Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: No such thing as permit restrictions?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    95

    Post imported post

    I know this is an open carry site, but, since you cannot do this in NY I thought I would share this:

    Q - What section of the Penal Law authorizes the placing of restrictions on pistol permits by the issuing authority?
    The Penal Law does not specifically authorize the placing of restrictions on pistol permits. However, court decisions have consistently supported the ability of licensing officials to impose these restrictions. Such an imposition is an administrative function of the licensing officer.

    Licensees in violation of these restrictions would therefore not be subject to criminal prosecution but would face action being taken by the court of issuance in the form of suspension or possible revocation of the license.

    This is straight out of the NY State Police website under FAQ:

    http://www.troopers.state.ny.us/FAQs...ms/Permits.cfm

    I take this as it does not matter what restrictions are on your permit, you are still legal..at least once! (till issuing authority revokes)



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Delaware County, New York, USA
    Posts
    276

    Post imported post

    Article 400 of the Penal Lawincludesseveralcategories of restrictions that are allowed to be placed on a NYS pistol license by the issuing authority, but it does not consider violations of the restrictions a crime, so the summary above is correct.

    The problem with New York is that the state is politically and culturally inconsistent from county to county. What would not cause someone to give a second glance (OK a quick second glance) in one area would cause a police response in another.

    I get tired of answering other posters to the NY forum (see the topic "a little confused please help") who expect a chapter and verse citing of NY law.


    I responded to that topic for a while and just gave up.

    "Tell me exactly where it says I cannot carry a 30-30 down Main Street during the 4th of July Parade or your opinions have no credibility."

    That is what I have been getting in response to my very lengthy and well thought out posts, and I am getting weary of those challenges.

    There are more things to be considered than the cryptic passages in NYS Penal Law 400 when planning to carry a licensed handgun in NY, or a rifle outside of a legal hunting area or rifle range.

    For handgun carry, one must abide by the restrictions on the license, or face suspension or revocation by the issuing authority. For an unrestricted license, one must know that the license is unrestricted only under Article 400, yet is in fact restricted under other state laws (no school carry/don't carry intoa police station) or federal laws (no post office /federal buiding carry).

    Then there is the issue that this forum speaks to most directly, that of open carry.


    I have read many contributors to this forum saying that open carry is categorically prohibited in NY.

    I will tell you from first hand experience that, while being rare indeed, open carry is not unheard of. While other states specifically ban open carry (TX, FL), New York law only addresses it indirectly once, in that "a license to carry allows unrestricted concealed carry unless restricted."

    New York State law is actually silent on open carry. It is just rare in practice, that's all.

    When holding an unrestricted carry license from one of the few highly pro-2A jurisdictions within NY, staying within rural areas and involved in backwoods activities (hunting, hiking, fishing) within that same jurisdiction, avoiding populated areas especially during tourist season, one can allow their licensed/registered handgun to be exposed without fear of criminal liability.

    For rifle carry (which seems to interest many visitors to the NY forum) one must consider not only the laws, but the culture of the state, region, locality and season.

    Rifle carry for self defense (outside of a legal hunting area) is NOT part of the NY culture. In New York, the charge of Disorderly Conduct is so broadly written that it could be applicable to almost any act that could raise an eyebrow.


    A charge of Disorderly Conduct would be the way in which an LEO would begin the confrontation of a rifle-carrier, and the scenario would most likely go down hill from there.

    At absolute best, a rifle-carrier would get one warning, and then if he did not immediately secure the long gun, problems would begin forthwith.

    I would not carry a rifle in my car except for cased in the trunk, and I certainly would not carry it "on Main Street during a parade."

    Carry of a long gun in a vehicle would have to include securing the ammo in the trunk, or the long gun would be considered loaded according to NY law. What's the point?

    Edited to clarify that some jurisdictions (particularly NYC) issue Premises Licenses, which do not allow carry of any sort (RESTRICTED - NOT FOR CARRY).


    The handgun must be unloaded, transported in a locked box on the rare, scheduledtrip to the range. I don't know what the ramifications of carrying for self defense would be for a holder of such a license.




  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , , Tajikistan
    Posts
    201

    Post imported post

    Sorry, but that link is misleading. Where as the state police are not the issuing authority of pistol permits, they have no capacity for the evaluation of any restrictions or applications pertaining to them. Penal law 400.00 quite clearly identifies the county judge as the issuing authority. Further, it was affirmed years ago that - as the issuing authority - judges also had the right to apply restrictions if they so deemed. This is a statement from the appellate court in 1994 indicating this:
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    "IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL O'CONNOR v. ANTHONY A. SCARPINO, JR.

    IN THE MATTER OF BELINDA G. EDDY v. HON. PATRICK L. KIRK, HERKIMER COUNTY
    COURT JUDGE,



    Restrictions are OK: We agree ... that the licensing officers' power to determine the existence of "proper cause" for the issuance of a license necessarily and inherently includes the power to restrict the use to the purposes that justified the issuance.
    83 N.Y.2d 919 (1994).
    June 9, 1994
    2 No. 90 [1994 NY Int. 096]
    4 No. 91
    Decided June 9, 1994
    This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports.
    MEMORANDUM:
    The judgments of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
    Penal Law § 400.00 is the exclusive statutory mechanism for the licensing of firearms in New York State. Under subdivision (2)(f) of that section, a licensing officer is empowered to issue the so-called "carry license", which authorizes a licensee to have a pistol or revolver and carry it concealed, "when proper cause exists for the issuance thereof".
    Petitioner Eddy sought a carry license from the Herkimer County licensing officer, stating in her application that she intended to use a pistol for "hunting and target shooting". The officer issued the license with the notation that it was "issued for hunting, fishing & target practice". Petitioner O'Connor sought a carry license from the Westchester County licensing officer, indicating that he wanted to use a weapon in "hunting, target shooting and protection of property and person". The officer issued the license with a notation that it was "restricted to target shooting, hunting only".
    In each matter, petitioner argues that the restriction should be removed from the license because the statute does not expressly empower licensing officers to impose conditions. We agree with the courts below that the licensing officers' power to determine the existence of "proper cause" for the issuance of a license necessarily and inherently includes the power to restrict the use to the purposes that justified the issuance. Without such a power to condition, the licensing officer's authority to allow possession of a handgun only for proper cause would be rendered meaningless and the obvious regulatory purpose of the statute would be frustrated.
    Moreover, petitioners' argument is inconsistent with the regulatory scheme of Penal law § 400.00. The other licenses allowed by the statute are narrowly circumscribed to the circumstances justifying their issuance (see, e.g., subd 2[a] [license to possess in dwelling]; subd 2[b] [license to possess in place of business]; subd 2[e] [license to possess during certain employment]). Were we to read the carry license of subdivision 2(f) to allow possession of firearms generally once good cause was shown, there would be no reason for applicants to seek the more restrictive licenses enumerated in the statute when they could just as easily qualify for the broader carry license. Clearly, the legislative intent behind subdivision 2(f) was to create a license co-equal to the other licenses, not one that would render the other licenses superfluous.


    Nos. 90 and 91: Judgment affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur "

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    The bottom line, the power to issue is also the power to restrict and any restrictions applied by the issuing authority will be upheld in court. The state troopers stance is basically - if they suspect you violated your permit, you'll be reported but not charged by them.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , , Tajikistan
    Posts
    201

    Post imported post

    deleted - duplicate post.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Delaware County, New York, USA
    Posts
    276

    Post imported post

    redlegagent wrote:
    Sorry, but that link is misleading. Where as the state police are not the issuing authority of pistol permits, they have no capacity for the evaluation of any restrictions or applications pertaining to them. Penal law 400.00 quite clearly identifies the county judge as the issuing authority.

    Another example of how diverse New York State is. In this case a diversity of overlapping jurisdictions.

    The above i
    s correct - and a good thing to know.

    The NY State Police website reads more as a statement of departmental policy than actual law. It provides a legal opinion that carrying beyond the license restrictions is not a crime, and therefore Troopers will not arrest for such an infraction.

    They do not plan to charge anyone with a crime who has a licensed handgun - despite the restrictions of the license.
    You will not get locked up by a Trooper for carrying a target-only licensed gun for self defense.Nor will your license be pulled by the State Police for doing so.

    In other words, they are not going to do the enforcement job of your issuing authority.

    However, if you get into a jam with a jurisdiction other that the NY State Police - particularly your issuing authority - for carrying outside of your restrictions - the informational statement on the NYSP website would be nearly meaningless.

    Many of the county police departments in NY who are the issuing authorities in those counties, have a "because we're cops and you're not" attitude.Especially when it comes to carrying handguns.Counties with separate 'Pistol Clerks' are much friendlier.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13

    Post imported post

    When my license was issued years ago, I saw the judge's secretary type "restrictions" at the top of the newly-signed license form. Also, posted in the office was a notice from the judge to LEOs and the public stating in effect that "any restrictions are incidental to the issuance of the license" and basically were mere notations and not legally consequential.

    It's my belief from reading the law and commentary that licenses denied or granted are the ones APPLIED FOR. In other words, a license application for the purpose of "hunting, target practice, and the defense of life and property as allowed by law*" is actually granted or denied for that reason by the licensing officer. The fact that someone other than the judge subsequently *purports* to restrict the license is not of the licensing officer--but everyone believes it is. I would say that if you complain and call it a restricted license, you stipulate that it is restricted in fact. Watch what you say.

    I knew someone who applied for his NYS license downstate and the investigator applied a lot of pressure (intimidation and claims that the application would most certainly be denied) to try to get him to change the application to hunting and target only but this guy stood his ground. He got the license (albeit with purported restrictions) with no problem.

    *I recommend reading this book very carefully:
    Firearms and Weapons Laws: Gun Control in New York
    ~ Lee O. Thomas (Author), Jeffrey Chamberlain (Author)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •