people who dismiss this minor victory do not realize that  "death by a thousand cuts" can work in our favor too.  We didn't lose our rights overnight and we're not going to get them back overnight either.

Quoted from SteveG

The bottom line is how about a full carry because it is our constitutional right PERIOD.

SteveG, maybe you are responsible enough to make that claim.....I know I would be a bit worried if the law was once someone turned 18 they automatically got an unrestricted carry license. Some of the people at Calverton can be scary. Have you ever seen some of the hi-jinx on youtube? Some of these people are downright DANGEROUS. I am a big 2A supporter, but there is room in the 2nd for common sense gun control. In my opinion, that Ted Nugent CCW requirement does not fit in today's Long Island. There are too many people with something to prove.

Quoted from peteinsuffolk

people who dismiss this minor victory do not realize that  "death by a thousand cuts" can work in our favor too.  We didn't lose our rights overnight and we're not going to get them back overnight either.

I just got caught up on the conversation here. I see how some are happy and some are insulted by this little allowance we have just been returned. Well, think about it like this, the longest battlefield is taken with every step. Sometimes that battlefield requires thousands of steps and sometimes it requires 5. This is just one step. Eventually, we will be waving our flag atop that hill with our guns fully CCW, everybody will know it and it will be perfectly legal.

Going around and breaking the law as a form of civil disobedience will have the politicians saying "See, we gave them an inch, they tried to take a mile!"

Quoted from CJ

SteveG, maybe you are responsible enough to make that claim.....I know I would be a bit worried if the law was once someone turned 18 they automatically got an unrestricted carry license. Some of the people at Calverton can be scary. Have you ever seen some of the hi-jinx on youtube? Some of these people are downright DANGEROUS. I am a big 2A supporter, but there is room in the 2nd for common sense gun control. In my opinion, that Ted Nugent CCW requirement does not fit in today's Long Island. There are too many people with something to prove.

Oh my.  Did I just read, "it's ok for me to carry and not you?"  I don't even know where to begin.  Common sense gun control?  WTF?

Quoted from CJ

SteveG, maybe you are responsible enough to make that claim.....I know I would be a bit worried if the law was once someone turned 18 they automatically got an unrestricted carry license. Some of the people at Calverton can be scary. Have you ever seen some of the hi-jinx on youtube? Some of these people are downright DANGEROUS. I am a big 2A supporter, but there is room in the 2nd for common sense gun control. In my opinion, that Ted Nugent CCW requirement does not fit in today's Long Island. There are too many people with something to prove.

In a way I agree and in a way I don't.  I'm not saying give alicense to anybody and everybody whether they are responsible or not. But once you meet the criteria for a license it is our constitutional right not to be restricted. Right now, our rights are at the mercy of a political bureaucrat who tells us what our rights are according to his or her whim.

Quoted from Foosel

Oh my.  Did I just read, "it's ok for me to carry and not you?"  I don't even know where to begin.  Common sense gun control?  WTF?

No, thats not what I meant.

These are the people that scare me......



Sorry for getting so far off topic here. I'll stop now.

Quoted from SteveG

All this posturing about new kinds of training and criteria for a full carry license is all well and good.
The bottom line is how about a full carry because it is our constitutional right PERIOD.

It should be like many places Upstate...they have a NYS Permit..that's it..only place they can't go is NYC....
All Permits should be done by NYS....not the liberal minded people in SCPD..

Quoted from phumb

Thanks Gary!...the newer verbage is excellent and more liberal than your original post....was scpd reading this thread?
I think I know the answer, but just have to ask...this is all Suff Co regardless if your lic. is sheriff or scpd? thanks again!

No. They do not read or participate in this forum but SASI does. The changes apply only to SCPD's territory.
Gary

Quoted from CJ

SteveG, maybe you are responsible enough to make that claim.....I know I would be a bit worried if the law was once someone turned 18 they automatically got an unrestricted carry license. Some of the people at Calverton can be scary. Have you ever seen some of the hi-jinx on youtube? Some of these people are downright DANGEROUS. I am a big 2A supporter, but there is room in the 2nd for common sense gun control. In my opinion, that Ted Nugent CCW requirement does not fit in today's Long Island. There are too many people with something to prove.

I agree, somewhat...   but I know some over 50 that are a little scary/goofy too, ie: Calverton... but your right, the percentage of dopy is higher at the younger age. Maybe a probationary period for younger owners, this way they can get experience at the range, respect for the firearm, develop more respect for the responsibility they have taken on. Too many hormones messing with their brains at 18  ;o)

I had to take a 60 question exam to qualify for my ham license twenty years ago...  You have to take a written for your driver's license... I have no problem with the right to purchase and have at home for self defense as a basic starting point, but as you start to travel outside your castle, I don't see a problem with having a standard way of defining a persons reasoning skills based on knowledge and demonstration of responsibility to go through a given process (that alone would show a level of responsibility) This should not be financialy restrictive process though... no $500 safety course... it should be, here's a booklet with the answers... take the time to memorize it, come back take the exam... and after that, we as a community will remove more restrictions.

I'm probably going to catch the business for writing this, but you all have to admit, some of the people walking around... well, there has to be some kind of filter...  Right to defend yourself in your house, absolutely not to be infringed... when you start walking out in public... there should be a way to stage the removal of restrictions Class 1, Class 2... etc  

Now I'm not saying this should be added to the current process, I am suggesting this could be used to remove further restrictions.

I have a primary residence, I also own another piece of property in the same town, and spend time at a third location 3 days a week... as I understand it, the way it stands now, legally, I will only be able to have in my possesion to defend myself in my primary residence... not my other owned home, or the other location I've been staying 2-3 days for the past 8 years, that's nuts...

To everybody that is thinking exams and testing is the way to go, I have to tell you, this is a flawed thought process.  Why would you support testing to exercise a right?

Oh yeah, the Supreme Court has already ruled that testing to gain a right is unconstutional.

While all the points made here all have some validity to them I have to ask this:
Other states issue permits that are carry right from the beginning (PA, CT, etc)
There are minimum requirements in some such as CT which requires the NRA basic pistol course.
No other "staging" of license class, tests etc. There are no problems, or if there are, they are few and far between.  What would make the situation different here? Yes, we do have some idiots, but I am sure so do the other states.
And the legal age to purchase a pistol is 21. The ONLY thing I would conced to any licensing authority is the 21 year old limit for pistol licensing.

Quoted from SteveG

While all the points made here all have some validity to them I have to ask this:
Other states issue permits that are carry right from the beginning (PA, CT, etc)
There are minimum requirements in some such as CT which requires the NRA basic pistol course.
No other "staging" of license class, tests etc. There are no problems, or if there are, they are few and far between.  What would make the situation different here? Yes, we do have some idiots, but I am sure so do the other states.

IMHO I think the issue would be that you're now granting a right that was never granted before in our counties. Think of a kid who's parents say they can't have more than 1 piece of candy per day...the kids want more and more candy. Finally, when the parents say "OK, have all the candy you want", there will be a brief period when the kids will stuff themself to the point of getting sick with candy, then they'll learn from it.

It's a similar situation around here. People are raised on the assumption that you need to have a godly status to carry a firearm legally everyday since we're raised without that common right or ability. There will be your share of idiots.

Of all who posted on this topic. How many of you actually have Peremit/ License?. How much of what has been posted comes from someone actually qualified to comment factually and not just bloviate, Those that have will protect and abide those who wish will [I'll leave this description up to you]

Quoted from Foosel

To everybody that is thinking exams and testing is the way to go, I have to tell you, this is a flawed thought process.  Why would you support testing to exercise a right?

Oh yeah, the Supreme Court has already ruled that testing to gain a right is unconstutional.

     Foosel is absolutely correct. This is from an older post of mine, on the subject of mandatory training:
     Any attempt, to require any type of testing or training, for the exercise of a Constitutionally-protected right is wrong and illegal! Those of you, who are old enough, may remember that, in the South, during segregation, one of the tools used to prevent what were then called Negroes, from voting, was the "voter proficiency" test. Most people, with a Ph.D, in politics, education and civics, could not pass the version given to Negroes. The version, given to whites, essentially required them to spell their names correctly, then list their date of birth and, when some of them couldn't do even that, they were assisted.
   The point is that the Supreme Court has ruled [see Louisiana v. United States, 380 US 145 (1965) and
South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 US 301 (1966)] that you cannot require any form of testing/training, to exercise a Constitution right.
Gary

Quoted from bobtorre

the funny thing is that I know of some amigo who has been excercising this right for a long time .... ignorance is blizz  

I hope you get to enjoy it as much as he did

I get your point. But I also know people that speed constantly and then get pissy when they get pulled over for speeding. ignorance may be bliss, but it isn't much of a defense.

Quoted from Vertiviper

IMHO I think the issue would be that you're now granting a right that was never granted before in our counties. Think of a kid who's parents say they can't have more than 1 piece of candy per day...the kids want more and more candy. Finally, when the parents say "OK, have all the candy you want", there will be a brief period when the kids will stuff themself to the point of getting sick with candy, then they'll learn from it.

It's a similar situation around here. People are raised on the assumption that you need to have a godly status to carry a firearm legally everyday since we're raised without that common right or ability. There will be your share of idiots.

Valid point but I don't think that would be the case across the board. Most people who want a license already have one. If they can;t get a carry they get a sportsman's, target etc. If the person is an idiot they always will be regardless of the "type" of license.
Once we allow any more type of conditions, we are going to go right back to adminsitrative discretion.
And there are people who will pass any type of training and requirements with flying colors and STILL be an idiot.

Quoted from SteveG

Valid point but I don't think that would be the case across the board. Most people who want a license already have one. If they can;t get a carry they get a sportsman's, target etc. If the person is an idiot they always will be regardless of the "type" of license.
Once we allow any more type of conditions, we are going to go right back to adminsitrative discretion.
And there are people who will pass any type of training and requirements with flying colors and STILL be an idiot.

I don't disagree with what you say. My opinion just says what everyone else tends to agree upon, that there will be idiots in every situation.

Quoted from Vertiviper

I don't disagree with what you say. My opinion just says what everyone else tends to agree upon, that there will be idiots in every situation.

And it is unfortunate that it will never change. There always will be idiots. It is just more unfortunate that they have to be involved with this area.

Quoted from SteveG

And it is unfortunate that it will never change. There always will be idiots. It is just more unfortunate that they have to be involved with this area.

unfortunately Darwin doesn't work fast enough to get rid of the idiots (see bullet proof vest guy in an earlier video)

Quoted from peteinsuffolk

unfortunately Darwin doesn't work fast enough to get rid of the idiots (see bullet proof vest guy in an earlier video)

Quoted from peteinsuffolk

unfortunately Darwin doesn't work fast enough to get rid of the idiots (see bullet proof vest guy in an earlier video)

Unfortunately lawyers are disrupting nature when it comes to Darwinism.

Quoted from BLAMMO

Isn't this the latest handbook? ( January 2008 )

http://www.suffolkcountyny.us/.....20size%203-27-08.pdf

I don't see anything with that kind of detail.

   Yes, it's the latest book, which is going to be supplemented, with an insert, until the new book can be printed. That can take as little as a few weeks or as long as a few months, depending on the printer and the county's budget.
Gary

So now that we got this added back in, what would be the next thing we get? Of course full carry etc etc is something that we'd want, but I'm talking realistically, what do you think they will change in the future?

Quoted from Foosel

Oh my.  Did I just read, "it's ok for me to carry and not you?"  I don't even know where to begin.  Common sense gun control?  WTF?

Foosel, you beat me to it!...  That's exactly how I read it - and then the clintonesque backpedaling  

Here's another thought for everyone to consider...  we have "discretionary" licensing, when we apply for a concealed-carry license (as ALL of our licenses, except those with 'premise' licenses are), the issuing agency decides IF and how our license may be restricted...

IF they chose to they could RIGHT NOW, TODAY issue without restrictions other than those imposed in state law...  

Training?  I've got it...  I've had training in NYS penal law, use of force etc. up to the standards of PO's, I am an NRA certified pistol instructor (and rifle, shotgun yadda yadda..) I am a DCM certified Master Instructor, and an active competitor....

And I've received threats. (documented with the PD).

...And yet my license is STILL restricted?     - That's because the SCPD has Arbitrarily decided to restrict EVERYONE, NOT on a case by case basis which I believe is what is intended in NYS law.

Along with the 'coffee stop' clause that was removed and now restored to the handbook, there was also an "Instructor" exemption which they noted in the last handbook has been rescinded...

One thing we need to do is get the licensing into the hands of the Sheriff, and elected position. and out of the hands of an appointed person.

Another is to get "Self-Defense" or "Personal Protection" added into state law as "Proper cause" WITHOUT qualifications.

What is 'proper cause' for self-defense? Read Newsday, notice all the home-invasions, robberies, etc.  THAT should be all the 'need' we need.

"You are not authorized to conduct any other non-target shooting"

I do not like the implications of having this text in my handbook.  How does this further limit the use of deadly force?  Does this give a DA more ammunition to prosecute a licensee for using deadly force to protect his or her family?  I'm not so sure this is a victory.  I get a sick feeling in my gut that this will come back to bite us in the donkey.  I hope I'm wrong but until someone explains how this text is a good thing I'm not doing my happy dance...

Murtha please chime in.