Not necessarily. I know someone with a pistol permit who failed a NICS check due to a misunderstanding. Someone with his same name committed a crime. Had he not went to buy another gun, he wouldn't have known. The county that issued his permit had no idea as well.

That's not what I was describing.
You're describing someone with a similar name, which is resolved for future purchases by applying for a UPIN

And its a real pia to get too.. One of my friends had to go through it.. His name was same as someone with IRA ties... took him years to get his UPIN..

His name is a common Irish name.. Only way he found out when he was declined purchasing a shotgun for his son for Xmas one year..

A coworker is going through a similar scenario, except it's wasn't a case of same name. He applied for pp and was cleared. When he went to purchase a handgun he was denied. Filed paperwork to see why he was denied. Found out he had a warrent for his arrest from another state where he had gotten a driving ticket and didn't pay it. Called state to make it right they told him to lawyer up. Some time passed, he lawyered up, warrent was dropped. Send in paperwork to feds, they told him he's on hold till who knows when (been two years now, had his permit almost 3). Called his sheriff and asked what to do, they said as far as we are concerned your good to go, just have some buy for you and put it on your permit.

Also had another co-worker get busted on federal insurance money fraud. He had to surrender his guns. Did his time paid his fine, got his permit reinstated and failed nics when he went to buy another gun. He's currently in limbo. State says he's good to go though.

I have another co-worker who was flying on 911,he has been on a no fly list and can't get off it. Also fails nics. He does not have a pp and finally just gave up on buying guns.

I'm not sure what system NYS is gonna use to verify people but it will be a shitshow if it's nics. Plenty of people are gonna be surprised.

Eight years ago, a neighbor and I went to a local LI shop to each purchase a stripped lower to do a build for ourselves.  I filled out my 4473 including SS number and was cleared in under a minute (I was impressed how fast NICS could work). My neighbor refused to put down his SS (which was not required, at least at that time, but was advised it could slow things down).  Sure enough, they get "delay".  We waited a half an hour and after another call to NICS to check the status, it was still "delay".  After three days it was still "delay" and the shop's policy was not to sell without a go ahead from NICS so he never got that lower and I wound up packing it away since we were not going to be doing that joint build.  In the meantime, about six months later, he ran one of those detailed background checks you can buy and discovered that he had a warrant from the early 1990's for an unpaid NY traffic ticket.  Why NICS didn't just decline I have no idea but it might have been due to the lack of SS number to make a final determination.  What was odd on top of that was all these years he was able to renew is driver license and register vehicles. They did not put any effort into clearing that warrant.

Pete King?

I mean, who didn't send multiple large wooden crates of "farm equipment" and "machine parts" to Ireland in the 1980's?

Get this: I hold and have held for multiple years/renewals, a FFL, UPIN, Federal Employment, NYS Handgun Licenses, Enhanced DL, FAA class lll, and several other investigative clearances of which any criminal history would prohibit and I still get "flagged"for delay. Dealers using the computer system as opposed to verbal checks do go through quicker.  I never thought my name was common, apparently it is, or there's one out there that's prohibited.
Took about three months to obtain my upin, and I think in the coming days I'll pay the$18. for the FBI records check just to make sure, or find out why...might save me an unwarranted trip to jail one day.

the AW reg was a no brainer.  no one really knows who has what

CCW recert your pretty fucked..  your clerk has your permit on file.   a simple request and the state can cross your permit with no recert on their database and here comes the knocks

I recerted the other day...  sucks.

That is why i recert mine. I didn't want my door kicked in and one of my kids or one of there animals being shot.. I own the house but i don't reside there full time..

I only put the weapons that were on nys permit nothing since i reside in FL, and now NC.

They don't need to know.. sucks I will not be carry one of the newer weapons but i have enough to give me choices when i lived in NY full time and to use to hunt during deer season if i choice to hunt back up there.

Mailed paperwork on Dec 12, certified, return receipt requested... received confirmation.
As of yet, checking via the website, certification is not confirmed.

Interesting situation this weekend. My father in law, who has had his permit forever, mailed he recertification in a couple weeks ago. Apparently he forgot to check the box for the public/not public information. They sent him the paper back, with another envelope that had a "recert return" sticker on the bottom right corner. He checked the box and put it back in the mail. It will be interesting to see what he gets back.

That is interesting in that there is no check box for public/not public information. It just says, "If you would like to request that your firearms license recertification records be exempt from public disclosure, you MUST check a box from the choices
below." If you don't want your records exempt from public disclosure, you check nothing, there is no "Yes" or "No" box.

I will not be checking any boxes on mine when I mail it in at the end of the month as the non-disclosure is part of the SAFE Act also. I'm not going to criticize the SAFE Act and then take advantage of parts I may like.

Sorry. I'm not sure exactly what it said on the form i just remember him saying something about the public info. What you put is probably what he did wrong. I just thought the sticker was interesting. I'll be interested to see if you get yours back if you don't check a box either.

SAFE Act nuances alarm lawmakers

ALBANY — Handguns and confusion are often a recipe for disaster, the same can be true of handgun public policy.

As Governor Andrew Cuomo sets forth the state’s priorities for 2018 when he delivers the annual State of the State Address on Wednesday, some legislators are sounding alarm bells about ongoing confusion surrounding a past signature priority of the chief executive.

In 2010, the NY Safe Act instituted several wide-ranging changes to existing gun laws, from an assault weapons registry, to denying new permits to the mentally ill, and controversially limiting the size of ammunition clips that can be sold and possessed in the state.

Additionally, all pistol permit holders have been required to rectify all permits issued prior to Jan. 15, 2013. The deadline to submit your recertification is Jan. 31, 2018. If your permit was issued on or after Jan. 15, 2013, the deadline to recertify is five years after the date the permit was issued.

The purpose of this recertification is to be sure that all permit holder information is up-to-date including name, address and the listing of weapons owned.

The recertification deadline has some lawmakers concerned for their constituents. First, the permit holder has the burden of awareness of the need to rectify.

“As a permit holder, it is your responsibility to recertify your permit whether you receive a notification letter or not,” said a statement on the state’s Safe Act website.

Secondly, a little known provision regarding confiscation of firearms has some ringing alarm bells in Albany as the date approaches. Those who fail to meet the deadline may have all of their firearms confiscated, not just the pistols governed by the recertification provision.

In the event of a suspension (like one caused by failure to recertify), “such person shall surrender such license to the appropriate licensing official and any and all firearms, rifles, or shotguns owned or possessed by such person shall be surrendered to an appropriate law enforcement agency ... In the event such license, firearm, shotgun, or rifle is not surrendered, such items shall be removed and declared a nuisance and any police officer or peace officer acting pursuant to his or her special duties is authorized to remove any and all such weapons,” the provision states in part.

Assemblyman Joe Errigo (R-Conesus), who represents the Hornell area, said, “I’m one of those people who didn’t know that until today.”

“Don’t neglect it because no one really knows what the ramifications will be. God forbid we have a situation where they actually do take the guns away,” he said...

Did this Errigo guy come into office after SAFE was passed?
If he voted on it, why did he not read it first?
Don't pretend ignorance for something you voted on.

sounds just like big o care.. you need to pass the bill to know whats in it.. hahha gotta love liberals..

According to the NYS Assembly website:

Errigo Sworn In As Member of State Legislature
January 3, 2017

Assemblyman Joseph A Errigo (R,C-Conesus) was officially sworn in as the new representative of the 133rd Assembly District today. Errigo joined six other freshman Assembly members at the public swearing-in ceremony hosted by Assembly Minority Leader Brian M. Kolb (R,C,I,Ref-Canandaigua). The group was joined by family and friends as they took their official oaths of office.

Seems a handful of politicians and sheriff's are coming out to make noise about the deadline. Shame they didn't get off their asses 5 year's ago. Must have just realized it won't be the nysp going door to door to pick up the unregistered handguns.

The local officers should refuse to take any action. Those that do should be terminated for dereliction of constitutional duty.  Door to door is a dangerous concept. Let your governor do it should he deem it so important.

A dose of reality for comments like this one. It's won't be "door to door". More like a court order comes in that Joe Smith at 223 Main Street has had his permit revoked and he must surrender his firearms. It's essentially no different than the way it's already done for anyone whose permit is revoked.

Sadly, you are right. And too many will comply.  Seems we've lost our forefather's spirit.  And a whole lot more.

Don't under estimate people.. They havent been pushed fall enough yet..

The democraps will push it at some point the liberty tree will be refreshed.

Il Duce and the rest of the democraps will be running scared like Jefferson Davis did after the fall of the south..

This time the North will feel it with once again the democraps in control of the north and fail like they did over 125+ year ago.

Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics
Opinion 17-166
December 7, 2017

"The inquiring judges ask if a judge who is a firearm licensing officer (see Penal Law § 265.00[10])1 may undertake the following actions when he/she is aware of grounds for a revocation proceeding but the prosecutorial agencies have declined to initiate such a proceeding:

(a) Initiate licensing revocation proceedings by providing notice to the pistol permit holder of the apparent grounds for revocation and an opportunity to be heard; and

(b) thereafter conduct the pistol permit revocation/suspension proceeding without the prosecuting agency’s participation and then issue findings and a determination.

The judges explain that, under the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013 (the “SAFE Act”), a pistol permit holder who obtained a permit prior to January 15, 2013, must re-certify before January 31, 2018. Failure to do so “shall act as a revocation of such license” (Penal Law § 400.00[10][b]). A pistol permit holder’s failure to obtain the required recertification may qualify as a Class A misdemeanor (see Penal Law § 400.00[15]). Section 400.00(10)(b) does not facially appear to require a licensing officer to notify licensees or initiate revocation proceedings for failure to re-certify. Rather, “the state police shall send a notice to all license holders who have not recertified” at least “one year prior to” the recertification deadline (Penal Law § 400.00[10][b] [emphasis added]). Also, “[i]f the New York state police discover as a result of the recertification process that a licensee failed to provide a change of address, the New York state police shall not require the licensing officer to revoke such license” (id.).

The judges further advise revocation and suspension procedures vary in this state. In some areas, district or county attorneys file a court proceeding with notice and an opportunity to be heard. In others, prosecutorial agencies decline to participate in license revocation proceedings, thereby shifting the duty to the licensing officer, who outside New York City and Long Island is generally “ a judge or justice of a court of record having [an] office in the county of issuance” (see Penal Law §265.00[10]). If the licensing officer is aware a license holder may be subject to revocation proceedings, he/she may face pressure to act.

A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]). Among other restrictions, a judge must avoid improper ex parte communications (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[B][6]) and must “not be swayed by ... public clamor or fear of criticism” (22 NYCRR 100.3[B][1]). Moreover, full-time judges must not engage in the practice of law (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[G]; NY Const art VI, § 20[b][4]), and a part-time judge may not practice law “in the court on which the judge serves” (22 NYCRR 100.6[B][2]) or act as an attorney in any matter “originating” in that court (Judiciary Law §§ 16; 471).

We have advised judges to “maintain their independence from prosecutors and not participate or assist in ‘what is essentially the work of the prosecutor’s office’” (Opinions 16-09; 13-33; 10-113; 00-95). Indeed, “a judge must decline to act as the prosecutor’s intermediary” (Opinion 15-197[A]).

Applying these principles, a judge who is a licensing officer must not initiate license revocation proceedings by providing notice to the pistol permit holder of the alleged grounds for revocation. For example, it would readily create the impression that (1) the judge is engaging in ex parte communications with the affected party, (2) the judge is prosecution-oriented, (3) the judge’s impartiality is compromised, and/or (4) the judge has pre-determined the license holder’s guilt. Moreover, if a judge were to conduct a pistol permit revocation or suspension proceeding without a prosecuting agency, the judge would necessarily be perceived as a surrogate prosecutor practicing law. The positions of initiator, prosecutor and trier of facts are ethically incompatible (see e.g. Opinion 88-147 [town justice may not assist the town clerk in obtaining compliance with dog licensing ordinances by communicating with suspected offenders and informing them of possible violations of law]).

Ultimately, the decision to either prosecute or refrain from prosecuting pistol permit holders pursuant to Penal Law § 400.00 is a policy decision for the prosecuting agencies, not judges (cf. Opinion 10-142 [“The propriety of a prosecutor’s exercise of discretion in deciding whether and how to prosecute offenses raises legal issues beyond the Committee’s jurisdiction.”]).

Thus, we conclude a judge who is a firearm licensing officer must not initiate license revocation/suspension proceedings nor conduct such a proceeding without a prosecuting agency. "

http://www.nycourts.gov/ip/judicialethics/opinions/17-166.htm

I am beginning to wonder if there even is a point when people will feel themselves pushed too far. Sad.

Not being a lawyer, all that seems to say to me is that the initiation of the permit revocation process for counties that are outside of the NYC area can't originate with the judges.
As a permit holder you're going to get a letter from the NYSP advising you that you must recertify your permit, but you get some degree of a free pass if you haven't updated your address on your permit...of course, you still could get gigged for that because you're supposed to advise of address changes in a  timely manner.
There's a bit in there about the judge not communicating with the permit holder, but that doesn't happen now.
So in some way shape or form the initiation of the process will be some form of communication between the state police and the issuing judge, who will be advised that the permit holder has not recertified, and then the permit will be rendered void.
The permit holder will have to surrender all firearms....but that's still not a door to door process. It will come in the form of a court order that local alw enforcement will be expected to execute.

A court order doesn't absolve those local officers of their responsibility for violating both the letter and intent of the Constitution.

It's also a piece of paper that certainly won't protect them when the wrong guy decides surrendering his liberty and property is too much.

Well, SOMEBODY gets it. Too bad there are so few.

It's part of the job of officers to enforce the order of a court, whether it be an order of protection, a judgement of some sort, or any other matter, including the seizure of firearms when a permit is revoked.
The guy who shoots any officers in that scenario is not going to have a legal legal to stand on. But I guess that you know that already.

So, “I was just following orders” abrogates an officers duty to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Seems we’ve been down this rabbit hole before in not so recent history.

The time to make arguments of Constitutionality against the NYS pistol permit system was a century ago when it was implemented.
That ship sailed a long time ago.
We can individually disagree with the program, and many here do, but absent a successful argument against the permit system, which I don't see happening, how would you propose the issue of people ho don't recertify their permits be handled?
I could see some form of a hearing being ordered before seizure, of having the permit holder being called into court to explain why they didn't recertify.
I do think it was heavy-handed to jump right to confiscation as an initial response to failure to recertify

There is a potentially larger point as there appears to be a ground swelling of opposition to what are post Heller/McDonald deemed unconstitutional BS. If this translates into real action that would put many in a quandary. On one hand law enforcement is generally supported by gun owners. On the other, those officers acting to unjustly deprive rights may be deemed of the "just following orders" category.  What happens if/when some, more or many simply say "enough" and fight back. No doubt those who enacted BS laws like the Feinsteins and Cuomos should be in the sights, so to speak,  but line officers may end up paying the ultimate price for the stupid acts of politicians? Best for them to stay out of it. The moral and legal obligation to obey, at lease in the military, is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the law and spirit of the Constitution.  http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_attn.htm

If it was that clear of a Constitutional violation, it would have been an easy court case to get the NY permit system overturned a long time ago, or even more recently.
Even Heller said that reasonable controls are permissible, and all Cuomo has to do is roll out the anti-gun "reasonable restrictions" line.
I get it that many of you are hanging your hopes on some sort of mass refusal of officers to act on seizure orders etc, but that's not a realistic expectation.

But for Heller/McDonald courts have long since stopping treating the 2nd A as equal as Justice Thomas lamented. Not at all hanging hopes on mass refusals of officers, which is a sad reality. Given the extraordinary pay/pensions enjoyed by "blue state" officers (have you seen the insane pay & pensions CA, NJ, MA & NY troopers have?) I expect them to follow orders.  My concern is what happens when/if the citizenry decides otherwise.  Those who should pay, ie.e DeLeon, Pelosi, Cuomo, etc will not pay. Line officers may. In this day and age people are voting with their feet and not actively resisting but that too might change. One can hope.

I'm well aware of how much NYSP make
Thirty years ago when I started, their pay was roughly equivalent to our road deputies.
Over time, their labor negotiations successfully raised base salary well above ours, mainly because of the increased costs of living on LI and NYC
Then they adopted a 12 hour shift and there's built-in OT in their schedule and some built-in longevity bonuses they get.

But they aren't typical of LEO pay in NYS, and it wont be the Troopers who carry out any seizures from permit holders whose permits have been revoked due to failure to recertify, I believe, for the most part.
As I stated before, it will more likely be treated like any other permit revocation, which currently comes from the licensing judge to the civil division of the sheriff's office to be carried out
State and local officers may be tasked to assist, but I think that's how it'll be handled.
The quoted section above that was posted simply says that the courts cant initiate the process nor have communication with the permit holder.

What rock are you living under?  New York's court system is/has been stacked with liberal anti-gun judges.  If it wasn't, then the un-SAFE Act would be long gone.  Then there is SCOTUS.  Once Scalia died, it left a 4-4 tie between liberal and conservative judges.  NYSRPA et al dropped the un-SAFE case because it was clear from Heller and McDonald that a favorable ruling wasn't going to happen.  I don't know what case they're waiting on now, but it was pretty disappointing to see the Maryland AWB case denied.

Having said all that, WHY should any typical, law-abiding citizen be required to expend massive financial resources to fight such tyranical laws?  No such citizen should need to beg the government to keep and bear arms in their own homes.  This whole recert process is nothing more than a sloppy, poorly disguised gun confiscation.  Some may give up their property, but others won't.  Good luck with that.

Besides, do we really need to rehash why that racist Sullivan Act was enacted to require pistol permits in the first place?

Not disagreeing with you at all. I even pointed out that Cuomo true goal is confiscation. But my earlier comments still stand.

Citizens expend funds in court on legal issues all of the time. You can't even bring a case without having standing to do so. And yes, the states courts skew liberal, just as the states does

I'd like to see DeLeon, Cuomo and their ilk try. They having thrown the first punch all bets would be off. Welcome to 1860!

So you acknowledge the end game, but relieve LEO's of any responsibility for their role in it?  Oh come on now!  Does no one have the spine to do what's right and stand up to this joker running the State?

The system is massively rigged to steal our Rights and property!  How does the typical, law-abiding citizen stand a chance against an army of State lawyers paid for by limitless tax payer dollars doing the bidding of corrupt politicians who have zero accountability for their actions?!  You can't be serious TC.  Always siding with the dental plan.

lol.....don't you know who you are talking to?

Definitely has that JBT edge...he's even said if he pulled you over and have a gun in the car, he would run the s/n....

Methinks he would have been a Tory in 1776....I mean, the law is the law, amirite?

If I was LE close to retirement on a public board... Id make sure to say the correct things too, never know whos watching. The same way most of us bite our tongue & dont openly admit to the shit running through our heads. On this board, involved in these conversations... He knows right from wrong. IMO.

I have no dental plan.
Like it or not, the only recourse to the SAFE Act is through the courts. Cuomo has not pitched the act as a gun confiscation law, nor will he, because he knows that wouldn't work even in NYS as liberal as it is

We already run many gun serial numbers.
No, I wouldn't be a Tory. Weak attempt on your part to try to make me out to be that bad guy

There are other options. People just are not yet sufficiently pissed. They should be.

Give it time. Eventually some disaster will occur and the urban parasites behind this crap in CA, NY and MA, etc will suffer greatly. One can hope.

Sure I know TC.  Not personally of course, but I've read his posts for years.  I don't have an axe to grind, but some of your stuff TC really leaves me smh.  The dumbass running this State is leading LEO's right into the kind of conflict that gets guys hurt.  And for what, so he can try to get a POTUS nomination?  It's bad enough LE deals with real assholes on the streets.  Why would you want to be pushed into picking a fight with law-abiding gun owners?  There's no common sense in this.

Again, nothing personal here, just my observations.  By contrast, I came to appreciate and respect the more candid musings from Natty B.  Two sides to the same coin, no?

I get that and respect it, the OPSEC part.  And off the record, I would hope that you see the concern here.

You think my musings aren't candid?
LOL.
You see, these "law-abiding gun owners"...Cuomo would say that IF they were "law-abiding", they'd have re-certified. Both sides on this issue will jockey with each other constantly on any gun issue, portraying themselves as the good guys, using good guy language. I am sure that Cuomo thinks of himself as a good guy. I think his problem is that his frame of reference is a Downstate mentality, where the SAFE act is viewed by some as not going far enough. The reality is that we are still a state and a nation governed by the rule of law, and so far the rule of law supports the SAFE act and its enforcement. Yes, the courts skew liberal. So does the state as a whole, thanks to the NYC and LI effect. Those of us upstate who skew the other way are always going to face an uphill battle trying to counter that mindset.

I'm sure that Cuomo thinks he has a shot at national office, particularly in what I think Dems view as an anti-trump backlash from voters. I would like to think that the national voters wouldn't go for him, but then so many went for Hillary despite the issues surrounding her.

I'm no fan of Cuomo, so don't think that my comments are in support of him. The recent outcry from some Upstate politicians like the one guy who was quoted earlier are somewhat ironic. He sort of gets a pass because his was a recent election and he wasn't around when SAFE was passed. I would hope that they would band together to try to get some compromises, but I have little hope that they'll accomplish anything. They've had years to mount a counter-offensive and anything now would be too little too late.

I  responded to Sen Sewards recent email admonishing his voters to be sure to recertify and how it wasn't a renewal by asking why he didn't mention in his email that a gun owners entire collection of firearms could be seized, sure sounds like a renewal to me if it resulted in guns being seized. I had sent something similar the LAST email he sent on the subject and I am pretty sure that the homey response I got was a canned one. We'll see this time....