The point of which you contend - that what is not prohibited under the law is therfore legal by default does not apply and only serves to confuse the basic tenet of this thread - what am I allowed to do under the law? People inquire in these forums in search of relevent information and as this particular subforum is dedicated to New York State, information provided here should be relevent to that. My discussions over the years with individuals whose job is to enforce said laws offers me a working knowledge of how these laws are interpreted here in NYS and what to expect under the law. Your "point" of murkiness in definition adds nothing to the discussion at hand as it will not "protect" any individual who finds themself at odds with the law. While many criminal statues are written in a way where they are identifying proscribed activites and behaviors, NYS Penal law 400.00 and 400.01 does the opposite. It serves as an adjunct to 265 identifying what exceptions are allowed in regard to NYS Penal law 265. Additionally, under 400.00, several types of permits are created. A "premises only" permit is sanctioned under the law as opposed to a carry permit thus you have the term "have and carry". NYS Penal law 265 effectively bans the possession of a handgun in NYS except for a few designated exceptions - one being 400.00. Under 400.00, the only recognized carry permit is a concealed carry. Your contention that open carry may be legal as it is not specifically proscribed under the law is incorrect and misleading. However "ambiguous" you may feel the statue is written, it's intent has been upheld and wide latitude of descretion has been awarded to the issuing authorities by the NYS Appellate Court in cases over the years challenging the laws intent and consitutionality. Feel free to google them yourself should you desire to read them.
Your point is that it is banned specifically by statute, my point is that it is not [without specific case law interpreting that statute]. I agree that it may be disallowed in practice, and I never suggested that anyone attempt to do it, but (gun) statute is particularly harder to change (in New York) than common law rulings (which you continue to assert exist but refuse to cite). The point that it is not specifically banned, or may not be, is relevant to anyone interested in challenging the state of affairs in addition to both contesting the facial validity of what you claim and forcing you to evidence your assertions (if you expect them to be believed or be worth anything to anyone). Without citations, you are just some guy on the internet playing God with the law, you give no one any indication of how or where they might go to draw independent conclusions to either challenge or support your opinion . . . No one cares about what you think, what matters is why you think it.
I'm not here to do your research, if you intend to make a point provide your own citations, don't just submit what appears to be your opinion but purports to be an "official" interpretation of law and expect me or anyone to take your word for it . . . you may be correct, I would expect to see law at least somewhat consistent with what you claim, but I'm not just going to believe you because you have "had a permit for 20 years" and hang out at the bar with a cop and a judge. If you are going to claim facts without citing references, expect to have them challenged on logical grounds or better until proven otherwise.
Here is the outline of what has transpired so far:
- You claim one interpretation is true because that is the only way for it to be read, and that that is the way the law reads it, but provide no relevant citation.
- I propose a different logical interpretation, one that isn't necessarily correct, but one which casts at least some small degree of doubt on the validity of what you assert.
- You claim that I am wrong (entirely possible) but only because I engaged in "meaningless semantics," not because you have evidence of the one true and correct way to read the statute.
The point of my interpretation is not to assert its own correctness, just to make the point that further clarification beyond, "This is what the statute says," is necessary before what you claim can be accepted as the absolute truth.
So...lets see the research.