s and out’s of the penal law and case law. If you’re so confident- next time you see a police officer politely go up and shake their hand. Introduce yourself. Then state that you have a target permit and are carrying a gun. You won’t because you know what you are doing is wrong according to what the courts have ruled. It blows. Just be careful and hopefully you won’t ever be discovered or need to draw. It will not be a good day.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I don’t have a target permit.
Raven20878
.38 Special
All I can say is be careful what you wish for. Penal law 400 is very clear.
"(f) have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or
place of possession, by any person when proper cause exists for the
issuance thereof;"
Proper cause is subjective and every case that has been brought in NY has upheld the right of the licensing official to use broad discretion in determining proper cause. In reality, administrative restrictions allow the licensing official to interpret proper cause more broadly. They can justify proper cause for hunting, target shooting or "sportsperson" activities. If you succeed in eliminating those administrative restrictions (which as has been said do not carry the force of law) you will force the licensing official to use self defense as the proper cause for issuing the license to carry. In restrictive counties like Rockland, Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk the standard for proper cause for a Full Unrestricted License has been a specific threat to your life above and beyond the average citizen. If you succeed in eliminating the administrative restrictions and force their hand to use the standard above (which has been upheld in NY State and Federal Appeals Court) you are likely to see far less licenses issued and your restricted license would be revoked for lack of proper cause at the time of renewal. You are better off with the restricted permit in that you at least can possess a firearm and protect yourself in your home.
Of note, Westchester did "remove" the Sportsperson restriction from its permits. Now all that is offered for the majority of applicants is Target or Hunting. Your petition should have read remove all restrictions from the permits.
Best of luck with your petition. I hope you get what you desire.
"(f) have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or
place of possession, by any person when proper cause exists for the
issuance thereof;"
Proper cause is subjective and every case that has been brought in NY has upheld the right of the licensing official to use broad discretion in determining proper cause. In reality, administrative restrictions allow the licensing official to interpret proper cause more broadly. They can justify proper cause for hunting, target shooting or "sportsperson" activities. If you succeed in eliminating those administrative restrictions (which as has been said do not carry the force of law) you will force the licensing official to use self defense as the proper cause for issuing the license to carry. In restrictive counties like Rockland, Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk the standard for proper cause for a Full Unrestricted License has been a specific threat to your life above and beyond the average citizen. If you succeed in eliminating the administrative restrictions and force their hand to use the standard above (which has been upheld in NY State and Federal Appeals Court) you are likely to see far less licenses issued and your restricted license would be revoked for lack of proper cause at the time of renewal. You are better off with the restricted permit in that you at least can possess a firearm and protect yourself in your home.
Of note, Westchester did "remove" the Sportsperson restriction from its permits. Now all that is offered for the majority of applicants is Target or Hunting. Your petition should have read remove all restrictions from the permits.
Best of luck with your petition. I hope you get what you desire.
Last edited:
Raven20878
.38 Special
The NRA has internal problems of their own and unfortunately, are merely a shadow of their former selves in terms of lobbying clout. Membership is down and that means dollars are down as well.
They CAN write whatever they want on them, the same way I can piss my name in the snow. And it would have the same value.
I understand that you believe that because other restricted persons have told you as much. They want to believe it too. Nobody wants a restricted permit. The court rulings are in black and white however. I’m not saying you shouldn’t carry whenever you want. I’m just saying that according to the highest court in the state you aren’t allowed to. That isn’t my opinion. It’s theirs. On record. And they can enforce it if you give them cause to. In a state that is so anti-gun I would be very cautious. Is it worth it if it saves your life? Of course it is. But that is only one extreme and very unlikely to happen. There are 100 other circumstances that could get you exposed where the risk is not worth it.
Let’s kill this discussion. I think we are having hostilities towards one another. We are all on the same team. I think we all believe that your rights are being violated by these restrictions. To even require a permit is violating your rights. For the licensing officer to require a need is a violation of your God given rights. After all, it is not the Bill Of Needs, it is the Bill Of Rights. Just be careful and do what you can to get rid of the restrictions. If shit hit the fan I would welcome a restricted permit holder violating their restrictions to have my back. It’s good vs evil at this point. Please vote republican and let’s have each others backs. Happy New Year everyone.
If the court rulings are in black and white, how did you manage to get them wrong? They did not, at any time, say you "aren't allowed to." Not even remotely so.
And no, "other restricted persons" didn't tell me anything. Yet another fabrication.
You keep on with this "if they see you printing" nonsense. Guess what? "If they see you printing" with a fully unrestricted permit, they can pull your permit just the same. This of course has never happened, and I wouldn't concern myself with it, but the "100 other circumstances" you fabricate don't outweigh being dead.
I would never dream of voting Republican just because, or that my rights are "God given". Pubs and dems are no different.
Putting out misinformation that endangers people's lives seems like it would fall more on the "evil" side of good vs. evil.
The way we gain back rights isn't "You know how we have our outrageous permitting process? Well let's take it one step farther and impose our own restrictions and coerce others to as well!"
That's like following the 7 round mag limit "because you might get a cop that doesn't know the laws."
I just found this in the penal law while looking for something else.
Article 400 NYS penal law:
6. License: validity...A license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver, not
otherwise limited as to place or time of possession, shall be effective
throughout the state....
It seems the law does mention limitations (restrictions) on permits after all.
Article 400 NYS penal law:
6. License: validity...A license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver, not
otherwise limited as to place or time of possession, shall be effective
throughout the state....
It seems the law does mention limitations (restrictions) on permits after all.
Wrong again.
There are various types of carry permits in NYS. Employment, Judge, Banking etc. And then there is the one the vast majority of us have:
(f) have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or
place of possession, by any person when proper cause exists for the
issuance thereof;
Nothing whatsoever to do with administrative restrictions.
Now not only are you inventing imaginary restrictions for citizens to place upon themselves, you are straight up lying about what the law says.
This is exactly why I went down this path on this topic. People get so set in their ways trying to be "right" that they will even go to the point of just making up dangerous misinformation to "be right", even when, in reality, they are completely wrong.
Nothing was made up though. It was all directly copied from either court decisions or the penal law. You are just looking at it through a certain set of glasses. I don't need to be right. It doesn't apply to me because I showed just cause for Unrestricted. You need to be right to justify how you carry. It has noting to do with me.
Lets look at the 2nd part of 400(f):
(f) have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or
place of possession, by any person when proper cause exists for the
issuance thereof;
Now lets look at the Supreme Court decision. We conclude that the authority of the licensing officer to determine whether "proper cause" exists necessarily and inherently includes the authority to impose and retain certain restrictions on the license so that the pistol is used for the purposes that justified its issuance in the first place.
And
...require(s) the issuance of an unrestricted license to carry for all purposes ... 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.
(f) have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or
place of possession, by any person when proper cause exists for the
issuance thereof;
Now lets look at the Supreme Court decision. We conclude that the authority of the licensing officer to determine whether "proper cause" exists necessarily and inherently includes the authority to impose and retain certain restrictions on the license so that the pistol is used for the purposes that justified its issuance in the first place.
And
...require(s) the issuance of an unrestricted license to carry for all purposes ... 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.
This might be an easy way to understand it. Courts have ordered people to do many things that aren't in the penal law. That doesn't mean that they can't do it or have no "force of law". If the judge orders you not to drink alcohol, or to be home by 9pm that is an enforceable court order. Where in the penal law does it say I have to be home by 9?
Now when the judge says to only carry when hiking or hunting or target shooting - and issues a permit for those specific purposes it is also an enforceable court order. Here's proof. "SO ORDERED".
I'm not saying you shouldn't carry. It's none of my business and I won't have to face the consequences. All I'm saying is you should come clean and admit that it's not the right thing to do. That's my whole point. Then everyone can determine how much risk they want to take after that. To give everyone a blanket "no force of law" or "ignore them" type answers, you could be setting someone up for a bad day.
Now when the judge says to only carry when hiking or hunting or target shooting - and issues a permit for those specific purposes it is also an enforceable court order. Here's proof. "SO ORDERED".
I'm not saying you shouldn't carry. It's none of my business and I won't have to face the consequences. All I'm saying is you should come clean and admit that it's not the right thing to do. That's my whole point. Then everyone can determine how much risk they want to take after that. To give everyone a blanket "no force of law" or "ignore them" type answers, you could be setting someone up for a bad day.
Raven20878
.38 Special
Cevusa, your analysis above is correct, even though it may frustrate or annoy others. Like it or not, New York is a May Issue State, not a Shall Issue State. The difference is of critical importance. In May Issue States there is no presumption of a right for you to possess and carry a pistol or revolver. You do have a right to apply for a permit to possess and carry a pistol or revolver. You must apply for and receive said permit by meeting certain standards that are set by the State and by the licensing authority. In New York (except for NYC) the licensing process is seated in each County. State Penal Law 400 (quoted often in this thread and on this forum) clearly places authority for interpreting the statute with the licensing official. That official has a pretty wide discretion on the interpretation of "proper cause". This has been upheld in a number of law suits brought at both the State and Federal Appellate level. Even though there is no mention of "administrative restrictions" in the penal law, and even though said restrictions would not carry the force of law (you could mount a successful affirmative defense if you were somehow arrested for carrying outside of a Target or Hunting restriction), they do carry the force of the licensing official in that if you violate them, your permit can (and likely will) be suspended or revoked. Read your permit and I am sure there is language on it to the effect that it can be revoked or suspended for any reason. In New York, if you legally posses long guns and your pistol permit is suspended or revoked, you not only have to surrender your hand guns, but you also need to surrender all long guns (see the SAFE Act). By definition if you have a pistol permit in NY your are an adult and adults can decide for themselves whether or not the risk is worth the reward.
As for the topic that initiated this thread, a petition to have Rockland County eliminate Sportsman restrictions and by inference issue only Full Carry permits...good luck with that. I can't see that happening in any of the downstate counties. Especially in the current anti-gun climate with Democrats in power. Unless you live in a county further upstate, you are going to need to show proper cause as to why your life is in danger more so than the average citizen by demonstrating a specific threat to you that is documented before a licensing official will issue you a Full Carry Permit. Unfortunately, like or not (and I certainly don't like it) it is what it is. Until either the New York State Legislature and Governor change the proper cause component (good luck with that) or the downstate counties change their interpretation of proper cause for a Full Carry (good luck with that too) we are stuck with Target, Hunting and Sportsperson restrictions. As I said further up in the thread, thank goodness those administrative restrictions do exist in Rockland, Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk. Otherwise the majority of folks on this forum who live in those counties would not have satisfied the proper cause requirement and likely would not have been issued a permit. At least with administrative restrictions they are able to possess and carry (although in a limited way) the handguns they currently have.
To the person who started this thread and the Change.org petition, my advice would be to document and demonstrate a legitimate proper cause to fear for your life above that of the average citizen and then petition your licensing official to remove your restrictions. A good law firm experienced in Second Amendment issues may be helpful in that pursuit if you do indeed meet the proper cause standard in their opinion.
The license.
Has already.
Been issued.
Proper cause existed for issuance of a concealed carry license without regard to employment or place of possession. That ship has sailed.
Yes, that literally is exactly what it means.
Citation needed.
Ignorance of the law, and more importantly, what is NOT the law frustrates nobody but those that got it wrong and can’t admit it. The problem is it endangers others.
You're only choosing bits and pieces that you want to apply. If proper cause was shown for Unrestricted then that's what you would have.
"..Authority to impose and retain certain restrictions on the license so that the pistol is used for the purposes that justified its issuance in the first place."
If you failed to demonstrate a need for anything other than that, such as for Hiking, and Hunting only, then those are the limitations of the permit. What reason was the permit originally issued for? That's the key to it all. If there was truly no regard to place of possession it wouldn't say right on it that it's only good for the restricted reasons. But you already know that.
So nobody has ever been charged with contempt of court for disobeying a court order? Again the law doesn't tell me I have to be home at 9, but if the judge issues a court order saying I must, well guess what - I better do it.
The guy who issued the permit in the first place literally says if you carry other than for the reasons he says, he's taking it away. That's a pretty strong citation lol.
The type of license issued is type (f).
(f) have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or
place of possession, by any person when proper cause exists for the
issuance thereof;
And that's all there is to it. They are welcome to have their own personal feelings on the issue after the fact, and some do. Those that do write administrative restrictions on licenses that have no force of law whatsoever. That is what the court has decided. That they can write them on there, and that they have no force of law. Multiple people now have spelled this out to you multiple times.
Let's see where we find contempt of court in the penal code:
Section 215.50.
Now let's see where we see "restricted to hunting and target shooting in the penal law."
...?
And before you jump on your next line of "but a judge said it, so it must be followed!" No, that also isn't how that works either.
lol, let me highlight the citation I need:
"your permit can (and likely will) be suspended or revoked "
So please, post a single example of this.
We hear this so often, there has to be one.
OR maybe there is a reason we won't. And it isn't "we don't know every court case." It's because a legal shitstorm is waiting when it does happen.
I've been on these forums over a decade and heard this myth at least 20 times, yet when asking for a single example we always get none, or a completely unrelated matter altogether like "I know a guy they pulled his permit because he was caught carrying outside or restrictions. When they pulled his drunk, unconscious body off of his battered wife, he had a gun on him, and he wasn't target shooting. PULLED!"