Challenging the Sullivan Act - NY Specific Discussions - 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

Challenging the Sullivan Act

2a pistol permits

  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 M_F

M_F

    Sharp Shooter!

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 420 posts
  • LocationLong Island

Posted October 11 2017 - 12:27 PM

In the 100 plus years that New Yorkers had to bend over and beg for government permission to legally posses a handgun has anyone formally challenged the Pistol Permit law itself? State or federal court? I am aware of the lawsuits regarding "just cause" and conceal carry (Westchester County) that we lost but I've been unable to find any cases regarding having to get a pistol permit in the first place to POSSES. I did find out though that at one point in history the NY State legislature approved a law that would have gotten rid of the pistol permits and replace it with a 48 hour waiting period to buy a handgun, unfortunately Governor FDR vetoed it  :sorry



# Advertisement

Advertisement

Posted A minute ago



#2 Gary_Hungerford

Gary_Hungerford

    SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee

  • Topic Starter
  • Club LIF Member
  • Others: , , ,
  • 6292 posts
  • LocationEverywhere, all the time

Posted October 11 2017 - 12:48 PM

I don't know if you're familiar with O’Brien v. Keegan,  [87 NY2d 436, 663 N.E.2d 316, 639 NYS 2d 1004 (1996)]. It was a NYS court case, challenging the ability to restrict licenses. It's a short decision, so I'm reprinting the whole of it, here. It's the only thing close to what you're seeking.

Gary

 

    "A licensing officer will issue a license, to possess and carry a concealed firearm, only when “proper cause exists” (see, Penal Law § 400.00[2][f]). Other than in New York City and Nassau and Suffolk Counties, where licenses are subject to renewal, every three or five years, respectively, the procedure to amend a “carry concealed license,” to add or delete weapons, is, by application, to the licensing officer (see, Penal Law §§ 400.00[9]; 400.00[10]). In furtherance of both the regulatory and public safety purposes of Penal Law § 400.00, we hold that a licensing officer is authorized to engage in a “proper cause” inquiry, when presented with an application, to amend a carry concealed license.
    On March 31, 1987, Albany City Court granted petitioner’s application, for a carry concealed license, restricted to hunting and target practice. In 1989, petitioner applied to amend his license, to cover two additional firearms and remove the hunting and target shooting restrictions. On June 29, 1989, petitioner’s application was granted, without a proper cause inquiry and he was issued an unrestricted carry concealed license, for his two semi-automatic pistols and one revolver. In early 1990, petitioner again sought to amend his license, to reflect the acquisition of another semi-automatic handgun. On February 1, 1990, the same licensing officer approved the amendment, again without conducting a proper cause inquiry.
    The third time petitioner applied to amend his license, he sought to substitute one revolver for another and add another semi-automatic handgun and requested the issuance of a license which conformed with the recently redesigned license format. This application was reviewed by a different licensing officer, who concluded that petitioner failed to demonstrate proper cause, to hold an unrestricted carry concealed license, under Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f). Thus, the licensing officer granted petitioner’s application, to amend his license, to the extent of authorizing the addition of one weapon and deletion of one weapon, for a total of five firearms and restricting the license, to hunting and target shooting.
    Petitioner protested and the licensing officer agreed to meet with him, to consider his request for removal of the hunting and target shooting restrictions. According to the licensing officer, petitioner could not articulate any valid reason, when he was asked, why he needed to carry up to five concealed weapons, at virtually any time. Indeed, petitioner informed the licensing officer that he wanted an unrestricted carry concealed license, because “[i]t makes me feel better.” The licensing officer adhered to the original determination, that the proper cause, shown, by petitioner, only supported a license restricted to hunting and target shooting.
    Petitioner challenged this determination, in a CPLR Article 78 proceeding, initiated in the Appellate Division, pursuant to CPLR 506(B)(1), to compel the licensing officer to remove the restrictions from petitioner’s license, on the ground that the licensing officer was not authorized to modify his valid, unrestricted license. Petitioner argued that, under Penal Law §400.00(10), his unrestricted license remains “in force and effect, until revoked” and the licensing officer improperly revoked the license, issued by the prior licensing officer. The Appellate Division, with one Justice dissenting, granted the petition, to the extent of directing the removal of the hunting and target shooting restrictions and the issuance of an unrestricted license, ruling that an application to amend a license “does not trigger the opportunity for another ‘proper cause’ determination.” (see, Matter of O’Brien v Keegan, 207 AD2d 5, 7- 8). We disagree and, now, reverse.
    Eligibility, for a license, in the first instance or for renewal, is contingent upon an investigation, by the licensing officer and a finding that all statements, in the application, are true (see, Penal Law §400.00[1]). Thus, as a threshold matter, the investigation of an applicant, for a carry concealed license, must yield “proper cause,” to the licensing officer’s satisfaction, for a license to issue (see, Penal Law §400.00[2][f]). At the other end of the spectrum, the licensing officer is statutorily invested with the power, sua sponte, to revoke or cancel a license (see, Penal Law §400.00[11][other than in New York City and Nassau and Suffolk Counties, a judge or justice of a court of record acts as the licensing officer]). This extraordinary power, reposed in a licensing officer, in and of itself, supports respondent’s determination to restrict the scope of petitioner’s license.
    Additionally, we recently held that a licensing officer’s power, to determine the existence of “proper cause,” for the issuance of a license necessarily and inherently includes the power to restrict the use of a license, to the purposes which justified its issuance (see, Matter of O’Connor v Scarpino, 83 NY2d 919, 921). Without such 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” (id). This applies, with equal force, to the licensing officer’s powers, upon review of an application to amend a license. To find otherwise would nullify the purpose underlying a formal amendment procedure and conflict, with the dual aims of Penal Law §400.00.
    Under the circumstances, of this case, it was not unreasonable, for respondent, to restrict petitioner’s license. While petitioner does not dispute that respondent was justified, in inquiring about “changed circumstances,” petitioner insists that Penal Law §400.00(9) does not permit respondent to alter his license, upon an application to amend, absent some “cause,” related to his fitness to hold a firearm. Petitioner reads the statute too narrowly. Petitioner’s inability to demonstrate a need or much less, any reason, for an unrestricted license, which would permit him to carry several concealed firearms, supports the licensing officer’s finding that there was no “proper cause,” to justify an unrestricted carry concealed license. Consequently, the licensing officer’s restriction, of petitioner’s license, was neither arbitrary nor capricious, promoting both the regulatory and public safety aims of Penal Law §400.00.
    Accordingly, the judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs and the petition dismissed.
    Judgment reversed, with costs and petition dismissed. Opinion by Judge Ciparick. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith and Levine concur."


  • JonnyK and M_F like this

#3 M_F

M_F

    Sharp Shooter!

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 420 posts
  • LocationLong Island

Posted October 11 2017 - 01:02 PM

Thanks for the info, it's not the type of case I was looking for but it is an interesting read and good case law for the licensing officers to pretty much do whatever the hell they want with our permission slips, in essence they can restrict us not just for target/hunting but to "premises" licenses like in NYC. I also found this from two years ago but was unable to find any updates:

 

https://slowfacts.wo...e-buffalo-news/



#4 Peconic Paladin

Peconic Paladin

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 2151 posts

Posted October 11 2017 - 01:59 PM

I do not believe that there has been a challenge to these laws post-Heller, which is what would have been required/best to overturn the whole licensing scheme.


  • Parashooter likes this

#5 hoodfu

hoodfu

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 680 posts

Posted October 11 2017 - 02:16 PM

You're looking for this one. It was after the Heller and McDonalds decisions. The circuit court of appeals ignored Heller, like so many other courts since, and the appeal to SCOTUS was denied. And here we are. The only hope is the recent DC case where proper cause was thrown out. At this point they'd have to start another case in NY all over again and try to get cert with SCOTUS again.

 

https://en.wikipedia...alsky_v._Cacace


  • Peconic Paladin likes this

#6 DarkStorm

DarkStorm

    Gun Guru

  • Topic Starter
  • Forum Sponsor
  • Others: Donated Member

  • 2723 posts

Posted October 11 2017 - 04:25 PM

There are some cases that Robert Bean is working on in Nassau County that stem from domestic seizures that bring up this point but as far as I know there has not been a specific case post heller / mcdonald to challenge this.  We have discussed it but it is a very expensive endeavor and just out of our range for now.  I may reach out to SAF and FPC to see if anyone will entertain it.



#7 M_F

M_F

    Sharp Shooter!

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 420 posts
  • LocationLong Island

Posted October 11 2017 - 06:31 PM

There are some cases that Robert Bean is working on in Nassau County that stem from domestic seizures that bring up this point but as far as I know there has not been a specific case post heller / mcdonald to challenge this.  We have discussed it but it is a very expensive endeavor and just out of our range for now.  I may reach out to SAF and FPC to see if anyone will entertain it.

 

Agreed, an ideal plaintiff(s) would be someone that does NOT have a pistol permit, has a clean record including no moving violations, and can Pass every red tape the pistol licensing agency throws at them if they were to apply for a permit. A pistol license is a direct violation of the SCOTUS rulings in Heller/McDonald, having to jump through so many hoops to keep a handgun in the home for the lawful purpose of self defense is in essence a POLL TAX which is illegal. The challenge is having to get a permit to POSSES, not for carry. 



#8 slowryder

slowryder

    Gun Guru

  • Donated Member
  • 1448 posts

Posted October 11 2017 - 07:18 PM

Simple solution, must be documented by witnesses or video. An unlicensed person, who just wants to buy a handgun, not for carry, and that person can pass a background check, required in all 50 states. Merely needs to go into a gun shop to purchase a pistol. When denied the ability to even exam a handgun due to the law prohibiting anyone to "possess" any handgun, without a licenses issued by the State, due NYS penal law. Then a Federal lawsuit would be filed against gun shop, Suffolk County, and State of NY for denying an individual their Constitution Rights.

#9 boosti

boosti

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 11301 posts
  • LocationStrong Island

Posted October 12 2017 - 06:11 AM

Simple solution, must be documented by witnesses or video. An unlicensed person, who just wants to buy a handgun, not for carry, and that person can pass a background check, required in all 50 states. Merely needs to go into a gun shop to purchase a pistol. When denied the ability to even exam a handgun due to the law prohibiting anyone to "possess" any handgun, without a licenses issued by the State, due NYS penal law. Then a Federal lawsuit would be filed against gun shop, Suffolk County, and State of NY for denying an individual their Constitution Rights.

Only the Supreme Court can stop these unconditional laws. We had two cases rejected.

#10 Gary_Hungerford

Gary_Hungerford

    SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee

  • Club LIF Member
  • Others: , , ,
  • 6292 posts
  • LocationEverywhere, all the time

Posted October 12 2017 - 07:17 AM

In the 100 plus years that New Yorkers had to bend over and beg for government permission to legally posses a handgun has anyone formally challenged the Pistol Permit law itself? State or federal court? I am aware of the lawsuits regarding "just cause" and conceal carry (Westchester County) that we lost but I've been unable to find any cases regarding having to get a pistol permit in the first place to POSSES. I did find out though that at one point in history the NY State legislature approved a law that would have gotten rid of the pistol permits and replace it with a 48 hour waiting period to buy a handgun, unfortunately Governor FDR vetoed it  :sorry

 

Now, had you asked if there were any prior court cases, on the subject of treaties or similar items, regarding firearms and the Constitution, I might have made you happier, by referring you to the attached PDF, which is what will destroy any of the UN's attempts to force this country to abide by it's definition of firearms ownership abilities.

Gary

Attached Files


  • M_F likes this

#11 iGreg

iGreg

    Right-wing Sith

  • Topic Starter
  • Donated Member
  • 6401 posts
  • LocationSuffolk

Posted October 12 2017 - 01:26 PM

As we are in a post-Constitutional period of our history where the Judicial philosopher kings dominate, I do not hold out much hope that the courts will fully restore the 2nd Amendment in the forseeable future. I think a federal law providing for reciprocity among the states may be able to throw a curve ball at the courts and the anti-gun snobs. In affect, reciprocity would allow for pressure by pro-2nd Amendment states on anti-2nd Amendment states. Wielding power, and being creative, is more effective in bringing about change than court cases.

 

The courts are the chosen battleground of the left. It is better not to fight the enemy on their chosen ground. We should chose the battleground favorable to us.


Edited by iGreg, October 12 2017 - 01:58 PM.


#12 M_F

M_F

    Sharp Shooter!

  • Topic Starter
  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 420 posts
  • LocationLong Island

Posted October 12 2017 - 01:51 PM

As we are in a post-Constitutional period of our history where the Judicial philosopher kings dominate I do not hold out much hope that the courts will fully restore the 2nd Amendment, in the forseeable future. I think a federal law providing for reciprocity among the states may be able to throw a curve ball at the courts and the anti-gun snobs. In affect, reciprocity would allow for pressure by pro-2nd Amendment states on anti-2nd Amendment states. Wielding power, and being creative, is more effective in bringing about change than court cases.

 

One thing that many antis are unaware of is that we already have many "civilians" that can can legally pack heat in all 50 states. LEOSA allows qualified retired LEO to carry across state lines, however they have to qualify and obtain an updated card EVERY YEAR. I think that an equivalent qualification course for the common folks included in the reciprocity bills would increase the chances of this becoming law. However, some states like Hawaii do not offer a qualification course for retired MOS (since they are not required to). Vermont residents would be SOL since the state has never had carry permits issued, but a non resident license (FL, NH, AZ) might cover it. 



#13 M_F

M_F

    Sharp Shooter!

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 420 posts
  • LocationLong Island

Posted October 12 2017 - 01:55 PM

Now, had you asked if there were any prior court cases, on the subject of treaties or similar items, regarding firearms and the Constitution, I might have made you happier, by referring you to the attached PDF, which is what will destroy any of the UN's attempts to force this country to abide by it's definition of firearms ownership abilities.

Gary

 

Don't forget all gun owners getting put in FEMA camps after the ratification of the UN small arms treaty  :popcorn



#14 Nordon

Nordon

    Gun Guru

  • Donated Member
  • 6533 posts
  • LocationEast Northport, not far from Brooklyn

Posted October 13 2017 - 04:36 AM

Nothing in the Sullivan Act regarding having an Italian last name ? Manage la miseria !





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: 2a, pistol permits

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users