What law school did you graduate from? You are making some bold statements on what the judge cannot do. If you find yourself standing in front of the judge will you tell him what you have told us here? I doubt it.
Remove Sportsman Restrictions from (Rockland County) Pistol Permits!
- Thread starter Avner Benner
- Start date
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Yep. It’s never happened on a well known basis and even if it has happened, it has been an isolated and rare instance but certainly not normal given the tens of thousands who carry on restricted permits everyday.
To put even more perspective on this, NYC used to give out target only restricted licenses. People were ignoring those restrictions and the DA’s couldn’t prosecute.
So they now only issue premises permits so that you can be subject to arrest if caught.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
You don’t need to be a lawyer to read the NY Penal Laws. They are written in English and not in code. All a lawyer is is a person well versed in the Penal Laws.
You can do that.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL O'CONNOR v. ANTHONY A. SCARPINO, JR.
IN THE MATTER OF BELINDA G. EDDY v. HON. PATRICK L. KIRK, HERKIMER COUNTY
COURT JUDGE,
Restrictions are OK: We agree ... that the licensing officers' power to determine the existence of "proper cause" for the issuance of a license necessarily and inherently includes the power to restrict the use to the purposes that justified the issuance.
83 N.Y.2d 919 (1994).
June 9, 1994
2 No. 90 [1994 NY Int. 096]
4 No. 91
Decided June 9, 1994
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports.
MEMORANDUM:
The judgments of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Penal Law § 400.00 is the exclusive statutory mechanism for the licensing of firearms in New York State. Under subdivision (2)(f) of that section, a licensing officer is empowered to issue the so-called "carry license", which authorizes a licensee to have a pistol or revolver and carry it concealed, "when proper cause exists for the issuance thereof".
Petitioner Eddy sought a carry license from the Herkimer County licensing officer, stating in her application that she intended to use a pistol for "hunting and target shooting". The officer issued the license with the notation that it was "issued for hunting, fishing & target practice". Petitioner O'Connor sought a carry license from the Westchester County licensing officer, indicating that he wanted to use a weapon in "hunting, target shooting and protection of property and person". The officer issued the license with a notation that it was "restricted to target shooting, hunting only".
In each matter, petitioner argues that the restriction should be removed from the license because the statute does not expressly empower licensing officers to impose conditions. We agree with the courts below that the licensing officers' power to determine the existence of "proper cause" for the issuance of a license necessarily and inherently includes the power to restrict the use to the purposes that justified the issuance. Without such a power to condition, the licensing officer's authority to allow possession of a handgun only for proper cause would be rendered meaningless and the obvious regulatory purpose of the statute would be frustrated.
Moreover, petitioners' argument is inconsistent with the regulatory scheme of Penal law § 400.00. The other licenses allowed by the statute are narrowly circumscribed to the circumstances justifying their issuance (see, e.g., subd 2[a] [license to possess in dwelling]; subd 2[license to possess in place of business]; subd 2[e] [license to possess during certain employment]). Were we to read the carry license of subdivision 2(f) to allow possession of firearms generally once good cause was shown, there would be no reason for applicants to seek the more restrictive licenses enumerated in the statute when they could just as easily qualify for the broader carry license. Clearly, the legislative intent behind subdivision 2(f) was to create a license co-equal to the other licenses, not one that would render the other licenses superfluous.
Nos. 90 and 91: Judgment affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bottom line, the power to issue is also the power to restrict and any restrictions applied by the issuing authority will be upheld in court.
"IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL O'CONNOR v. ANTHONY A. SCARPINO, JR.
IN THE MATTER OF BELINDA G. EDDY v. HON. PATRICK L. KIRK, HERKIMER COUNTY
COURT JUDGE,
Restrictions are OK: We agree ... that the licensing officers' power to determine the existence of "proper cause" for the issuance of a license necessarily and inherently includes the power to restrict the use to the purposes that justified the issuance.
83 N.Y.2d 919 (1994).
June 9, 1994
2 No. 90 [1994 NY Int. 096]
4 No. 91
Decided June 9, 1994
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports.
MEMORANDUM:
The judgments of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Penal Law § 400.00 is the exclusive statutory mechanism for the licensing of firearms in New York State. Under subdivision (2)(f) of that section, a licensing officer is empowered to issue the so-called "carry license", which authorizes a licensee to have a pistol or revolver and carry it concealed, "when proper cause exists for the issuance thereof".
Petitioner Eddy sought a carry license from the Herkimer County licensing officer, stating in her application that she intended to use a pistol for "hunting and target shooting". The officer issued the license with the notation that it was "issued for hunting, fishing & target practice". Petitioner O'Connor sought a carry license from the Westchester County licensing officer, indicating that he wanted to use a weapon in "hunting, target shooting and protection of property and person". The officer issued the license with a notation that it was "restricted to target shooting, hunting only".
In each matter, petitioner argues that the restriction should be removed from the license because the statute does not expressly empower licensing officers to impose conditions. We agree with the courts below that the licensing officers' power to determine the existence of "proper cause" for the issuance of a license necessarily and inherently includes the power to restrict the use to the purposes that justified the issuance. Without such a power to condition, the licensing officer's authority to allow possession of a handgun only for proper cause would be rendered meaningless and the obvious regulatory purpose of the statute would be frustrated.
Moreover, petitioners' argument is inconsistent with the regulatory scheme of Penal law § 400.00. The other licenses allowed by the statute are narrowly circumscribed to the circumstances justifying their issuance (see, e.g., subd 2[a] [license to possess in dwelling]; subd 2[license to possess in place of business]; subd 2[e] [license to possess during certain employment]). Were we to read the carry license of subdivision 2(f) to allow possession of firearms generally once good cause was shown, there would be no reason for applicants to seek the more restrictive licenses enumerated in the statute when they could just as easily qualify for the broader carry license. Clearly, the legislative intent behind subdivision 2(f) was to create a license co-equal to the other licenses, not one that would render the other licenses superfluous.
Nos. 90 and 91: Judgment affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bottom line, the power to issue is also the power to restrict and any restrictions applied by the issuing authority will be upheld in court.
Last edited:
Wow! The Appellate Division ruled that the licensing officials restrictions are equivalent to the other restrictions and types of licenses under penal law 400, describing where the pistol may be legally carried or possessed. This information is damning.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
You really aren’t understanding what you are reading and also nothing there says that it is illegal to go against the restrictions.
Last edited:
Nope, can't do it anymore. You can only repeat the same stuff so many times.
The takeaway: It is not illegal to carry with administrative restrictions. The NYS Suprene Court upheld this. The NYSP referenced this decision on their own website. People spread a rumor that if you do, and get caught, the judge can take away your permit. They have no evidence of this happening whatsoever. The decision is still yours to make. Follow the law, or be scared of your own shadow.
The takeaway: It is not illegal to carry with administrative restrictions. The NYS Suprene Court upheld this. The NYSP referenced this decision on their own website. People spread a rumor that if you do, and get caught, the judge can take away your permit. They have no evidence of this happening whatsoever. The decision is still yours to make. Follow the law, or be scared of your own shadow.
JackNeat
.45 acp
I stopped on page 3... couldn’t read the back and forth going in circles anymore.
I signed the petition which was the original intent of the post. Looks pretty close to making it to the 5k goal. Will it help.. probably not but it won’t hurt.
I signed the petition which was the original intent of the post. Looks pretty close to making it to the 5k goal. Will it help.. probably not but it won’t hurt.
General Malaise
.40 S&W
Without recharging a dead feud, does anyone know where we stand on the petition?