New poster, but have been reading these forums for a bit now since I was turned on to them by a friend in Louisiana. I started the process for getting a pistol permit here in the state of New York and I figured I could share my story.

I get the information about what the whole process would start with. I filled out my application, got photos made, and got my letters of recommendation. I took my safety course and got my "pass" from them. I then had to take all of that to the main police office here in the city. Then, they told me I had to schedule my fingerprint and background check with the new company. I did this, for $125 now, supposedly because it is all digital and makes it easier and quicker. After everything was submitted, I waited.

Two somethings to note here: first, everyone who I talked with, including others who had gone through the process and the people who ran the safety course, they all told me that putting a reason of "Personal protection" or "Home safety" was almost a guaranteed rejection of the application here in New York. They said that the judges would say you had no need for security greater than an average citizen. The second thing is that the safety course is very ineffective if the goal is to provide beginners a guide to the safe owning and operating of a firearm. I had a 6 hour class that was less effective at covering that topic than the 15 minute introduction I participated in while I was in college and shooting with the pistol team. I wouldn't trust anyone who left a safety class in New York to understand more than the absolute minimum of firearm safety, namely always assume the gun is loaded.

I received my letter a little over a month later. Not quick, but certainly quicker than I feared. This letter indicated I had a court date regarding my pistol permit application. I had no idea what specifically to expect, but I figured I would swear under oath that everything is true and clarify any points. I did not expect any concerns because I have had no criminal happenings in my past, not even a speeding ticket. I also am of age, took the safety course, not mentally unstable, and I filled out the application fully and followed the process.

When I got to my initial hearing, a police officer was before me in the pistol permit hearings. The judge joked with him for 30 seconds, then granted it to him with no fuss. Then the judge asked my name. He told me there was nothing to raid a red flag in my record, then proceeded to tell me that he "did not like seeing them out on the street" in reference to pistol permits, specifically unrestricted permits. He rejected my application. I was not expecting to have to justify my request for a pistol permit, I thought thats what the whole point of the application was. Apparently, I was wrong. He said the clerk would look my application over again.

I called the clerk's office later that day. I wanted to know if I could get a reason as to why I had been rejected. The clerk informed me that that judge did not like giving out the permits, but what often happened what he would reject the initial application, but then offer a restricted license. They informed me that the only way he would give unrestricted permits was to someone who had been mugged or robbed several times.

I would point out that being robbed or mugged doesn't automatically mean you are more likely to be mugged or robbed again. Similarly, NOT being mugged or robbed does not mean you will NEVER be mugged or robbed.

I was told if I had an issue, I could write a letter to the judge. I did so, explaining my reasonings in a calm and logical manner. I laid out the fact that there was no reason to deny my application and that I felt that I was a law abiding citizen who followed the rules and the process. I requested my license be granted because no reason was given to deny me. I also explained that when the potential restrictions were explained to me, they created a situation where what would be normal behavior would be made illegal if the restrictions stood. One example was the fact that I could not stop at a gas station between my house and the target range without breaking the law. I also could not take my gun over to a friend's house who was also interested in firearms and had a New York pistol permit. I mailed this letter to the judge and waited.

A few weeks later, I received a letter from the court saying I had been granted a restricted permit. The restrictions were limited to Target shooting and Hunting.

I went out and purchased my pistol, an H&K .45 USP Elite. I was then told I had to submit additional paperwork. I went to the county clerk's office with the filled out paperwork and submitted it. I was instructed there that the judge could "do pretty much whatever he wants at this point, a new background check, call you in to court, whatever." They said the process could take anywhere from a few weeks to a few months depending on what the judge wanted to do or if he was on vacation or busy. I just had to wait, having been approved to purchase a pistol, but WHAT I purchased had to be approved, not just the fact that I was approved to purchase anything.

I received two letters last week. The first was from the legal counsel for the court. They informed me that the court had received my letter and I "had the right to appeal [...] the determination regarding my pistol permit." There were no instructions on what that process was nor any contact information. I apparently wrongly though that my letter appealing the judge to change his mind was an appeal. I found a number for the clerk of the legal counsel and called, trying to find out what the process was. I was informed that the appeal was the same appeal process as if I had been convicted of a crime and wished to appeal. I was also told that I "should probably get a lawyer." I would have to pay an additional fee and get scheduled for a court date to present my appeal.

I contacted the SAF, giving them a quick run down of the whole process asking for any information or advice. They contacted me a few hours later and asked for additional contact information. They informed me that the Westchester court case was similar and they would like to pass on my contact information to the lawyers working that case.

The second letter was from the clerk informing me that I had a second hearing before the judge. Specifically, this hearing is in regards to my initial amendment for the very first purchase of a pistol. The one where I was approved to make the purchase, but my purchase itself had to be approved by the judge.

So... here I am. My second hearing is coming up this week. I will be talking to the judge face to face again. I plan on being calm and rational. I will ask for the court to grant me the specifics of why I was initially rejected and the reasoning behind placing restrictions on my license. I will also ask the judge what his specific definition of "good cause" is as there are no definitions of the vague term in the penal code 400 documentation.

I anticipate the judge will not remove my restrictions and will provide no more a satisfactory answer than "because you do not show good cause." I have a number of ways I can respond, mostly depending on how and what he says to me. I also expect no logical argument to have any influence on the decision because the decision is not being made based on the things that can be measured: no criminal record, no mental instabilities, good citizen, of age, completed the safety course. No reason exists for the judge to deny my application, but because he has sole decision making authority, it comes down to if he wants to or not.

If he chooses to use his position of authority to exert his own personal preferences, weighting one factor that is not defined and can be interpreted in any way desired, there is nothing I can say or do to prevent that. If a person in authority is unable to divorce their own personal opinions from the decision making process and use only the facts at hand, they should excuse themselves from that position so they do not have to betray their own morals or make decisions based on anything other than the facts presented.

Welcome to NY.The judges have way too much leeway on permits.He doesn't like them ,so he'll deny them because he can.He should be removed from the bench.

Welcome to the NY Hometown board, we're here to help our fellow firearms enthuses, that said:
Welcome to the machine!
Remember all the shit heaped upon you because of liberalism and Democratic control.
Know this is the sort of treatment that you'll receive, unless you're a VIP, Movie Star, or someone muckety-muck in a high Governmental Office.
Support organizations such as the New York Rifle & Pistol Association, NRA, SAF, SCOPE, etc. these ARE the people trying to help you as well as keeping the situation from getting worse.
Should you desire additional training, there are several members here offering Professionally instructed courses from beginner to high speed-low drag operations (you'll have to demonstrate you're of sound worth to attend; "Homies" need not apply.
Obtaining a Handgun Licenses in the State of New York is guaranteed to be an experience in Governmental Operation that won't be forgotten.  

A Republican judge started the restrictions in Onondaga Co. A judge who had his own CCW, by the way.

Not at all surprised by the process, I fully expected it to be honest. I am also a stubborn individual when I feel there is something "not right," in this case, the law being applied in a manner that will never do what is intended. If the judge is attempting to curtail gun crimes, I am all in favor of curtailing gun crimes. The problem is, the way it is being gone about is wrong. You would be hard pressed to prove to me that someone who goes through the process and has no criminal background and no reason to throw up a warning flag will get a gun, then start committing crimes.

If someone wanted to obtain a firearm for criminal means, they can steal one, buy one illegally, or legally buy a shotgun/rifle (which takes no permit outside of NYC) and illegally modify it into a concealable fire arm. By being obstructionist in applied hand gun laws, the only people being prevented from owning and carrying firearms are those people who will obey the law. Again, you would be hard pressed to prove that those are the people who are committing gun crimes.

With the Right to a gun comes Responsibilities that some people forget about. I understand that if I have a gun, it is my responsibility to use it safely and legally, no small thing. If I have a specific threat source I am in danger from, it is my responsibility to report it to the law enforcement officers, not got vigilante on them. For ambiguous or random threat, it is my Right to defend myself and my Responsibility to do it safely and legally.

The judge could get his own unrestricted license because he is in a position where potential threats of violence to his person or his loved ones is very real. At the same time, he could request a police escort or a police presence and any of the officers in the court building would be available. As an average citizen, I could not reasonably expect a police escort if I fear for random criminal violence against me at some time, somewhere. There are too many responsibilities that the police are under for that to be a reasonable or expected thing.

When it is all said and done, I know that I probably won't get my unrestricted license because the judge only sees the "conceal carry" part of it, not the concern I have that restrictions placed on the license make normal behavior illegal simply because I own a gun. If they were golf clubs, no one would question my stopping at a diner and getting lunch after shooting a few holes. With a gun and a restricted license, it would be illegal for me to do that.

As for the professional instructions, I would certainly be interested in those. I am far from a "homie" lol, rather I very much enjoy precision target shooting. As I mentioned, I did some shooting with the pistol team while in college and found it very rewarding. I enjoy everything from the slow, methodical marksmanship type of shooting to the more combat-style shooting with multiple targets and rapid fire.

I will let you know what happens when I stand before the judge again.

Move to Rensselaer county.....







I'm freaking serious.  they've always been good over there.  
Back a hundred years ago I got lucky as all hell.  Living in the city my permit application should have gone to the Albany city court of record.  Instead it went to the Albany county court.   Nothing improper just not the way the usual workload was split.  I got my permit in approximately 4 months with the same restriction you had.  After that I applied to have the restrictions removed.  They were and I think the only reason was my occupation at the time was military.  

No disrespect to your logic and/or arguments but you are preaching to the choir here and unfortunately they will fall on deaf ears when you meet with the judge.   The judge is your licensing officer and as such in accordance with numerous appeals court opinions has been given the the authority to decide if "cause" exists to issue you ANY pistol license. In addition as your licensing officer he/she has the authority to place reasonable restrictions on your license including but not limited to hunting, fishing, target shooting, hiking etc. If he really wants to screw you over he can deny your carry concealed license and issue you a premises license where you would be prohibited from transporting your handgun(s) away from the licensed premises.



Call SAF back and request the name of an experienced attorney in your area who can provide you with legal representation at your meeting. Trust me, you're likely to end-up just pissing off the judge if you start trying to justify "cause" if he has alteady decided you don't meet HIS criteria.



I live in a county where ACTIVE DUTY police officer's are routinely issued pistol licenses restricted to target/hunting irrespective of the fact they can legally carry 24/7 without a pistol license. Until the Westchester SAF/Alan Gura case has a successful outcome there is very little anyone can do about restricted licenses at this time.

...and those same judges made it ok for them to carry in chambers, while being able to deny that right to permit holders and off duty police officers.
 

Touché
The Republicans are damn near, if not more guilty of ramming some 'feel good' right up the asses of gun owners.

I kinda figured I was preaching to the choir. Anyone who has gone through the process will understand the feeling. Logic doesn't always prevail and the truth is not enough sometimes.

I do find if very strange that it comes down to one person who can make a decision based on something like "cause" that can vary from person to person or even from time to time. What is "cause" for one person may not be valid for another person and what might be "cause" at one time could fail to be cause later. It all comes down to a crap shoot of who you get.

I also have no concerns with reasonable restriction, but if there are no reasons for the restrictions, thats where the problem is. A restriction that makes reasonable behavior a criminal act does not seem to be a reasonable restriction, at least to my non-law oriented mind. Seems like common sense to me. To be perfectly honest, it seems naive for a judge to say to someone that they don't think they are responsible enough to carry a pistol, but they are allowed to purchase one. If you have a reason to think that a person should not carry, maybe you should not allow them access to a gun? Again though, it should be a reason like propensity for violence or mental instability. Preaching to the choir, I know.

As for what HIS criteria are, that is what I want to ask. I was unprepared for justifying myself the first time. I never thought I would have to justify why I felt I needed a gun because I thought I had made it clear in my application. That was my fault, I had never been through the process before. Now that I know, I can present my position. If he rejects it, that is his option as the judge. At the same time, if no reason is given, it makes it monumentally difficult to address it in any sort of appeal process, which I do fully intend to pursue with legal counsel. I was planning on getting a recommendation from the SAF because I am sure they have at least a couple here in the area.

Wait until your next pistol's amendment sits on a judge's desk for 3 months.  granted the 1st couple weeks it languished in the city clerk's office, then the court clerk's office, then on the judge's desk.

Really annoying when you're already blessed with a permit and a couple handguns but that you need to wait an inordinate amount of time for the next one on a whim.

fortunately my current county is simple, take you receipt and a $5 bill and they type it on your permit and update your file in less than 10 minutes.  Rensselaer county was nearly the same.  The clerk there spent more time asking details about your new gun than doing the actual updating.   I think they got a younger gal there now but the previous one was cool.

This is the "full carry license" "proper cause" worksheet the SCPD PC uses. I don't know what the specific criteria your ant-gun judge uses but don't be surprised if he/she is looking for documented incidents of "extraordinary personal danger". Keep us updated on how your meeting goes.
REQUIREMENTS FOR SELF PROTECTION - FULL CARRY LICENSE





SELF-PROTECTION - FULL CARRY LICENSE, for the purpose of self-protection. If you are seeking a SELFPROTECTION


class (6) license, you will be required to show "proper cause" pursuant to Penal Law Section 400.00


Sub. 2 (f). "Proper cause" is determined by a review of all relevant information bearing on your claimed need. You


must show that you are exposed to extraordinary personal danger, documented by proof of recurrent threats to life


or safety, requiring authorization to carry a firearm.





These factors are not all inclusive, and the Police Commissioner will consider other proof, including Suffolk County


Police Department records. It should be noted, however, that the mere fact that you have been the victim of a crime


or reside or are employed in a "high crime area" or participate in a controversial activity does not establish "proper


cause" for the issuance of a self-protection license.





1. NOTARIZED LETTER OF NECESSITY





A. Reason(s) for requesting SELF-PROTECTION license, include all of the following information:


a. Circumstances of the request.


b. Name, address, telephone number and employer of person(s) that you need protection from, if known.


c. Is this person you fear related to you.


d. When did first incident occur.


e. Number and type of threats and when they occurred.


f. Number, type of complaint and dates of previous police reports made.


g. List all previous arrests and charges relating to the incidents or threats, if any.


h. List all previous court actions and their results relating to the incidents or threats, if any.





2. SUPPORTING LETTERS OF WITNESSES





A. Name, address, telephone number and notarized statements or letters of actual witnesses that can confirm


that recurrent threats have occurred to your life or safety.





B. Documentation from District Attorney's Office or other law enforcement governmental agency that


recommends and can support your request for a self protection license.





If a class (6) license is approved, the Suffolk County Police Pistol Licensing Bureau may withdraw that


classification at any time if it finds proper cause no longer exists. Proper cause will have to be demonstrated by you


each time the license is renewed, every five years. If proper cause is no longer proven, the license will be changed


to a different class license.





 

Well we're all a bunch of Red-Necks and hicks-from-the-sticks up here; The County figured they'd better co-operate on licenses else nobody would bother to get one.  
Really it's amazing how thick the bullshit gets the farther South you go...unless of course you go South of the NY border.  

Thank God I live in Otsego County. If I wanted to buy a gun this afternoon, I could just go get the purchase coupon and then head to my local store. Deal done in a day. Hmm. I have been thinking about a Ruger LCP .....

So I had my second hearing, specifically dealing with the amendment for my first gun purchase and request to remove the restrictions.

First off, I was surprised to have a different judge. Second, he did not immediately reject my request, he actually asked questions. He confirmed who I was, where I live, and what I did. He also confirmed that no changes had occurred since I filled out the application (ie no criminal activity or new mental illnesses) He asked me what had happened with the process of the pistol application and I explained in brief. He asked me what I wanted and I explained that I was requesting the removal of the restrictions because there was no good cause to reject my original license request and issue me a restricted license.

I was able to tell him that I wanted to follow the law and had been informed how restrictive the license would be. I gave the example of wanting to go visit my family. I also pointed out that my record showed no reason to believe I would become a criminal or start committing gun crimes, not even any speeding tickets.

He looked through my file, then told me he was going to reverse the decision and inform me in writing.

I am cautiously optimistic, but that sounds somewhat like I may get my license granted to me sans restrictions. I may get to take my pistol home finally. No guarantees of course, no counting chickens until they are hatched and all that, but still, seems at least not negative. He did not reject me in court as the other judge did, so I have to count that as a win.

Same here in Herkimer co. however he's consistent, he won't even give CCW to retired LEO even.

In counties where there are multiple judges issuing licenses it's possible for two applicants with the same "proper cause" justification to have completely opposite results.

Or the same applicant with the same "proper cause" justification with two different judges can come up with opposite results. hehe

If course, this is all under the assumption that the second judge is actually planning on issuing my permit.

It's possible that this judge is going to confer with the other judge.



 

I didn't want to say that but that's exactly what he's going to do. A miracle is still possible though.





 

I hear you there.   If you already own 2 dozen handguns why the hell you have to wait 4 to 6 weeks for another.....especially when its somethin like a ruger target 22 pistol or a ww2 artillery luger.   I won't buy more pistols unless I come across something I REALLY want because of the paperwork hassle and the fact I have to wait over a freakin month for the judge to sign off on it and permitttttt me to pick it up.  Its just annoying

It was the 8000lb tutu wearing pink elephant at position #3 on the 6 man swat entry team. I figured someone should mention it. Judges look out for each other more than we assume cops look out for each other.



My gut feel is that he will get his permit, with the existing restrictions (hunting/target), and the judge (this judge, heavens help him if the original judge is anywhere near this) will ask to see him owning the  guns, incident free for 1yr + any additional training.



Why does that sound so very very familiar?
 

+1 to this!  I lived in Saratoga county for about 3 years and wrote to the judge each year requesting removal of my hunting & target restrictions, only to be rejected each time due to not having "proper cause".  I moved to Rensselaer County about a year ago and the first thing I did was notify the clerks about my change of address and had to submit some paperwork.  I was chatting with the Rensselaer pistol clerk (extremely nice lady by the way) and she told me that all I needed to do was take an advanced safety course and the judge would grant me an unrestricted permit.  So I mailed him a copy of my military pistol qualifications and he mailed me a letter within a couple weeks saying that he waived the requirement for me to take the course and that my request was granted!

I'm sorry to say this but changing your address temporarily to get an unrestricted permit may be the easiest way to do it.

ETA-  Ah, I just got down to your yesterday's update!  Congrats!  If the judge told you one thing on the bench I'd pretty much take that to the bank.  In that regard they're pretty darn honorable.  I'm thiniking you passed the "interview test" with a calm and logical argument supported by knowing the law.

I'm not sure about the chances of drawing another judge changing anything.  When I had a permit in Albany it always went to the same Judge that issued the permit unless he retired or moved to a higher court.  I would bet the appeal judge would most certainly ask the original judge his reasoning if it's not already in the file notes.  

I always had judge Lawrence Kahn (who did move up to the court of appeals IIRC).  I talked to him once and he seemed pretty decent to me.  I've mentioned this before but he handed me my whole county pistol permit folder and asked me to bring it back downstairs to the county clerks office.  They about had a cow when this peon showed up at their county clerk counter with THEIR records.  I laughed all the way home at that.  The lady had the balls to yell at me for possessing it.  I laughed at her and told her her issue is with the Judge himself.  Sad part is I knew THE county clerk at the time and used to go over to their house once in a blue moon as their son was a class mate.  Tyrants at $6.75 an hour!

Shhhh, don't tell anyone, somebody will find out I just know how to spin a great line of B.S. hehe

Seriously though, that is kinda what I think should happen. An application that raises no flag and a personal interview that raises no flags should allow a citizen to get a permit without a problem. In a perfect world of course

Have patience and remember guys ,that since Mcdonald vs. Chicago  it will only be a matter of time until NY MUST allow any mentally fit and law-abiding citizen to Possess a handgun and transport it for legal use.

A rational and equal opportunity CCW law will most likely follow later.

Small comfort I know but it's  a start.

I just hope that if this happens those of us with unrestricted licenses now don't have to go jump through a whole new set of hurdles to keep carrying.

That is a good point, but I would think/hope there would be a grandfathering in...

THAT"S exactly what they  want.
Could it be that Judges believe handgun crimes brought before them results from NY Residents, already proven to be of sound mind, charactor, and social standing are buying lots of handguns then selling them to criminals? illogical as it sounds, legislation and regulation would prove otherwise.

that better be the case, after going through all the BS to get an unrestricted license, i would hate to have to start over years later!

I would almost guarantee if the current licensing/registration law is struck down on constitutional grounds and a new statewide shall issue CCW system is enacted you're going to have to reapply from scratch. I don't see any other way it could be implemented but who knows.

Not sure if its been mentioned yet, but since there's no law on the book saying that judges can restrict pistol permits, there's no legal penalty if you get caught carrying with a "target&hunting" permit.  Sure the LEO can tell the judge and you'll probably get your PP revoked, but they can't charge you with anything for it.

This is true, there is nothing in the penal or cpl...

So, I got another letter from ANOTHER judge. This judge over-ruled the previous judge with regards to the restrictions. He also provided some interesting points in the letter, I will expand upon them.

"It is well settled that the possession of a hand gun license is a privilege, not a right. (Kaplan v. Bratton, 249 AD2d 199; Bertaglia v. Kelly, 215 AD2d 166)"
- odd, the Supreme Court thinks otherwise. Unless I am totally misunderstanding the McDonald case, the Supreme Court equates 2nd Amendment with the 1st Amendment. It is also my understanding that the governing body would have to show some very solid cause as to why they would restrict someone's 1st Amendment rights, and if 1st and 2nd Amendments are equal...

"An applicant has the burden to establish that such 'proper cause' exists (Mtr. of Bando v. Sullivan, 290 AD2d 691)"
"requires the demonstration of a 'special need for the license distinguishable from that of other persons similarly situated.' (Mtr. of Bando v. Sullivan, 211 AD2d 488); see also (Mtr. of Conciatora v. Brown, 201 AD2d 323)"
- still no clear definition of "proper cause," irregardless of the constitutionality of that clause in the application process. Additionally, the idea of "special need distinguishable from another person similarly situation" is also somewhat vague. Does it mean someone with the same background as me living in the same location as me with the same "life" as me? Because I will bet not too many people have an identical life as me. If "similarly situated" refers to other people in the same city, what is acceptable "special need?" That is just another way of saying "proper cause" without defining it.

"In the case at bar, the licensee has demonstrated no such probable cause."
- maybe he means "proper cause" but probable cause is a term from criminal proceedings. The implication that requesting a license is probable cause of either actual or intent to commit criminal acts is very offensive.

"...has failed to establish requisite proper cause for the issuance of an unrestricted license or otherwise set for a sufficient legal basis entitling him to the removal of the restrictions currently in effect."
- the section I marked in bold, not really sure what that means. On the other hand, I do like the way the last part of that sentence handles the concept of a restriction. Compare the difference between a driving license restriction and a hand gun license restriction. Restrictions say what you cant do on a drivers license, so when one is taken away, you can then do something.

For example, if you have a restriction placed on you that says you can not drive at night, but that restriction is taken away, you can now drive at night. With a hand gun, the restrictions are the other way around: they define what you can do while everything else is forbidden. If I am given a drivers license with a restriction about no night driving, there is no assumed restriction about driving in the rain. With a hand gun, anything not explicitly described on the license is prohibited behavior. The idea of "removal of the restrictions" is completely at odds with the way a license is handled here in New York. The only thing they would do is tell you a new thing you can do with the gun.

My biggest problem with this is that, by this definition, anything I do could be interpreted as breaking the law if it is not explicitly what is described on my license. If I want to take my gun to a gun shop to check the fit for a new carrying case or to see if I like a new laser site grip, those are illegal actions the way the license is currently set up. This is my problem: behavior that the average person would consider "normal" is illegal because of how the license is handled, that which is not written is forbidden.

Here again, the judge focused on the "have and carry concealed" section of Penal Law 400.00 (2) (f). I pointed out in both my letter and my in my hearing that carrying concealed is only a small part of it. It is more the removal of the "everything we don't explicitly list is illegal" concept than me wanting to pack at all times. Reasonable restrictions like "no carrying in a school or on school properties" makes sense, restricting the" total of all human existence barring what can be written on a license card" does not make sense.

I plan on continuing to fight this. I already have some contact with the SAF, so I am going to continue there.

Kaplan v. Bratton, 249 AD2d 199
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=38020640215946072&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
- this case is in NYC, not Albany. Laws in NY are different than in NYC (see my ability to buy a shotgun or rifle with no license as opposed to in NYC)
- "According to the court, the proper inquiry was not how petitioner was different from others whose applications had been denied, but how she was different from those whose applications had been granted." -from the same argument
- "The issuance of a pistol license is not a right, but a privilege subject to reasonable regulation."  - my argument is that it is an unreasonable regulation because there is no "good cause"
- "deciding whether the agency's actions were arbitrary and capricious. The agency's determination must be upheld if the record shows a rational basis for it" - again, my argument that it is arbitrary and there is no rational basis for it
- "When the proper standard of proof is applied..." - proper standard for NYC, not Albany.
- this doctor lived in NJ, but did not have a permit in that State, another reason they were denied. I do not live in NJ and am applying for a permit in the state I live in, invalid

Mtr of Bando v. Sullivan, 290 AD2d 691
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7994616303969382712&q=bando+v+sullivan+290&hl=en&as_sdt=20000000002&as_vis=1
- "Petitioner, an unemployed former security guard, applied for a carry-concealed license in October 2000, disclosing that he had been arrested in 1996 and charged with criminal solicitation in the second degree and conspiracy in the second degree, charges later dismissed and that, in 1999, the New York City Police Department denied his request for a carry-concealed pistol permit for failure to document need" - I am not a criminal, nor have I ever been arrested, charged, or had charges dismissed. Also, not NYC
- "Respondent also determined that petitioner's planned security business, which contemplated responding to a customer's alarm as an armed civilian, would pose a "greater hazard" to responding law enforcement." - the judge thought this individual was a danger to society, does that apply to me? If so, please explain...

Mtr of Milo v. Kelley, 211 AD2d 488
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12445178978890438120&q=milo+v+kelley+211&hl=en&as_sdt=20000000002&as_vis=1
"Even assuming that petitioner established that he made weekly cash deposits of approximately $4,000, petitioner did not demonstrate "a special need for the license distinguishable from that of other persons similarly situated." (Supra.) Moreover, the fact that petitioner, owner of an elevator repair service, works in areas noted for criminal activity and is occasionally called upon for night-time emergencies does not automatically entitle petitioner to a license. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that respondent's determination to deny the application was either arbitrary or capricious"
- large amounts of cash is cited in each of the other cases, but no specific amount was given
- also, not NYC

Mtr of Conciatora v. Brown, 201 AD2d 323
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2389596259926406800&q=%22v.+brown%22+201+AD2d+323&hl=en&as_sdt=20000000002&as_vis=1
- Conciatori I am assuming, not Conciatora, congratulations reviewing the document
-" We agree with the IAS Court that petitioner's false statement on the application that he had never been arrested was by itself a sufficient ground to deny the application" - first, I think thats the wrong thing to think about falsifying your application deliberately because there is a place to explain yourself, but second, I have never been arrested, charged, or convicted with any crime.
- again, not NYC

Bertaglia v Kelly, 215 AD2d 166
- I can't find anything about this one anywhere

Finally, I would like to point out that "other persons similarly situated" fails the check if we keep comparing me to people in New York City who have done the kinds of things I looked at in these example. Please come back and leave your weak stuff at home, Your Honor.

I admire and applaud your taking issue with this, but believe you may be risking revocation of your "restricted" permit if you decide to pursue this course of action, especially in Albany County.

As ThatDude333 pointed out, and I believe he's right, that there is no legal statute for the placement of restrictions on the license.  Likewise, there is no statutory penalty for violating those restrictions (not a criminal act), but the judge can, and probably will, pull your permit.  The PPO giveth, and the PPO can taketh away...

As has been said before, "don't invite The Man into your life".  Your permit allows you to own a handgun and carry it concealed (because we are never allowed to carry open here).  The judge has specified that you can carry concealed on the way to and from hunting and target shooting.  Aren't you "always" going to, or coming back from, hunting and target shooting?  Don't you have used and unused targets in the trunk of your car right now because you just got back, and are right now about to go again?

Isn't life really just what we do between hunting and target shooting??  

If you're carrying concealed correctly, who's gonna make you, and challenge you on it, as you go about your day?  Don't "invite The Man" if you're carrying.  Don't speed.  Don't drink to excess.  Don't fight and brawl.  Don't stalk anyone... just be the gray man.  The Man has enough to do without having to worry about you... right?

$0.02 please...

From page one: "Call SAF back and request the name of an experienced attorney in your
area who can provide you with legal representation at your meeting.
Trust me, you're likely to end-up just pissing off the judge if you
start trying to justify "cause" if he has already decided you don't meet
HIS criteria."





Congratulations you have now managed to piss of not one, not two but THREE judges. Everything the judge stated in his last letter is correct. The codified pistol licensing law and associated case law as it relates to the issuance of pistol licenses and the placing of administrative restrictions has not been found unconstitutional as yet.





Once again stop appearing pro se, work with the SAF recommended attorney and follow his/her advice as to how to proceed.