Post Interview Question - Page 2 - Suffolk County (licensing/laws) - Long Island Firearms

Jump to content


Welcome to Long Island Firearms, Long Island's premier source for news and education!

Welcome to Long Island Firearms, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of Long Island Firearms by signing in or creating an account. You also have the ability to login with your facebook or twitter account. See the icons in the upper right hand corner.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get automatic updates
  • Get your own profile and make new friends
  • Customize your experience here
Get the latest facts on the new NY SAFE gun laws that effect you!

Photo

Post Interview Question

post interview question

  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#21 Parashooter

Parashooter

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 11553 posts

Posted December 06 2016 - 11:32 PM

One month ago I received my permit from SCPD. It was almost six months to the day from the date of my interview. I was puzzled as to why I was given a second application to have initialed by my references, signed by me and resubmitted to SCPD when I had my interview. While I am not a lawyer, I am betting that they are considering this the "official" application and counting their "presentation of application" six month requirement from the date of the interview. I certainly made no sense that I had to run around having my references initial a second application.

 

Interesting... You're the first person I've seen mention them doing this.... Anyone else have this BS happen???     Not a lawyer either - but that's a scam at best.



# Advertisement

Advertisement

Posted A minute ago



#22 Duke

Duke

    Sharp Shooter!

  • Club LIF Member
  • 341 posts

Posted December 06 2016 - 11:59 PM

Its pure BS, all I can say is hang in there.

#23 Nordon

Nordon

    Gun Guru

  • Donated Member
  • 6522 posts
  • LocationEast Northport, not far from Brooklyn

Posted December 07 2016 - 05:53 AM

Got mine in 2009, took 5 months.

#24 Nordon

Nordon

    Gun Guru

  • Donated Member
  • 6522 posts
  • LocationEast Northport, not far from Brooklyn

Posted December 07 2016 - 05:55 AM

One month ago I received my permit from SCPD. It was almost six months to the day from the date of my interview. I was puzzled as to why I was given a second application to have initialed by my references, signed by me and resubmitted to SCPD when I had my interview. While I am not a lawyer, I am betting that they are considering this the "official" application and counting their "presentation of application" six month requirement from the date of the interview. I certainly made no sense that I had to run around having my references initial a second application.


It's the NY State Application, I'm sure, since SAFE, Albany does not want to deal with the different apps per county, so in essence 2 applications for one license.

#25 LarryD23

LarryD23

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 985 posts
  • LocationLong Island

Posted December 07 2016 - 06:45 AM

It's the NY State Application, I'm sure, since SAFE, Albany does not want to deal with the different apps per county, so in essence 2 applications for one license.

You are correct. I just looked it up and the second application I received was the NYS application: https://www.troopers...earms/PPB-3.pdf which leads me to believe that they are, in fact, considering this as the "official application". That's a great way to finesse the six month requirement for responding to a license application. It's hard to believe that this is legal, but then this is New York.



#26 NRATC53

NRATC53

    Now an Ex NYer

  • Topic Starter
  • Donated Member
  • 24742 posts

Posted December 07 2016 - 09:21 AM

You are correct. I just looked it up and the second application I received was the NYS application: https://www.troopers...earms/PPB-3.pdf which leads me to believe that they are, in fact, considering this as the "official application". That's a great way to finesse the six month requirement for responding to a license application. It's hard to believe that this is legal, but then this is New York.

NYS has one application (exc NYC) Counties add to it. Fill out the NYS application and Suffolk's additions and question why you need to fill out "their" application when presented. Enough



#27 KPvette

KPvette

    Sharp Shooter!

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 459 posts
  • LocationSuffolk

Posted December 07 2016 - 11:01 AM

That's exactly what they did to me.  Filled out the application have me get all the signatures and on my interview date they filled out the New York state app.  This is not right.



#28 William Anthony

William Anthony

    Sharp Shooter!

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 447 posts
  • LocationEast Quogue L.I. N.Y.

Posted December 07 2016 - 11:49 AM

The Eastern Suffolk application is different than the Suffolk Application. I had 2 reference forms to be filled out that were identical and another different one with various questions for the 4 personal

 

reference's that was filled out by the reference's only. And  had to be notarized.  So that was a total of 3 forms(6 pages) just for references.



#29 LarryD23

LarryD23

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 985 posts
  • LocationLong Island

Posted December 07 2016 - 12:06 PM

The Eastern Suffolk application is different than the Suffolk Application. I had 2 reference forms to be filled out that were identical and another different one with various questions for the 4 personal

 

reference's that was filled out by the reference's only. And  had to be notarized.  So that was a total of 3 forms(6 pages) just for references.

When I had my SCPD interview, in addition to having to get initials on the NYS application, I also was asked to pick two of my references to complete a detailed Affadavit of Character Reference form (http://apps.suffolkc...nts/charRef.pdf) which had to be signed and notarized.



#30 firemanvin

firemanvin

    Gun Guru

  • Donated Member
  • 541 posts

Posted December 07 2016 - 05:44 PM

The volume, of pistol license applications, has skyrocketed, in the last 2~3 years, in all of NYS, as well as most of the country. Yaphank is understaffed, as is Riverhead, while neither has the budget to add staff.

Gary

Under staffing is relative to what they are actually doing.  They have created an extraordinarily complicated systems based upon their desire to impose over reaching administrative restrictions based upon so called "proper cause".  These restrictions add enormously to the workload by devoting resources required to impose and enforce the administrative restrictions.  The investigative process involved to verify the proper cause (business, security, and the ever elusive self-protection) gobble up an enormous amount of time.  And then factor in the investigations for alleged violations of the administrative rules.  The suspension letters, the follow ups, and the more aggressive approaches taken against "violators".  They are wasting a lot of time and tax dollars and the return of perceived public safety is actually a negative return on investment.  If they were to stick to the basics - critical mass procedures mandated by NYS law, and either issue or deny a license based upon the application of NYS law, things would run a lot smoother.  There are no administrative restrictions in NYS law, so they should be spending zero effort on making and imposing them.


Edited by firemanvin, December 07 2016 - 05:45 PM.

  • NRATC53 likes this

#31 Gary_Hungerford

Gary_Hungerford

    SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee

  • Club LIF Member
  • Others: , , ,
  • 6264 posts
  • LocationEverywhere, all the time

Posted December 08 2016 - 02:45 PM

Under staffing is relative to what they are actually doing.  They have created an extraordinarily complicated systems based upon their desire to impose over reaching administrative restrictions based upon so called "proper cause".  These restrictions add enormously to the workload by devoting resources required to impose and enforce the administrative restrictions.  The investigative process involved to verify the proper cause (business, security, and the ever elusive self-protection) gobble up an enormous amount of time.  And then factor in the investigations for alleged violations of the administrative rules.  The suspension letters, the follow ups, and the more aggressive approaches taken against "violators".  They are wasting a lot of time and tax dollars and the return of perceived public safety is actually a negative return on investment.  If they were to stick to the basics - critical mass procedures mandated by NYS law, and either issue or deny a license based upon the application of NYS law, things would run a lot smoother.  There are no administrative restrictions in NYS law, so they should be spending zero effort on making and imposing them.

 

Much of what you say is correct. Unfortunately, there are restrictions is the state's case law and they derive from O'Brien v Keegan [87 NY2d 436, 663 N.E.2d 316, 639 NYS.2d 1004 (1996)], which granted the ability to include restrictions.

Gary


  • boosti likes this

#32 NRATC53

NRATC53

    Now an Ex NYer

  • Donated Member
  • 24742 posts

Posted December 09 2016 - 08:33 AM

Much of what you say is correct. Unfortunately, there are restrictions is the state's case law and they derive from O'Brien v Keegan [87 NY2d 436, 663 N.E.2d 316, 639 NYS.2d 1004 (1996)], which granted the ability to include restrictions.

Gary

Yes, but his point is that if they didn't spend so much time on what they are NOT required to do, they would have plenty of time to do what they ARE required to do, namely process the applications in a timely manner in accordance with the time restrictions (now) set in State Law


  • boosti, Lou G and firemanvin like this

#33 boosti

boosti

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 11248 posts
  • LocationStrong Island

Posted December 09 2016 - 08:59 AM

Under staffing is relative to what they are actually doing.  They have created an extraordinarily complicated systems based upon their desire to impose over reaching administrative restrictions based upon so called "proper cause".  These restrictions add enormously to the workload by devoting resources required to impose and enforce the administrative restrictions.  The investigative process involved to verify the proper cause (business, security, and the ever elusive self-protection) gobble up an enormous amount of time.  And then factor in the investigations for alleged violations of the administrative rules.  The suspension letters, the follow ups, and the more aggressive approaches taken against "violators".  They are wasting a lot of time and tax dollars and the return of perceived public safety is actually a negative return on investment.  If they were to stick to the basics - critical mass procedures mandated by NYS law, and either issue or deny a license based upon the application of NYS law, things would run a lot smoother.  There are no administrative restrictions in NYS law, so they should be spending zero effort on making and imposing them.

The restrictions also are an effective tool for sector car operator that may have contact with someone who may be carrying a pistol with a restricted license. It is only an administrative action. Just another part that keeps the officers in the pistol license section busy.

#34 firemanvin

firemanvin

    Gun Guru

  • Donated Member
  • 541 posts

Posted December 09 2016 - 11:02 AM

The restrictions also are an effective tool for sector car operator that may have contact with someone who may be carrying a pistol with a restricted license. It is only an administrative action. Just another part that keeps the officers in the pistol license section busy.

The words "only an administrative action" is a gross under assessment of the damage it can cause.  This type of "administrative action" is more powerful than a legal action.  First of all, since it's not a legal action, there is absolutely no due process involved.  An out-of-class administrative action is a "guilty with no consideration to innocence" allegation.  The next step in the process is pretty much an automatic license suspension, which equates to confiscation of all the guns you own.  A conscientious refusal to comply with the license suspension and confiscation mandate now gives the same bunch of "administrative people" the ability to put on their big boy police hats and turn you into a felon.

 

The PLBs having administrative and legal control over gun owners is a conflict of interest and a overreach of police powers.


  • rlitman and Lou G like this

#35 NRATC53

NRATC53

    Now an Ex NYer

  • Donated Member
  • 24742 posts

Posted December 09 2016 - 12:07 PM

The restrictions also are an effective tool for sector car operator that may have contact with someone who may be carrying a pistol with a restricted license. It is only an administrative action. Just another part that keeps the officers in the pistol license section busy.

and if that person doesn't rate a license they shouldn't get one, otherwise it is a BS thing Only questions should be "Do they have a license?" "Is it Premise or Carry?" "Is their License under suspension?" The rest is crap


  • rlitman, Lou G and firemanvin like this

#36 boosti

boosti

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 11248 posts
  • LocationStrong Island

Posted December 09 2016 - 01:34 PM

and if that person doesn't rate a license they shouldn't get one, otherwise it is a BS thing Only questions should be "Do they have a license?" "Is it Premise or Carry?" "Is their License under suspension?" The rest is crap

The restrictions are political. The public safety concerns of the Police Commissioner. The County Executive could eliminate the administrative restrictions if he tells the Police Commissioner to change the department policy. I doubt we will see that change.

#37 NRATC53

NRATC53

    Now an Ex NYer

  • Donated Member
  • 24742 posts

Posted December 09 2016 - 01:45 PM

The restrictions are political. The public safety concerns of the Police Commissioner. The County Executive could eliminate the administrative restrictions if he tells the Police Commissioner to change the department policy. I doubt we will see that change.

Only too aware, have met with them as well as lead of PLB

 

ETA: But that doesn't change the fact that all the rest is crap


Edited by NRATC53, December 09 2016 - 01:46 PM.

  • Lou G and firemanvin like this

#38 firemanvin

firemanvin

    Gun Guru

  • Donated Member
  • 541 posts

Posted December 09 2016 - 03:18 PM

Only too aware, have met with them as well as lead of PLB

 

ETA: But that doesn't change the fact that all the rest is crap

They are nothing but a bunch of lying, condescending, territorial, arrogant, union controlled, politically motivated, muscle head jackasses.



#39 Lou G

Lou G

    Gun Guru

  • Club LIF Member
  • 947 posts
  • LocationSuffolk

Posted December 09 2016 - 03:52 PM

If you lose your license due to violating a administrative restriction. Can you lose your right to own long guns.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: post, interview, question

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users