Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 8/9/2011 3:42:55 PM EDT
There is a topic here which has started out as the "pistol permit admendment question" and has escalated into the missing links

The question that continues to be avoided is,

Has anyone ever read,or been issued a copy of any resctrictrions issued and/or authorized by a westchester county judge (the issuing officer)

OF:

The DETAILED limitations, laws, restrictions, etc of what a WC Target/Hunting Pistol license can or cannot do.

Understand there may or may not be, but it seems no one has yet to see, read and prove that there is a published copy

Please do not mention the handbook issue by the county. Detailed is the word.  

Understand I do not approve of anyone violating the law.

BUT given the vague nature of the local restrictions imposed on those permits, the potential for inadvertent and unintentional violations (and related consequences) causes chance for those with the possiblity of
violating laws, which none are aware of.
Link Posted: 8/9/2011 3:53:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2011 3:54:39 PM EDT by emsjeep]
Originally Posted By brikocontinc:
There is a topic here which has started out as the "pistol permit admendment question" and has escalated into the missing links

The question that continues to be avoided is,

Has anyone ever read,or been issued a copy of any resctrictrions issued and/or authorized by a westchester county judge (the issuing officer)

OF:

The DETAILED limitations, laws, restrictions, etc of what a WC Target/Hunting Pistol license can or cannot do.

Understand there may or may not be, but it seems no one has yet to see, read and prove that there is a published copy

Please do not mention the handbook issue by the county. Detailed is the word.  

Understand I do not approve of anyone violating the law.

BUT given the vague nature of the local restrictions imposed on those permits, the potential for inadvertent and unintentional violations (and related consequences) causes chance for those with the possiblity of
violating laws, which none are aware of.



Seriously?

They are not LAWS, they are administrative restrictions.  They are not criminally enforceable.
Link Posted: 8/9/2011 4:00:48 PM EDT
WHERE ARE THEY????

YOU CONTINUE TO HAVE THE SAME RESPOND

BUT HAVE NOT ONCE ANSWERED THE QUESTION

IF YOU CANNOT ANSWER THE QUESTION THATS FINE, NIETHER CAN I,OR MANY OTHERS!  



Link Posted: 8/9/2011 4:34:49 PM EDT
Very good emsjeep,
I Think your getting the point and dont even relize it.
"law" my mistake, just hope I didnt violate any restrictions
Do you see how easy it is when it is in balck and white, too bad the T/H permit holders dont have it in black and white.

 
Link Posted: 8/9/2011 4:45:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By brikocontinc:
Very good emsjeep,
I Think your getting the point and dont even relize it.
"law" my mistake, just hope I didnt violate any restrictions
Do you see how easy it is when it is in balck and white, too bad the T/H permit holders dont have it in black and white.

 


As already established, they aren't laws, they are a case by case judgement of each issuing officer, based on my understanding. I don't believe you will find anything written down from it.

Each judge has the power to name restrictions; however, not all of the restrictions, by name, mean the same thing to every judge. I think it is purposely left vague to extend power.

So the real question is, what are you worried about? Getting hemmed up going to the range, or worried about getting caught out of your restrictions?
Link Posted: 8/9/2011 4:56:59 PM EDT
I am not worried, if you read my replies I do not have a T/H license but a FC.
That seems to be the problem. It is not up your or any understandings, and it is obvioulsy vague wording of which I have stated, which than these types of permits have NO protection from making a mistake OR VIOLATION.


Link Posted: 8/9/2011 5:03:35 PM EDT
If you know the system so well
please tell the people how much time they have to get home after target shooting.
PLEASE just think of that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I understand the language is vagua intentionaly, but are you and a few others are to tell all T/H you really have no protection. Or you really have nothing to worry about if your not doing somthing stupid
Where is the line and where can they read it.
Link Posted: 8/9/2011 5:29:44 PM EDT
What you have to understand is this is legislating from the Bench.....sort of like being held in Contempt; it's all at the whim of the Judge presiding. Up here we had a Judge come out in a Public forum and tell the crowd that  "I (he) don't want Soldiers walking around in the Mall carrying guns."  
What everyone' s trying to tell you is that it's a calculated risk: the Judge, on his own accord is saying that you can have a handgun, and it's OK for you to take it out from time to time to go target shooting or take it to the woods when you go hunting. The FACT that the licenses says "LICENSED TO CARRY PISTOL IS HEREBY GRANTED" means nothing to the Judges because it's their signature and approval that allows you to have it in the first place.
Here's another example: EMS agencies work under the direction and license of a Physician: you're still under the obligations and training requirements of the State, but it's still up to the Doctor to approve of treatments and protocols.
All the Legislature has said is that it's OK for the Judges to hamstring you if they desire and short of an article 31 preceding there's little you can do to force their hand as their decisions are subjective.
Link Posted: 8/10/2011 2:45:46 AM EDT
Look at the big picture here.



What # of WC permit holders have lost their licenses from carrying outside of restrictions?

What were they doing at the time this deviation was discovered?

How frequently do we hear about people carrying being stopped by the police?



This is not advise to carry against administrative regulations. My experience is that the folks hot to trot on a Target/Hunting permit are the folks not quite ready to deal with the AFTERMATH of a firearms incident.



/mlx
Link Posted: 8/10/2011 6:13:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2011 6:14:50 AM EDT by rkbar15]
Pistol license restrictions have been around for approx. 40 years and have withstood every legal challenge to date in both Federal and NYS courts. It is well settled in NY law that you do not have a constitutional right to either possess or carry a concealed handgun in NY. Unless the NYS Legislature repeals the "proper cause" language in PL Article 400 or a federal court strikes it down (in all or part) on constitutional grounds there is nothing anyone in NYS can do.
If an individual feels that his/her licensing officer has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner, abuse of discretion, in violation of lawful procedure or error of law etc. he/she can file an Article 78 petition in Supreme Court and seek reversal/modification of the decision or other relief as the court sees fit.
OP, I honestly don't understand what your point is anymore. All your questions have been addressed and at this point you're just

 
 

 
Link Posted: 8/10/2011 8:42:01 AM EDT
We will soon see a ruling in the Kachalsky case.  From there we will have some avenue to taking down a lot of these administrative rules.
Link Posted: 8/10/2011 8:55:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Addicted2Fish:
We will soon see a ruling in the Kachalsky case.  From there we will have some avenue to taking down a lot of these administrative rules.


Which makes for an interesting question if you ask me.  

A win in kachalsky means what?  That all permits become full carry or that NYS is now shall issue?

If NY is shall-issue then the restrictions are invalidated no?  Barring any criminal history the permit must be issued.  
Violating the judicial restrictions is not a criminal offense.

So are permits still issued with restrictions but they just mean bubkis?

Or would it just invalidate the sullivan law, making it no permit to own, but carry requires a permit and will still have restrictions?
Link Posted: 8/10/2011 10:11:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2011 10:13:57 AM EDT by emsjeep]
Originally Posted By mikey_babaganoush:
Originally Posted By Addicted2Fish:
We will soon see a ruling in the Kachalsky case.  From there we will have some avenue to taking down a lot of these administrative rules.


Which makes for an interesting question if you ask me.  

A win in kachalsky means what?  That all permits become full carry or that NYS is now shall issue?

If NY is shall-issue then the restrictions are invalidated no?  Barring any criminal history the permit must be issued.  
Violating the judicial restrictions is not a criminal offense.

So are permits still issued with restrictions but they just mean bubkis?

Or would it just invalidate the sullivan law, making it no permit to own, but carry requires a permit and will still have restrictions?


It'll do all of nothing because they can still take administrative actions, including suspension and revocation, in any manner that reasonably accomplishes a somewhat legitimate interest.  So sure, you get a "full carry," though they may just refuse to put that box on the application, but they have other tools to make your life miserable.  Good luck dragging them into compliance.
Link Posted: 8/10/2011 10:21:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By emsjeep:
It'll do all of nothing because they can still take administrative actions, including suspension and revocation, in any manner that reasonably accomplishes a somewhat legitimate interest.  So sure, you get a "full carry," though they may just refuse to put that box on the application, but they have other tools to make your life miserable.  Good luck dragging them into compliance.


But thats my point, if permits become shall issue, short of committing a crime there is no revoking or suspending a permit.

And i know they wont just shrug their shoulders and give up giving the gun owners a hard time.  but what could they do to be a PITA?
Link Posted: 8/10/2011 11:16:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mikey_babaganoush:
Originally Posted By emsjeep:
It'll do all of nothing because they can still take administrative actions, including suspension and revocation, in any manner that reasonably accomplishes a somewhat legitimate interest.  So sure, you get a "full carry," though they may just refuse to put that box on the application, but they have other tools to make your life miserable.  Good luck dragging them into compliance.


But thats my point, if permits become shall issue, short of committing a crime there is no revoking or suspending a permit.

And i know they wont just shrug their shoulders and give up giving the gun owners a hard time.  but what could they do to be a PITA?


They could refuse to accept applications for that class and issue premise only...it wouldn't be legal, ethical or sustainable, but it would take a lawsuit and years to sort out.  Just because they are shall issue for one type doesn't mean that they have to issue at all, we still have a "good moral character" clause (400.00(1)(b) and a "good cause to deny" clause (400.00(1)(g); "No license shall be issued or renewed except for an applicant...(g) concerning whom no good cause exists for the denial of the license."

After it is issued, they have quite a bit of latitude in suspensions and revocations, and those determinations are only subject to rational basis scrutiny....at least so far.  You associate with the wrong people?  Revoked. Someone accuses you of a crime or misconduct in the right way, domestic situation - even as a victim-, failure to safeguard (even if it is not stolen or used -they find out you left it in a car in a safe or out in your house.  Revoked.  You try to open carry on your own property in public view, you become uncovered in public.  Revoked.  They can link any number of behaviors to character and good cause and still issue full carry.
Link Posted: 8/10/2011 12:18:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By emsjeep:
They could refuse to accept applications for that class and issue premise only...it wouldn't be legal, ethical or sustainable, but it would take a lawsuit and years to sort out.  Just because they are shall issue for one type doesn't mean that they have to issue at all, we still have a "good moral character" clause (400.00(1)(b) and a "good cause to deny" clause (400.00(1)(g); "No license shall be issued or renewed except for an applicant...(g) concerning whom no good cause exists for the denial of the license."

After it is issued, they have quite a bit of latitude in suspensions and revocations, and those determinations are only subject to rational basis scrutiny....at least so far.  You associate with the wrong people?  Revoked. Someone accuses you of a crime or misconduct in the right way, domestic situation - even as a victim-, failure to safeguard (even if it is not stolen or used -they find out you left it in a car in a safe or out in your house.  Revoked.  You try to open carry on your own property in public view, you become uncovered in public.  Revoked.  They can link any number of behaviors to character and good cause and still issue full carry.


Thats what i was looking for.  

But wont kachalsky remove the "good cause" requirement?  Or do you think its more likely that the sullivan law is struck down?
Link Posted: 8/10/2011 12:48:38 PM EDT



Originally Posted By emsjeep:



They could refuse to accept applications for that class and issue premise only...it wouldn't be legal, ethical or sustainable, but it would take a lawsuit and years to sort out.  





NYS County Court judges aren't going to play footsie with U.S. District/U.S. Circuit Court judges. In any case it's pointless to even discuss all these "what if" scenarios or next steps until the current case is decided. It's also extremely likely  that the losing party in Kachalsky will also appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court.

 
Link Posted: 8/10/2011 1:21:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2011 1:27:00 PM EDT by emsjeep]
Originally Posted By mikey_babaganoush:
Originally Posted By emsjeep:
They could refuse to accept applications for that class and issue premise only...it wouldn't be legal, ethical or sustainable, but it would take a lawsuit and years to sort out.  Just because they are shall issue for one type doesn't mean that they have to issue at all, we still have a "good moral character" clause (400.00(1)(b) and a "good cause to deny" clause (400.00(1)(g); "No license shall be issued or renewed except for an applicant...(g) concerning whom no good cause exists for the denial of the license."

After it is issued, they have quite a bit of latitude in suspensions and revocations, and those determinations are only subject to rational basis scrutiny....at least so far.  You associate with the wrong people?  Revoked. Someone accuses you of a crime or misconduct in the right way, domestic situation - even as a victim-, failure to safeguard (even if it is not stolen or used -they find out you left it in a car in a safe or out in your house.  Revoked.  You try to open carry on your own property in public view, you become uncovered in public.  Revoked.  They can link any number of behaviors to character and good cause and still issue full carry.


Thats what i was looking for.  

But wont kachalsky remove the "good cause" requirement?  Or do you think its more likely that the sullivan law is struck down?



It is my basic understanding that the case will not and does not seek to make New York generally "shall issue," but it will make it a "may issue" for "full carry."  Shall issue, as a category, usually requires a few basic qualifications that are specifically outlined.  In that sense, New York is only may issue, but in reality even though the standards may be high, and arbitrary in the margins, more or less everyone who applies will receive a license.  My concern is that once they apply this defacto "shall issue" principle to full carry, they will look for more reasons to deny outright or revoke later.

The Kachalsky documents available so far are sparse, the initial pleadings aren't available and the opinions are really very brief but it was my impression that it was only going to address the 400.00(2)(f) "proper cause" wording.  It's hard to say without any of the documents though, so, we will see...
Link Posted: 8/10/2011 1:23:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rkbar15:

Originally Posted By emsjeep:

They could refuse to accept applications for that class and issue premise only...it wouldn't be legal, ethical or sustainable, but it would take a lawsuit and years to sort out.  


NYS County Court judges aren't going to play footsie with U.S. District/U.S. Circuit Court judges. In any case it's pointless to even discuss all these "what if" scenarios or next steps until the current case is decided. It's also extremely likely  that the losing party in Kachalsky will also appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court.  


Nassau/Suffolk and NYC Police will play games and are now balking at compliance with Razzano v. County of Nassau....
Link Posted: 8/10/2011 2:28:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2011 2:29:24 PM EDT by rkbar15]





Originally Posted By emsjeep:





Nassau/Suffolk and NYC Police will play games and are now balking at compliance with Razzano v. County of Nassau....








Like I said it's pointless to discuss all these "what if" scenarios until the Kachalsky case is decided and assuming it's decided in favor of the plaintiffs what relief is ordered by the District Court. Even if Kachalsky is successful in all aspects it's just the beginning in what will be ongoing litigation for many years.  


 
Top Top