Quoted:
I would think you should call the Nassau and Suffolk county offices to find out if they honor the city permits.

Quoted:
There is no "maybe". You cannot transport a handgun with a NYC issued premises permit to range outside of NYC.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/permits/gun_licensing_faq.shtml#CanITargetShootOutsideNYC

Can I go target shooting outside NYC?

A NYC carry business license is valid throughout NYS. Premise residence and premise business licenses are only valid in NYC except as indicated in the next section.

Quoted:


I really wonder how dumb these lawmakers really are. Do they want safe and proficient licensed responsible gun owners? Then they should make rules which allow them to attend and receive training which will build upon their skills and thus make our city (and our neighbors) safer. I have no way of seeing why this rule is so. This is one of the rules I would like to see gone first. It absolutely defies logic.

edit: I would go so far as to say the lack of top notch training available to the premise pistol permit holder actually sets us up, as gun owners, for failure . We now  have less proficient gun handling overall. The likelihood of a negligent discharge which could in turn be used against us is increased.
Anyone who has spent time at Westside has seen what it looks like when a newb comes in and signs for his Glock 19 he knows jack shit about, then steps up to the firing line to 'teach himself'. This could be a ticking timebomb and we are lucky we havent had an incident yet.

This is what I was talking about several weeks ago when I said I wanted to know what, if any, actions were being taken against the city by nysrpa. I dont see this as being hard to convince a judge. Comments?

Quoted:
There is no "maybe". You cannot transport a handgun with a NYC issued premises permit to range outside of NYC.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/permits/gun_licensing_faq.shtml#CanITargetShootOutsideNYC

Can I go target shooting outside NYC?

A NYC carry business license is valid throughout NYS. Premise residence and premise business licenses are only valid in NYC except as indicated in the next section.

Quoted:




I really wonder how dumb these lawmakers really are. Do they want safe and proficient licensed responsible gun owners? Then they should make rules which allow them to attend and receive training which will build upon their skills and thus make our city (and our neighbors) safer.





 

Quoted:
Well if we are going to discuss the ACTUAL laws...a NYC premise permit isn't even valid for target shooting in NYC.





Premise is only for possession at the address listed...I believe the only exemption is travelling to and from a licensed gunsmith for necessary repairs. I may be wrong there.
 

Quoted:
I really wonder how dumb these lawmakers really are. Do they want safe and proficient licensed responsible gun owners?

Quoted:

They don't want any gun owners, period.

Quoted:

Exactly. The point of all those laws is to discourage firearms ownership.

I would have thought that that would be obvious.

Quoted:







NYC, a mecca for the brilliant, university educated liberal elite that don't possess the common sense that God gave the average door knob.

Quoted:



They don't want any gun owners, period.

Quoted:
Thanks all. Very frustrating. I just called the range in Uniondale LI and they told me I can shoot there any time with my NYC premise permit.  I guess the Q&A on the nypd web site says it all. Very frustrating.  Did i mention this is frustrating.

Quoted:
There is no "maybe". You cannot transport a handgun with a NYC issued premises permit to range outside of NYC.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/permits/gun_licensing_faq.shtml#CanITargetShootOutsideNYC

Can I go target shooting outside NYC?

A NYC carry business license is valid throughout NYS. Premise residence and premise business licenses are only valid in NYC except as indicated in the next section.

Quoted:


Don't they issue some equally ineffective card for out of county? or is that just for hunting?

Quoted:


The green hunting authorization card. Just for hunting. And equally "illegal."

If we could somehow force the NYPD to stop allowing target shooting and hunting on a premise permit, it would be bad at first...but would be an excellent reason to file a lawsuit, no? It could bring down the entire NYS permitting system...and show just how stupid the sullivan laws are.

Quoted:
Thanks all. Very frustrating. I just called the range in Uniondale LI and they told me I can shoot there any time with my NYC premise permit.  I guess the Q&A on the nypd web site says it all. Very frustrating.

Quoted:




I lived in NYC about 20 years ago and it was different.



At the time they had a handgun permit called a target permit that let you take the gun target shooting any time you wanted to but you had to keep it unloaded in the house.  The premise permit of the time allowed you to keep it loaded in the house but only allowed you to take it shooting twice a year.



So I put my handguns on both a target and a premise permit which allowed me to take them shooting whenever I wanted to and could keep them loaded in the house.



At that time there was no restrictions on taking the gun out of the city with a target permit to take the gun target shooting or to travel out of state for training, which I did several times.

Quoted:


I found this on another part of the NYPD website under "Types of Permits":



PREMISES LICENSE: IS A RESTRICTED TYPE OF LICENSE. It is issued for your RESIDENCE or BUSINESS. The Licensee may possess a handgun ONLY on the premises of the address indicated on the front of the license. Licensees may also transport their handguns and ammunition in SEPARATE LOCKED CONTAINERS, DIRECTLY to and from an authorized range, or hunting location. HANDGUNS MUST BE UNLOADED while being transported.



Is this a revised definition? It doesn't state that the range must be within NYC borders. I don't think there is any hunting season within NYC so they must be saying it's ok to transport your handgun out of the city for hunting in the manner described.  Perhaps the FAQ section needs to be updated?

Quoted:


Even through it's illegal to transport a handgun licensed to a premises the NYPD PC without regard to the NYS PL allows transport to/from an "authorized range". The only authorized ranges are within the City of NY. Once again the NYPD PC without regard to the NY PL will also authorize the transport AND carry concealed while hunting  with a premises license "endorsement".  You cannot legally hunt with a premisses license.


 

Quoted:
The old NYC "target license" was a concealed carry license administratively restricted to target shooting and as such was valid throughout NYS. The current "target license" is a premises license where the licensed handgun(s) are licensed to the premise address and is not valid for target shooting or any other off premises use.  

Quoted:
When I had my NYC Target permit, it had the words "NOT FOR CARRY" written on them.
Though NY State Target permits allow concealled carry to and from the range, my NYC permit did not.
 

The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff,
v.
Lincoln Parker, Defendant.
Supreme Court, New York County.

September 2, 1977
Kazdin & Weinstein (Michael D. Ballen of counsel), for defendant. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney (Daniel Bartoldus of counsel), for plaintiff.

364*364E. LEO MILONAS, J.

The defendant was indicted on June 21, 1977 for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, in violation of section 265.03 of the Penal Law, arising from an altercation with the complainant, a woman with whom he had admittedly been having a romantic relationship. He now moves to dismiss the indictment on the ground that prosecution is barred under section 265.20 (subd a, par 3) of the Penal Law, which states that section 265.03, among others, shall not apply to "[p]ossession of a pistol or revolver by a person to whom a license therefor has been issued as provided under section 400.00".

Although the defendant acknowledges that he was in possession of a pistol at the time in question, he contends that he is a liquor salesman with a valid license to carry a gun, a fact which the People concede. They assert, however, that the defendant's license only entitled him to possess a pistol in his home and that he was not in his home when he allegedly pointed a loaded gun at the complainant and her son. According to the District Attorney, the defendant's illegal use of the weapon precludes him from availing himself of the statutory exemption. In support of his argument, he distinguishes between the various kinds of licenses authorized pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 400.00 of the Penal Law, claiming that the defendant did not have a license to carry a loaded pistol in a public place.
There do not appear to be any cases defining the parameters of the exemption section of the weapons provisions in situations where the defendant, possessing a license pursuant to section 400.00 of the Penal Law, nonetheless makes use of that weapon in an otherwise unlawful manner. Reluctantly, the court must conclude that section 265.20 (subd a, par 3) of the Penal Law establishes a blanket exemption, since it neither differentiates between types of licenses nor between degrees of possession, including those, such as section 265.03 365*365 of the Penal Law, which require unlawful intent as an element of the crime. The result here, undesirable as it may be, and surely not one intended by the Legislature, unfortunately is mandated by the wording of the statute. The appropriate — and remaining — remedy for the improper use of a weapon under the instant circumstances is the administrative procedure of license revocation and/or criminal prosecution for menacing, assault and harassment, three of the charges present in the initial criminal court accusatory instrument which, for some reason, were omitted from the indictment.Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss is granted under CPL 210.20 (subd [h]) in that there exists some "jurisdictional or legal impediment to conviction of the defendant for the offense charged".

71 A.D.2d 258 (1979)
The People of the State of New York, Appellant,
v.
Anthony Serrano, Respondent
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

December 6, 1979
Benjamin H. Green of counsel (Robert M. Pitler with him on the brief (Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney), for appellant.

Salvatore Canonico for respondent.

BIRNS, J. P., concurs with BLOOM, J., in an opinion; FEIN, J., concurs with BLOOM, J., and BIRNS, J. P.; LUPIANO, J., dissents in an opinion; YESWICH, J., dissents and concurs only with result reached in dissenting opinion by LUPIANO, J.

BLOOM, J.

On August 2, 1978, defendant was arrested in the hallway of a house on the lower east side. Initially, the contemplated charges were limited to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, criminally using drug paraphernalia 259*259 in the second degree, criminally possessing a hypodermic instrument and unlawful possession of marihuana. However, a search of his vehicle which was parked nearby disclosed possession of a loaded firearm. Accordingly, when the indictment was handed down, it included as the first count a charge of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Thereafter, defendant moved, among other things, to dismiss the weapons count upon the ground that he was authorized to possess the weapon in accordance with a license issued to him by the Police Department of the City of New York. In fact, a "premises license" had been issued to defendant on November 18, 1977, which apparently had been renewed to cover the period January 1, 1978 to December 31, 1978. The premises described in the application for the permit was 632 Grand Street, Brooklyn, New York, which was the location of defendant's insurance brokerage business. Defendant contends that section 265.20 (subd a, par 3) of the Penal Law exempts "[p]ossession of a pistol or revolver by a person to whom a license therefor has been issued as provided under section 400.00, provided, that such a license shall not preclude a conviction for the offense defined in subdivision three of section 265.01" (which makes it a crime to knowingly possess "a rifle, shotgun or firearm in or upon a building or grounds, used for educational purposes, of any school, college or university, except the forestry lands, wherever located, owned and maintained by the State University of New York college of environmental science and forestry, without the written authorization of such educational institution"). He asserts that section 265.20 (subd a, par 3) by specifically permitting prosecution for violation of subdivision (3) of section 265.01 is indicative of a legislative intent to preclude prosecution for all other weapons charges. Hence, he claims that since he possessed a license for the pistol or revolver here involved, he may not be prosecuted under section 265.02.

Criminal Term, relying on his decision in People v Parker (91 Misc 2d 363) granted the motion and dismissed the weapons count. The People have appealed from this determination as they did from the holding of Criminal Term in Parker.

In Parker we reversed (70 AD2d 387). However, we find the fact pattern here presented is substantially different from that presented by Parker. Accordingly, we affirm but for reasons other than those relied upon by Criminal Term.

Section 400.00 of the Penal Law, which is the omnibus 260*260 provision governing the issuance of a license for a pistol or revolver provides in subdivision 2 thereof for different categories of licenses. These include "to (a) have and possess in his dwelling by a householder; (b) have and possess in his place of business by a merchant or storekeeper; (c) have and carry concealed while so employed by a messenger employed by a banking institution or express company; (d) have and carry concealed while so employed by a regular employee of an institution of the state, or of any county, city, town or village, under control of a commissioner of correction of the city or any warden, superintendent or head keeper of any state prison, penitentiary, workhouse, county jail or other institution for the detention of persons convicted or accused of crime or held as witnesses in criminal cases, provided that application is made therefor by such commissioner, warden, superintendent or head keeper; (e) have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or place of possession, by any person when proper cause exists for the issuance thereof; and (f) have, possess, collect and carry antique pistols". Subdivision 15 of section 400.00 provides that violation of any provision of the licensing statute shall constitute a class A misdemeanor.

In Parker defendant was indicted for criminal possession in the second degree, i.e., possession of a weapon with intent to use it unlawfully against another. The indictment and other papers submitted to us disclosed that Parker, who possessed a license to have and possess a pistol or revolver in his dwelling, got into an argument on the street with his girlfriend. He went to his home, took the weapon and returned to the street where he threatened her with it. Our consideration of the case resulted in four separate opinions. Justice SILVERMAN, who wrote the plurality opinion and with whom the Presiding Justice concurred, noted "that the exemption [contained in § 265.20] simply does not apply when the possession is in violation of the limitations and conditions of the license. As to such possession, the possessor is in legal effect not `a person to whom a license therefor has been issued'". (70 AD2d 387, 389.) Justice MARKEWICH who concurred, noted that the main thrust of the charge was an intent to commit an assault. Had the assault, in fact, occurred, the defendant could not escape prosecution therefor simply because the weapon was possessed under a valid license "to have and possess in his dwelling by a householder". (Penal Law, § 400.00, subd 2, par [a].) I concurred on the limited ground that defendant was charged with 261*261 possession with intent to use the weapon unlawfully against another. The added ingredient of intent to use unlawfully against another was sufficient, I felt, to subject the defendant to prosecution under the indictment. Justice BIRNS dissented, holding that the exemption contained in section 265.20 (subd a, par 3) was sufficiently broad to include Parker within its embrace. Any correction of the situation, he asserted, must be legislative and not judicial.

Here, however, we are confronted with the charge of naked possession. All that is asserted is that the weapon for which, concededly, defendant held a license "to have and possess in his place of business by a merchant or storekeeper" (Penal Law, § 400.00, subd 2, par [b]) was possessed in a place other than that specified in the license. In giving sweep to what is conceived to be legislative intent, we must be careful not to legislate. In that connection it would be well to bear in mind the admonition of Mr. Justice HOLMES that "judges do and must legislate, but they can do so only interstitially; they are confined from molar to molecular motions". (Southern Pacific Co. v Jensen, 244 US 205, 221.) Here, the legislative intent is manifest by its inclusion of subdivision 15 in section 400.00 of the Penal Law. That subdivision denominates the act here sought to be prosecuted as a class A misdemeanor and not the class D felony specified in section 265.02. We are bound thereby.

Given the disparity in fact patterns between this case and Parker and the differences in opinion among those comprising the majority in that case, we do not think that the disparate conclusions reached tend to undermine the principle of institutional stability (compare People v Davis, 46 N.Y.2d 780 with People v Murray, 40 N.Y.2d 327).

Accordingly, the order of Criminal Term (MILONAS, J.), rendered February 8, 1979, should be affirmed.

What licenses are provided for in Penal Law article 400?

Penal Law § 400.00 (2) describes seven types of pistol (or revolver) licenses; the basic distinction among them is the right to "have and possess" in a limited geographical area (e.g., in a dwelling or a place of business) as opposed to the right to "have and carry concealed" (emphasis supplied), either in connection with one's specific employment or, as defined in Penal Law § 400.00 (2) (f), "have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or place of possession, by any person when proper cause exists for the issuance thereof". The seven types of weapons described contain no mention of the type involved here, viz., a target pistol license. That license is issued with specific restrictions by the Police Commissioner who is denoted licensing officer for the City of New York (Penal Law § 265.00 [10]). A target pistol license is issued to one who wants to engage in competitive or just-for-sport shooting at an authorized pistol range. The holder is obliged to carry his weapon, unloaded, and in a locked box, to and from the pistol range. It may be noted, parenthetically, that the accusatory instrument here is not only inartfully drawn but is probably facially insufficient. Clearly, it is not a 501*501 violation of a target pistol license to carry a pistol in "his vehicle". There is no requirement that one walk to the pistol range! Nor does the complaint here allege that the weapon was loaded or carried in any container other than a locked box. But there are more weighty legal concerns here than facial insufficiency.

The target license is not a "possess" license with extended geographical boundaries. While not too germane here, it is in reality a modified type of carry license, enabling one to carry a weapon without regard to employment but with limitations as to place of possession and terms of possession. It may only be carried to and from a pistol range and then only unloaded and in a locked container. The People's memorandum of law (26 pages) while insisting that the target pistol license is essentially a hybrid between possession and carry types, realistically notes "left open is the question of how, without a carry privilege, one may lawfully transport a weapon to the range". The target license, is viewed by the court as a carry type or Penal Law § 400.00 (2) (f) license (Federation of N. Y. State Rifle & Pistol Clubs v McGuire, 101 Misc 2d 104, 105; Hochreich v Codd, 68 AD2d 424).

The major cases in this area of the law have dealt with the question of the exemption from criminal liability under Penal Law article 265 for those who hold valid pistol licenses. In People v Parker (91 Misc 2d 363) Justice Milonas dismissed an indictment for violation of Penal Law § 265.03 (possession of a loaded firearm with intent to use the same unlawfully against another) in the case of a holder of a possess-at-home license who threatened his woman friend with the gun, on a city street. The Judge, ruefully, noted that Penal Law § 265.20 (a) (3) listed Penal Law § 265.03 as a section that did not apply to holders of pistol licenses. The Appellate Division reversed on the theory that one who violates the conditions of his pistol license is thereby transformed into an unlicensed possessor (People v Parker, 70 AD2d 387). Justice Birns dissented, noting that the exemption statute was unequivocal and unambiguous and that the majority was ruling by "judicial fiat" and not in accordance with clear statutory requirements. The Court of Appeals reversed on the opinion by Justice Birns (People v Parker, 52 N.Y.2d 935). In People v Serrano (71 AD2d 258 [1st Dept]), the court now upholding Justice Milonas, dismissed an indictment for unlawful possession of a loaded gun in a car where the owner had a possess-on-premises license. The court theorized that this was naked possession (Penal Law § 265.02 [4]) 502*502 as opposed to the possession in Parker where the charge was Penal Law § 265.03 or possession under circumstances evincing an intent to use unlawfully against another. People v Serrano preceded the holding of the Court of Appeals in People v Parker (52 N.Y.2d 935, supra) which renders Penal Law article 265 unusable against a holder of a valid pistol license. People v Serrano was affirmed on the same dissenting opinion of Justice Birns (52 N.Y.2d 936). In People v Ocasio (108 Misc 2d 211), the Appellate Term, Second Department, held that a charge of Penal Law § 265.01 did not apply to a target pistol licensee who was found to possess his gun other than in transit to or from a pistol range, essentially a similar fact pattern to that presented in this case. The court suggested however that where the "terms and conditions" of a license were violated, a charge of violation of Penal Law § 400.00 (15) might be appropriate. Justice Birns in his Parker dissent (People v Parker, 70 AD2d 387, 394, supra) suggested that where the gun was possessed outside the geographical area of the license, a charge of Penal Law § 400.00 (15) might lie.