Open Carry on personal property and relocating

redlegagent said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

§ 265.20 Exemptions.
a. Sections 265.01, 265.02, 265.03, 265.04, 265.05, 265.10, 265.11,
265.12, 265.13, 265.15 and 270.05 shall not apply to:
3. Possession of a pistol or revolver by a person to whom a license
therefor has been issued as provided under section 400.00 or 400.01 of
this chapter; provided, that such a license shall not preclude a
conviction for the offense defined in subdivision three of section
265.01 of this article.

265.01 (3) He or she knowingly has in his or her possession 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, or upon a school
bus as defined in section one hundred forty-two of the vehicle and
traffic law, without the written authorization of such educational
institution;


Where 265.06-9 are:
New York Penal - § 265.06 - Unlawful Possession of a Weapon Upon School Grounds
is a violation.
New York Penal - § 265.08 - Criminal Use of a Firearm in the Second Degree
is a class C felony.
New York Penal - § 265.09 - Criminal Use of a Firearm in the First Degree

and other relevant non-exemptions are:
265.14 Criminal sale of a firearm with the aid of a minor.
265.16 Criminal sale of a firearm to a minor.
265.17 Criminal purchase of a weapon.
265.25 Certain wounds to be reported.
265.26 Burn injury and wounds to be reported.
265.30 Certain convictions to be reported.
265.35 Prohibited use of weapons.
265.40 Purchase of rifles and/or shotguns in contiguous states.

Click to expand...

At cursory glance I'm not really sure of the purpose of the 270.05 exemption, but it appears immaterial to our discussion.

In addition, if your contention is that violation of 400.00 constitutes a violation of 265.xx I direct you to 400.00 (17):

17. Applicability of section. The provisions of article two hundred
sixty-five of this chapter relating to illegal possession of a firearm,
shall not apply to an offense which also constitutes a violation of this
section by a person holding an otherwise valid license under the
provisions of this section and such offense shall only be punishable as
a class A misdemeanor pursuant to this section. In addition, the
provisions of such article two hundred sixty-five of this chapter shall
not apply to the possession of a firearm in a place not authorized by
law, by a person who holds an otherwise valid license or possession of a
firearm by a person within a one year period after the stated expiration
date of an otherwise valid license which has not been previously
cancelled or revoked shall only be punishable as a class A misdemeanor
pursuant to this section.

Click to expand...

Thereby, IF you are in violation of 400.00 by open carrying, it would be a violation ONLY of 400.00 (2)(f) (or violation of the particular section you happen to be licensed under) and any further discussion of 265.xx is completely irrelevant because you cannot be liable for violating both 265.xx and 400.00 at the same time, so any further discussions need only look to the language and formulation of 400.00 if the hypothetical party is licensed.

Now, as to the case law regarding various types of carried weapons (all cases are NY law unless otherwise stated):

The origins of concealed carry laws seem clearly addressed by the courts, and further research should move forward from this clearly established point. Concealed carry laws were not passed with the legislative purpose of mandating licensed concealed carry, necessarily (not sure how soon after the prohibitions started licensing programs started), nor for the purpose of outlawing all carry, but to force all (unregulated) carry to be open:

The purpose of all concealment statutes is clear. At the time they were enacted, the open carrying of weapons upon the person, was not prohibited. The purpose of the concealed weapons statutes was to prevent men in sudden quarrel or in the commission of crime from drawing concealed weapons and using them without prior notice to their victims that they were armed. The person assailed to attacked would behave one way if he knew his assailant was armed and perhaps another way if he could safely presume that he was unarmed.
People v. Raso (NY County Ct. 1958)

Click to expand...

Apparently the legislative history of "have and carry concealed" spans more than a century in New York beginning with the institution of restricted carry in 1905 and continuing with the 1911 Sullivan Laws when and where "have" may very well have referred to some form of open carry.

In a very very recent licensing case the court discusses open carry specifically:

Article 400 of the Penal Law “is the exclusive statutory mechanism for the licensing of firearms in New York State.” O'Connor v. Scarpino, 83 N.Y.2d 919, 920, 615 N.Y.S.2d 305, 638 N.E.2d 950 (1994). Licenses are limited to persons over twenty-one, of good moral character, without a history of crime or mental illness, and “concerning whom no good cause exists for *79 the denial of the license.” N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(1). There are several types of pistol and revolver licenses, including licenses for household possession, see N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(a), for workplace possession, see N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(b), and to “have and carry concealed,” see N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f). The last, a carry license, may issue only for “proper cause.” FN6 Id.

New York requires a carry license for the concealed and open carrying of firearms. See N.Y. Penal Law §§ 265.01, 265.02, 400.00(2)(d)-(f). This general approach to the concealed and open carrying of firearms is distinct from that of some other States, which have laws specifically addressing the carrying of concealed firearms. See, e.g., Cal.Penal Code § 12025 (defining crime of “carrying a concealed firearm” and explaining that “[f]irearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed”); Va.Code Ann. § 18.2-308(A) (defining crime of “carr[ying] about [one's] person, hidden from common observation, ... any pistol”); see also N.Y. Joint Legislative Comm. on Firearms & Ammunition, N.Y. Legislative Doc. No. 29 at 13 (N.Y.1962) (“[T]he historic factor of whether the firearm is carried openly or concealed has frequently been decisive. Apparently in only nine (Conn.[,]D.C., Hawaii, Ind., Mass., N.M., N.Y., Tex., W.Va.) of the forty-five prohibiting jurisdictions does the prohibition extend to openly carried firearms.”).
Bach v. Pataki 408 F.3d 75 (NY App. 2005).

Click to expand...

That is to say, of the 45 [at the time this decision was written] jurisdictions that have laws regarding licensure to carry firearms concealed, 36 address concealed carry ONLY and thereby tacitly allow Open Carry and 9 prohibit it outright or allow it through licensure. (Conn. for example is a state that allows open carry if one is issued a pistol permit). D.C. and Texas are the only Open Carry "non-permissive" states on that list (besides NY, but thats what we're arguing at this point) so I'm sure that when they say the prohibition is extended they don't mean to say, necessarily, that Open Carry is outlawed outright in those states, I know this is a little unclear and I had to read it a few dozen times to make sure thats not what they meant. The preceding sentence clearly implies that New York licenses open carry through 400.00...not just implies but says outright, "New York requires a carry license for the concealed and open carrying of firearms." It seems fairly conclusive that "have" would be the word within 400.00(2)(f) that provides for what the court asserts here.

This doesn't mean that New York isn't restrictive of Open Carry by other means, but it makes a compelling argument that open carry is not a statutory violation in and of itself and that enforcement would have to be through some form of brandishing/disorderly conduct charge or administrative sanction/revocation.

So, I did some pretty substantial research...prove me wrong.

NY state. Pain in the butt!

NEW YORK guns laws SUCK! I live in CT and our laws are way BETTER than the NY. I have families and friends moving to CONNECTICUT and they lived in NEW YORK. I don't care if people say that NY is the best city in a america. THATS BULL! when it comes to your STRICT GUN LAWS. P.S. Feel sorry for new yorkers and wish them alot of luck.

Sparky6654 said:

Just curious if you live in NNY and if so what county? I live in St. Law. Co. and wouldn't advised open carry to anyone. Despite "all the hunters" in NNY we have some of the worst gun rights laws in the nation.

An example:
My wife and I just bought new pistols. We went to the gunshop. He had to do a NICS check. We had to make out a full sheet of personal info. He gave us a copy to take to the County Clerk. Drove to the Court House. County Clerk amended our licenses. Paid for amendments to licenses. County Clerk gave us a "coupon" to take back to the gunshop. Drive back to the gunshop with the "coupon" saying it was OK to give us the pistol. Finally received the pistol and went home.

We had to go through all of this EVEN THOUGH we both have ALREADY had extensive background checks, character references, paid over $100 each for finger prints and forms, and received and posses a license to carry in NYS.
:banghead::banghead::banghead:

Click to expand...

I also live her in St. Law.county and have not had any issues openly carrying to,during and from hunting. I had my handgun on my hip one day when I was hunting and when I came to the road where my truck was parked the game wardens were there to check my hunting licence,never even asked to see my pistol permit,we talked about hunting for about 15 min. then they left. I stop at stores for snacks or gas and no issue. I did at one time get a dui and the judge suspended my permit for 6 months even though at the time of the dui I had no firearms with me but I got it turned right back over to me. As for the trouble you went through to get a handgun on your permit,it's been easy for me, I buy a handgun and take some sort of bill of sale with the serial # and they immediatly put it on my permit and I go back and pick up my gun. Other than travel time it's fast.

I'll also add,how do you CC a 15"scoped Contender or a 8"scoped Dan Wesson?