Remove Sportsman Restrictions from (Rockland County) Pistol Permits!

[Avner Benner]

Spoke to some lawyers and if we can get major backing there is a chance we can effect some change!!

Need to sign and share this so we can defend ourselves! Our pistol permits are worthless!!!

SIGN AND SHARE!!

http://chng.it/c64T5wpJ2N

 

[Darth]

Did those lawyers explain that the restrictions are not law?

 

[Deplorable Me]

Did those lawyers explain that the restrictions are not law?

Are you assuming the justice system is fair?

 

[Chevusa]

Even if they aren't "law", wouldn't you want to get rid of them anyway? Everyone knows the risks of being caught. Nobody is going to buy the "heading to the range" excuse like you think they are. Carrying out of restrictions has to give you guys that nervous feeling when you come across a LEO, because you know deep down you're doing something that you shouldn't be. Case law has shown that judges have the authority to limit your permits and that will hold up at the end of the day. Take action to get them removed if you can or vote these judges out.

 

[kev74]

I signed it.

It might not help, but it can't hurt.

 

[Bananabandit]

Even if they aren't "law", wouldn't you want to get rid of them anyway? Everyone knows the risks of being caught. Nobody is going to buy the "heading to the range" excuse like you think they are. Carrying out of restrictions has to give you guys that nervous feeling when you come across a LEO, because you know deep down you're doing something that you shouldn't be. Case law has shown that judges have the authority to limit your permits and that will hold up at the end of the day. Take action to get them removed if you can or vote these judges out.

Carrying outside of restrictions in the city of Syracuse is just some comfort.

Cop aint gonna stop a white boy walking down the street. I use crosswalks and everything.

 

[Cooolone]

Why waste valuable time and resources chasing something unnecessarily!

It has no force of law, is an administrative attachment to a "Right"...

If ever, a judge would dare remove your "permit" to carry for ignoring his imposed restrictions outside what the written law allows, you challenge, appeal, and take it all the way it needs to go. But they'll never let it go that far, or see the inside of a courtroom.

Again, purely for disobeying restrictions, on its own merit. Don't talk to me about the guy carrying and found during a traffic stop with 10lbs of heroin in the trunk, lol.

Have a nice day!

 

[Chevusa]

Why waste valuable time and resources chasing something unnecessarily!

It has no force of law, is an administrative attachment to a "Right"...

If ever, a judge would dare remove your "permit" to carry for ignoring his imposed restrictions outside what the written law allows, you challenge, appeal, and take it all the way it needs to go. But they'll never let it go that far, or see the inside of a courtroom.

Again, purely for disobeying restrictions, on its own merit. Don't talk to me about the guy carrying and found during a traffic stop with 10lbs of heroin in the trunk, lol.

Have a nice day!

They can remove your permit for carrying out of restrictions. They put in writing that they can and may do so. The Courts have ruled that the administrative restrictions pass muster. Your approach might be good for a self made multi-millionaire with the resources take it "all the way it needs to go". Everyone else should probably tread lightly.

 

[Cooolone]

Oh just stop! Yes, they can do whatever they want, as long as you allow them. So can I... Voluntary compliance does not mean it's law. And fighting back is not reserved for the rich & famous. Or maybe we would then have the courts acknowledge a "class" entitled to constitutional protections based upon affluence.

Post references or court precedents/case files that have done so. I'll wait... Lol

 

[Robin]

Don't worry, the NRA will help out. They said so.
Robin

 

[Darth]

Even if they aren't "law", wouldn't you want to get rid of them anyway?

Some can't.

Everyone knows the risks of being caught. Nobody is going to buy the "heading to the range" excuse like you think they are.

And your surviving relatives are going to weep just that much more as you lie dead because you followed an imaginary law you imposed upon yourself.

Carrying out of restrictions has to give you guys that nervous feeling when you come across a LEO, because you know deep down you're doing something that you shouldn't be.

Except you are not. And no, I'm not scared of cops, nor do I follow imaginary laws that nerf myself.

Case law has shown that judges have the authority to limit your permits and that will hold up at the end of the day.

*case law has shown they have the ability to write restrictions on, and it has also shown they have no force of law.

 

[Darth]

They can remove your permit for carrying out of restrictions. They put in writing that they can and may do so. The Courts have ruled that the administrative restrictions pass muster. Your approach might be good for a self made multi-millionaire with the resources take it "all the way it needs to go". Everyone else should probably tread lightly.

Cool. Can you just link to a single case of permits being pulled for carrying outside of restrictions?

Before we start passing out dangerous info.

 

[BlackDragon]

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...

 

[Chevusa]

Oh just stop! Yes, they can do whatever they want, as long as you allow them. So can I... Voluntary compliance does not mean it's law. And fighting back is not reserved for the rich & famous. Or maybe we would then have the courts acknowledge a "class" entitled to constitutional protections based upon affluence.

Post references or court precedents/case files that have done so. I'll wait... Lol

They can't do "whatever they want". There is no precedent for it. They can jam you up for ignoring the judges orders. I don't think they take lightly to that. There are things going on every day, all day in the courts that you don't have knowledge of. Just because someone isn't on here saying their permit was revoked doesn't mean it hasn't happened. You know better than that. Don't be cute. There are links to case law in the forums and online. You can look it up as you are the one in denial.

What if someone who knows what they're looking for sees you print in a store and contacts police? When the officer arrives are you going to tell him you're on your way to the range - with a shopping cart full of fruit loops and gatorade? It won't go the way you think it will. Cops are lied to all day every day and know if you're full of it. Think about how nervous you will be. Say you won't be, but when it happens you will be. Wait until you can't answer his follow up questions because you are making up a story. A cop will see right through it.

Again not saying I agree with it but not trying to get it changed and just assuming the judge didn't really mean it or was just kidding when he restricted you is not the best path forward. If there were no consequences they would not go through the trouble of issuing them. Find out who is running and let them know its important. Let them know you vote. The whole premise about what we do is that we follow the rules and laws. That's what sets us apart. Thinking you will "take it all the way" is silly. You'll be bankrupt and will lose. Fix it the right way. Get a big group of people together and find a lawyer willing to file a class action suit. Those are just a few ideas. Take action instead of just talking about it. I'm unrestricted but will be behind you. Let me know how myself and others can help.

 

[tlj000]

Oh just stop! Yes, they can do whatever they want, as long as you allow them. So can I... Voluntary compliance does not mean it's law. And fighting back is not reserved for the rich & famous. Or maybe we would then have the courts acknowledge a "class" entitled to constitutional protections based upon affluence.

Post references or court precedents/case files that have done so. I'll wait... Lol

I found this on OCSHOOTERS.COM

This made me write a letter to my judge asking to have what I called the comment on my license. "Hunting and Target" I had asked 5 or 6 police officers what this comment meant. Non really had an answer. I never suggested on my application that I was a hunter so I felt there was no reason for the comment. It could only add to confusion by a police officer if I was ever asked to see my CC permit. My Judge was understanding and now I have no comments on my license.

IN THE MATTER OF JERALD O'BRIEN, RESPONDENT, v. THOMAS W. KEEGAN, AS
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLANT.​

A Judge can restrict a license at any time for any reason: the licensing officer is statutorily invested with the power to sua sponte revoke or cancel a license (see, Penal Law § 400.00[11][other than in New York City and Nassau and Suffolk Counties, a judge or justice of a court of record acts as the licensing officer]). This extraordinary power reposed in a licensing officer in and of itself supports respondent s determination to restrict the scope of petitioner s license. (Sua Sponte: Lat. Of his or its own will or motion; voluntarily; without prompting or suggestion. Black's Law Dictionary, 4th edition.)

87 N.Y.2d 436, 663 N.E.2d 316, 639 N.Y.S.2d 1004 (1996).
February 15, 1996
3 No. 15[1996 NY Int. 26]
Decided February 15, 1996
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports.
Wayne L. Benjamin, for Appellant.
Jeffrey Chamberlain, for Respondent.
CIPARICK, J.:
A licensing officer will issue a license to possess and carry a concealed firearm only when "proper cause exists" (see, Penal Law § 400.00[2][f]). Other than in New York City and Nassau and Suffolk Counties, where licenses are subject to renewal every three or five years, respectively, the procedure to amend a "carry concealed license" to add or delete weapons is by application to the licensing officer (see, Penal Law §§ 400.00[9]; 400.00[10]). In furtherance of both the regulatory and public safety purposes of Penal Law § 400.00, we hold that a licensing officer is authorized to engage in a "proper cause" inquiry when presented with an application to amend a carry concealed license.
On March 31, 1987, Albany City Court granted petitioner's application for a carry concealed license, restricted to hunting and target practice. In 1989, petitioner applied to amend his license to cover two additional firearms and remove the hunting and target shooting restrictions. On June 29, 1989, petitioner's application was granted, without a proper cause inquiry, and he was issued an unrestricted carry concealed license for his two semi-automatic pistols and one revolver. In early 1990, petitioner again sought to amend his license to reflect the acquisition of another semi-automatic handgun. On February 1, 1990, the same licensing officer approved the amendment, again without conducting a proper cause inquiry.
The third time petitioner applied to amend his license he sought to substitute one revolver for another and add another semi-automatic handgun, and requested the issuance of a license that conformed with the recently redesigned license format. This application was reviewed by a different licensing officer, who concluded that petitioner failed to demonstrate proper cause to hold an unrestricted carry concealed license under Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f). Thus, the licensing officer granted petitioner's application to amend his license to the extent of authorizing the addition of one weapon and deletion of one weapon -- for a total of five firearms -- and restricting the license to hunting and target shooting.
Petitioner protested, and the licensing officer agreed to meet with him to consider his request for removal of the hunting and target shooting restrictions. According to the licensing officer, petitioner could not articulate any valid reason when he was asked why he needed to carry up to five concealed weapons at virtually any time. Indeed, petitioner informed the licensing officer that he wanted an unrestricted carry concealed license because "t makes me feel better." The licensing officer adhered to the original determination that the proper cause shown by petitioner only supported a license restricted to hunting and target shooting.
Petitioner challenged this determination in a CPLR Article 78 proceeding, initiated in the Appellate Division pursuant to CPLR 506(b)(1), to compel the licensing officer to remove the restrictions from petitioner's license on the ground that the licensing officer was not authorized to modify his valid unrestricted license. Petitioner argued that under Penal Law § 400.00(10) his unrestricted license remains "in force and effect until revoked" and the licensing officer improperly revoked the license issued by the prior licensing officer. The Appellate Division, with one Justice dissenting, granted the petition to the extent of directing the removal of the hunting and target shooting restrictions and the issuance of an unrestricted license, ruling that an application to amend a license "does not trigger the opportunity for another 'proper cause' determination." (see, Matter of O'Brien v Keegan, 207 AD2d 5, 7- 8). We disagree, and now reverse.
Eligibility for a license in the first instance or for renewal is contingent upon an investigation by the licensing officer, and a finding that all statements in the application are true (see, Penal Law § 400.00[1]). Thus, as a threshold matter, the investigation of an applicant for a carry concealed license must yield "proper cause" to the licensing officer's satisfaction for a license to issue (see, Penal Law § 400.00[2][f]). At the other end of the spectrum, the licensing officer is statutorily invested with the power to sua sponte revoke or cancel a license (see, Penal Law § 400.00[11][other than in New York City and Nassau and Suffolk Counties, a judge or justice of a court of record acts as the licensing officer]). This extraordinary power reposed in a licensing officer in and of itself supports respondent s determination to restrict the scope of petitioner s license.
Additionally, we recently held that a licensing officer's power to determine the existence of "proper cause" for the issuance of a license necessarily and inherently includes the power to restrict the use of a license to the purposes that justified its issuance (see, Matter of O Connor v Scarpino, 83 NY2d 919, 921). Without such 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" (id). This applies with equal force to the licensing officer's powers upon review of an application to amend a license. To find otherwise would nullify the purpose underlying a formal amendment procedure and conflict with the dual aims of Penal Law § 400.00.
Under the circumstances of this case, it was not unreasonable for respondent to restrict petitioner's license. While petitioner does not dispute that respondent was justified in inquiring about "changed circumstances," petitioner insists that Penal Law § 400.00(9) does not permit respondent to alter his license upon an application to amend, absent some "cause" related to his fitness to hold a firearm. Petitioner reads the statute too narrowly. Petitioner's inability to demonstrate a need - - or much less, any reason - - for an unrestricted license, which would permit him to carry several concealed firearms, supports the licensing officer's finding that there was no "proper cause" to justify an unrestricted carry concealed license. Consequently, the licensing officer's restriction of petitioner's license was neither arbitrary nor capricious, promoting both the regulatory and public safety aims of Penal Law § 400.00.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the petition dismissed.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and petition dismissed. Opinion by Judge Ciparick. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons,
Titone, Bellacosa, Smith and Levine concur.

 

[Chevusa]

195 A.D.2d 1009 (1993)
600 N.Y.S.2d 574
In the Matter of Belinda G. Eddy, Petitioner, v. Patrick L. Kirk, as Herkimer County Court Judge, Respondent
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Fourth Department.

Respondent, a licensing officer for Herkimer County (see, Penal Law § 265.00 [10]), issued petitioner a pistol permit The license contained the following notation: "issued for hunting, fishing & target practice"

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.

 

[SmallGameAddict]

Hmmm. Glad I don't live in Rockland County.

How did such a small area get so out of touch with the constituents? How are you supposed to 'hunt' in such a small and heavily populated County?

 

[Chevusa]

This one makes it very clear that carrying on a target/hunting permit violates the spirit of the law in the first place. The court ruled that carrying on a target/hunting permit would be "absurd".

154 Misc.2d 694 (1992)
In the Matter of Michael V. O'Connor, as Applicant, for an Amended Pistol License.
County Court, Westchester County.

The applicant is the holder of New York State amended pistol license No. 39608. This license is "restricted to target shooting and hunting". The applicant seeks an order amending his license by removing all "restrictions" upon the grounds that such restrictions are not authorized by State law (see, Penal Law § 400.00).

The issue is whether a pistol licensing officer outside of New York City has the legal authority to place "restrictions" on a pistol license issued pursuant to Penal Law § 400.00 (2) (f). At the applicant's request, the court has received and reviewed written argument and a memorandum of law submitted by the applicant's attorney. Upon the court's review of the record and the applicable statutes, the court holds that Penal Law § 400.00 (2) (f) authorizes licensing officers to restrict a license to the purposes which justified its issuance.

If an applicant, like this applicant, seeks to carry for "hunting, target shooting and protection of property and person," and assuming the sincerity of the claims, the applicant has stated a legitimate reason to carry the weapon only in connection with target shooting and hunting activities. The applicant's narrow construction of the statute would require the issuance of an unrestricted license to carry for all purposes upon a showing of need for any limited purpose. 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 and would lead to objectionable consequences contrary to the intent of the statute.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Here’s the thing. No matter what that corrupt court ruled regarding proper cause and what your license was issued for, at the end of the day according to both Penal law 265 and 400, no crime is committed if you carry anyway. None. It’s impossible to charge you. So the very worst that can happen is that the license gets suspended or revoked. Currently we know of no person that that has happened to.

The reason is...

1. You have to get caught first by printing.
2. The police have to be involved.
3. The police have to take it upon themselves to contact the judge.
4. The judge has to take action or not take action.

It never gets past #1. And when it does, it has to get past #3. And once it gets past 3, the judge now has to put his precious power in jeopardy by hoping that you don’t challenge him and bring the case out to light. So that is why you never hear about it. It hardly ever gets past #1.

 

[kev74]

So now that the dead horse is sufficiently beaten, why not sign the petition?

Best case, Monkeyface sees the error of his ways and starts handing out pistols like Obama phones. Worst case, nothing happens. All for a 30 second time investment.

 

[Chevusa]

Here’s the thing. No matter what that corrupt court ruled regarding proper cause and what your license was issued for, at the end of the day according to both Penal law 265 and 400, no crime is committed if you carry anyway.

Not the case. The court ordered that ignoring the restrictions violated the spirit of the law. You must use and carry the pistol as for the purposes that justified its issuance in the first place.

They said if you could just get a target/hunting permit and be automatically allowed to carry anytime, anywhere, such as is permitted with an Unrestricted permit, you would be circumventing the intent of the law (see, Penal Law § 400.00), and therefore the courts are permitted in applying restrictions to regulate and control the proliferation, possession, and use of handguns in this State.

I get it. You're a good person. You waited months for a permit. It didn't come the way you wanted it to. You don't have a full carry permit. That doesn't make your restricted permit magically unrestricted. It sucks, but just because you don't want 2+2 to = 4 doesn't mean that is doesn't.

Take the classes. Come up with a "proper cause" to allow an Unrestricted permit. Give them so much shit so they can't deny you. Get creative.

 

[Chevusa]

So now that the dead horse is sufficiently beaten, why not sign the petition?

Best case, Monkeyface sees the error of his ways and starts handing out pistols like Obama phones. Worst case, nothing happens. All for a 30 second time investment.

I looked at the petition and would have signed it, except there were numerous spelling errors. "Your" should not be spelled "ur" if you want to be taken seriously. Good luck.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Not the case. The court ordered that ignoring the restrictions violated the spirit of the law. You must use and carry the pistol as for the purposes that justified its issuance in the first place.

They said if you could just get a target/hunting permit and be automatically allowed to carry anytime, anywhere, such as is permitted with an Unrestricted permit, you would be circumventing the intent of the law (see, Penal Law § 400.00), and therefore the courts are permitted in applying restrictions to regulate and control the proliferation, possession, and use of handguns in this State.

I get it. You're a good person. You waited months for a permit. It didn't come the way you wanted it to. You don't have a full carry permit. That doesn't make your restricted permit magically unrestricted. It sucks, but just because you don't want 2+2 to = 4 doesn't mean that is doesn't.

Take the classes. Come up with a "proper cause" to allow an Unrestricted permit. Give them so much shit so they can't deny you. Get creative.

You are not understanding. They can take it away for any reason. Sure. They can take it away because you decided to date the judge’s wife. But you cannot do jail time. There is no crime committed. Penal Law 265 clearly states that any holder of a license issued via Penal Law 400 is exempt from Criminal Possession of a Weapon.

 

[Acer-m14]

the courts have been wrong since what was it 1968 .. the gun control act ..

 

[masterswimmer]

I hear the arguments on both sides of the permit restrictions being self imposed vs letter of the law all the time. I would typically avoid this discussion if I was speaking from opinion as opposed to first hand interpretation by an isssuing judge. My story....

I received my restricted permit back in 1987. In those days I was not interested in CC. My purpose was for target practice and home defense.
Fast forward 25 years and shit in this country was 'getting real'. I decided I wanted to submit an amendment to remove the restrictions. I composed a brief and convincing request to the new judge assigned to my permit jurisdiction to remove the restrictions. The judge wanted to meet and greet me in the comflortable confines of his courtroom.

The day I went for the interview I had an entire soliloquy rehearsed. I figured there would be a back and forth between the judge and me. I get to the courtroom wearing a suit. The bailiff approaches me and asks if I'm 'on the job'. I said I'm not on the job but I am on a mission. He chuckled and advised about the procedure when I was called up.

The judge finally called me up. I approached the bench and he asked me to state my business. I was very succinct. I said I was requesting to have the restrictions lifted from my permit. With that said, the judge went off on a five minute diatribe explaining how and why my current concealed carry permit was already 'restriction free'. He did use the term administrative restrictions. He did say there was no force of law backing the administrative restrictions.

Bottom line, he said there was no reason to remove the restrictions, but he was doing it nevertheless. We talked a bit more about hunting and fishing and parted ways. All in all it was a great experience. I know some of you will say it was needlessly addressing an infringement that shouldn't be there in the first place. To that I say, it is what it is. I had to do what I had to do. And it went better than I expected.

If I heard this exchange between the judge and permit holder one person removed, I don't know if I'd believe it. So I'm not expecting anyone else to believe it. I'm also not concerned if anyone believes the interaction or not. This conversation was directly with me and the judge.

I have also heard rulings from other judges that do not align with the above judge. YMMV from county to county, and judge to judge.

Moral of the story, GET OUT AND VOTE. Unfortunately my judge retired a few years ago. The new judge seems to be decent, but definitely not the same as the retired judge.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Years ago before the Safe Act when Pataki was Governor, the NYSP had on their website that Restricted licenses are carry licenses and that they will follow Penal Law 400 as written and ignore restrictions that weren’t in the Penal Law.

 

[Chevusa]

You are not understanding. They can take it away for any reason.

That is not so, contrary to what you were told. It can only be taken away for good cause.

In The
Supreme Court of the United States _______________________________________________________
MICHAEL A. GURNETT, Petitioner,
v.
JAMES F. BARGNESI, an Acting Niagara County Court Judge, in his capacity as licensing officer for pistol permits in Niagara County and individually,
Respondent.

"It is well established that' [a licensing officer] is vested with broad discretion in determining whether to revoke a pistol permit and may do so for any good causer' including 'a finding that the petitioner lack the essential temperament or character which should be present in one entrusted with a dangerous [weapon] . . . . , or that he or she does not possess the maturity, prudence, carefulness, good character, temperament, demeanor and judgment necessary to have a pistol permit'

Carrying out of restriction would certainly fit their established definition. Also, you are ignoring the court finding that carrying on a hunting/target permit violates the intent of the law in the first place (see, Penal Law § 400.00), and that it has been ordered that firearms are only to be carried when fitting the proper cause on the license that justified its issuance in the first place.

 

[Marine Cpl]

That is not so, contrary to what you were told. It can only be taken away for good cause.

In The
Supreme Court of the United States _______________________________________________________
MICHAEL A. GURNETT, Petitioner,
v.
JAMES F. BARGNESI, an Acting Niagara County Court Judge, in his capacity as licensing officer for pistol permits in Niagara County and individually,
Respondent.

"It is well established that' [a licensing officer] is vested with broad discretion in determining whether to revoke a pistol permit and may do so for any good causer' including 'a finding that the petitioner lack the essential temperament or character which should be present in one entrusted with a dangerous [weapon] . . . . , or that he or she does not possess the maturity, prudence, carefulness, good character, temperament, demeanor and judgment necessary to have a pistol permit'

Carrying out of restriction would certainly fit their established definition. Also, you are ignoring the court finding that carrying on a hunting/target permit violates the intent of the law in the first place (see, Penal Law § 400.00), and that it has been ordered that firearms are only to be carried when fitting the proper cause on the license that justified its issuance in the first place.

What is good cause and have you actually read Penal Law 400?

 

[Chevusa]

What is good cause and have you actually read Penal Law 400?

Good cause is you giving them a good reason under the established definition. See my last post for the Court's definition.

I have read the law. I have also read multiple court orders that state Penal Law § 400.00 (2) (f) authorizes licensing officers to restrict a license to the purposes which justified its issuance. In plain English, if you were only justified in obtaining a target permit you are unjustified to carry for other reasons. Everyone here knows it. Just because you want it not to be so, doesn't make it not so. These aren't my opinions. These are Court orders and decisions. Stop fighting me on this and start fighting your licensing officer.

 

[Marine Cpl]

(f) have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or
place of possession, by any person when proper cause exists for the
issuance thereof;

6. License: validity. Any license issued pursuant to this section
shall be valid notwithstanding the provisions of any local law or
ordinance. No license shall be transferable to any other person or
premises. 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, except that the same shall not be valid within the
city of New York unless a special permit granting validity is issued by
the police commissioner of that city. Such license to carry or possess