NYPD DENIES FFL 01 BUSINESS LICENSES - NYS and NYC Discussions (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

NYPD DENIES FFL 01 BUSINESS LICENSES

license carry ffl 01 nypd

  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Cavalier Knight

Cavalier Knight

    Marksman

  • Established Member
  • 74 posts
  • LocationNew York NY

Posted October 31 2020 - 01:10 AM

I apologize for the long post.
01. Greetings I am an FFL 01 in the City of New York. The NYPD License Division is prohibiting FFL 01s from selling any firearms at "gun shows," "mail-order" or via "interstate (e)commerce" by denying FFL 01s the "Carry Business License" required to "handle and/or transport" inventory as well as the state "Firearms Dealers License" which is required to sell "handguns and/or ammunition."
02. Whereas, withholding these licenses prohibits “Federal Firearms Licensees 01” from selling firearms “intrastate and/or interstate” via “mail-order” and/or “e-commerce” or “intrastate” at “gun shows” in the entire state and Country. Prohibiting “Federal Firearms Licensees 01” in the City of New York from selling firearms "interstate" to “law-abiding” citizens outside of the State of New York via “mail order” or “(e)commerce” is a clear violation of the “(Dormant) Commerce Clause.”
03. Due to zoning laws, I cannot maintain inventory at my licensed “place of business.” This requires transporting inventory to and from “off-site” storage locations. Within the City of New York under Title 38 – § 4-03(k) and “inside” or “outside” of the City of New York under Title 27 – CFR § 478.50(a). I filed a "pro se" Article 78 to constitutionally challenge Title 38 - RCNY and NYC Administrative Code which are used by the NYPD License Division to prohibit these types of firearm sales by FFL 01s. The NYC Business Website states to receive a “Firearms Dealer's License.”

a. About: A “Firearms Dealer License” is “required” for all businesses that sell handguns and/or ammunition in the City of New York. See, cknight.pw/2QPGW6x.
b. Apply: Each applicant “must” have a “Class 1 Federal Firearms License (FFL).” See, cknight.pw/2CLgh7Q.
c. Operating & Renewing: (5) All employees handling inventory “must possess” licenses or permits issued by the License Division, such as a “Carry Business License” or a Premises Business License in order to handle inventory. See, cknight.pw/2NzaROh.

04. I will only reference the “Carry Business License” under Title 38 - RCNY § 5-01b as applicable. Because it is the only “Carry Business License” available that allows an “FFL 01” to lawfully travel “unrestricted” with firearms to “sporting arms events” i.e., “gun shows" and/or “off-site” firearms storage locations under, Title 27 - CFR § 478.50(a), § 478.100(a)(1), NYS PL §§§ 400.00(1)(n)-(2)(f)-8 and Title 38 - RCNY § 4-03(k).
05. The NYPD License Division also refuses to issue a state firearms dealers license to FFL 01s who don't possess a "brick & mortar" store. Although possession of a "brick & mortar" store is not a requirement of federal law or NYS PL § 400.00(1)(n) in the State of New York. 

(a) Once the Court determines that any law discriminates against “interstate commerce,” it must then determine whether the law “advances a legitimate local purpose that cannot be adequately served by reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives.” If it does, then the law is constitutional; if not, the law is void. Importantly, this test is a high hurdle to clear. It is so rarely overcome, in fact, that the Court frequently refers to it as a “virtually per se rule of invalidity.”

06. As such, I cited the decisions in Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460, 473 (2005), and Chwick v. Mulvey, 2010 NY Slip Op 09911. 

(1) The first paragraph of my Petition clearly states that I am “not challenging” NYS PL § 400.00-(2)(f).
(2) And the second paragraph of my Petition clearly states that "As a “Federal Firearms Licensee,” hereinafter “FFL 01,” Knight is only “constitutionally” challenging “Title 38 - Rules of the City of New York and/or NYC Administrative Code.”

07. However the closing paragraph of the judge's decision clearly states:

(a) "The bulk of Knight’s petition is devoted to his argument that the statutory framework for firearms licensing that the New York State Legislature promulgated in Penal Law § 400.00 is unconstitutional because it violates both the United States Constitution’s Second Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See verified petition, ¶¶ 63-326.

08. I never challenged” any parts of NYS PL § 400.00. In fact, my "Prayer for Relief" explicitly stated that "Title 38 - Rules of the City of New York and/or NYC Administrative Code" are in violation of NYS PL § 400.00. Why would I contradict my own argument?
09. Therefore how can a New York State Supreme Court judge dismiss my case by making "post hoc" decisions based upon challenges against NYS PL § 400.00 that I never made within the body of my Article 78 Petition? The Court simply dismissed my case for illusory reasons created by the Respondent(s) and the Court out of thin air. Because there is no way that "Title 38 - Rules of the City of New York and/or NYC Administrative Code" can supersede the 1st and 2nd Amendments, Equal Protection, Due Process, Privileges and Immunities, and the (Dormant) Commerce Clause. Also, inhibition of my ability to perform work constitutes an “injury in fact” which has Article III standing in a federal court of law. Interstate commerce violations alone require "strict scrutiny" review. The premise of my case is similar to NYSRPA v. The City of New York, No. 18-280 where they knew their provisions were unlawful only changing them when SCOTUS granted cert. However, my issue is a case of "first impression" which was judicially sabotaged.
10. So they unlawfully shifted my argument from constitutionally challenging "Title 38 - Rules of the City of New York and/or NYC Administrative Code" to constitutionally challenging NYS PL § 400.00 which is completely false. While completely ignoring and making no mention whatsoever of the Respondents numerous "documented false statements" and violations of federal and state law. On 10.29.2020 my Article 78 was egregiously dismissed at the state level. I have reached out to several attorneys regarding an appeal and/or filing in federal court. 
11. These were two conversations I had with Alan M. Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation via Facebook Messenger.

Conversation 01: 10.19.2018
Me: I hope all is well. I'm a Life Member. I have been reaching out to the SAF about some issues I'm having as an FFL 01 being unlawfully restricted from selling firearms in the State of New York. I never get a reply to any of my letters that I send to your organization. I know you're busy but hopefully I can get some feedback soon. Thank you.
AG SAF: Our legal team has been exploring the problem. It does not look like your approach will work to solve it. You are on our radar.
Me: Interesting ok thank you
Conversation 2: 10.29.2020
Me: Greetings I am an FFL 01 in NYC. The NYPD does not allow FFL 01s to sell firearms via e-commerce, mail-order, or at gun shows. A NYS Supreme Court judge just ignored my entire case disregarding the constitutional and commerce issues without even a mention of it. I need to appeal this case. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
AG SAF: Cavalier, unfortunately, your case will not succeed. Our legal advisory board has gone over it and does not want to be involved.
Me: ok, The NYPD is prohibiting all FFL 01s from engaging in interstate commerce in firearms and that's a non-issue? Ok, thanks for your timely response.
AG SAF: Not a winning issue in your circuit and SCOTUS needs to hear a more far-reaching case first.
Me: Thank you.
AG SAF: Welcome.
Me: One question I'm just confused as to how an interstate commerce prohibition is something a circuit can just choose to ignore like or dislike after Granholm v. Heald, Chwick v. Mulvey, etc
AG SAF: Because they can if they do not want you to win.
Me: Even if the Appellate Court has already decided another firearms case in my favor in Chwick v. Mulvey??
He stopped responding at that point.

12. My documents can be found at the links below.
(01) Article 78 - 151725/2020 case documents located at: My Dropbox - http://cknight.pw/article78
(02) Letter to Hon. Lindsey Graham - Chairman Senate Judiciary Committee: My Dropbox - http://cknight.pw/exhibits
(03) I understand that these are difficult times. It's not required but if you want to and can donate thank you for your kind consideration in this matter. 
(04) Link: GoFundMe


  • NYC_Under_Dictatorship likes this

# Advertisement

Advertisement

Posted A minute ago



#2 only7rounds2

only7rounds2

    Respected Gunowner

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 218 posts
  • LocationNew York

Posted October 31 2020 - 12:10 PM

You almost never ever win an Article 78 in New York, regardless of whether it is guns or anything else.

Must go to Federal Court, and they are probably right about the Circuit.

this is another case like the one where they changed the rules to avoid SCOTUS.

You can win this case, but it will cost you a ton of money.



#3 killian

killian

    Retired

  • Donated Member
  • 1895 posts
  • LocationEastern Suffolk

Posted October 31 2020 - 12:46 PM

City hall strikes again. I am amazed that there any FFLs in NYC. The city loves to violate the rights of the law abiding. It is unfortunate that no 2A lawyers or groups will take your case up. The city and state need to be sued.


  • Cavalier Knight and tomjoe like this

#4 pewpew2020

pewpew2020

    Respected Gunowner

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 100 posts
  • LocationSuffolk

Posted October 31 2020 - 10:00 PM

Yea.... thats a load of horse shit
  • Cavalier Knight likes this

#5 2edgesword

2edgesword

    Gun Guru

  • Topic Starter
  • Donated Member
  • 7243 posts

Posted October 31 2020 - 11:31 PM

Sorry to hear about what the powers that be have put you through.. Unfortunately I don't think NYC or NYS in general care very much about the Constitution when it comes to the issue of 2nd Amendment rights. They have made a laughingstock of the words "shall not infringe" and still behave as if Heller and McDonald never happened. I have zero confidence in the NYS court system to correct the issue.
  • killian likes this

#6 Cavalier Knight

Cavalier Knight

    Marksman

  • Established Member
  • 74 posts
  • LocationNew York NY

Posted October 31 2020 - 11:36 PM

Sorry to hear about what the powers that be have put you through.. Unfortunately I don't think NYC or NYS in general care very much about the Constitution when it comes to the issue of 2nd Amendment rights. They have made a laughingstock of the words "shall not infringe" and still behave as if Heller and McDonald never happened. I have zero confidence in the NYS court system to correct the issue.

 

Don't we have a court that's not in the NYS court system...stay tuned.


  • NRATC53 likes this

#7 2edgesword

2edgesword

    Gun Guru

  • Topic Starter
  • Donated Member
  • 7243 posts

Posted November 01 2020 - 01:04 PM

 

Sorry to hear about what the powers that be have put you through.. Unfortunately I don't think NYC or NYS in general care very much about the Constitution when it comes to the issue of 2nd Amendment rights. They have made a laughingstock of the words "shall not infringe" and still behave as if Heller and McDonald never happened. I have zero confidence in the NYS court system to correct the issue.

 

Don't we have a court that's not in the NYS court system...stay tuned.

 

 

We do but to get there, fighting through the lower courts, is going to cost a small fortune.



#8 Cavalier Knight

Cavalier Knight

    Marksman

  • Established Member
  • 74 posts
  • LocationNew York NY

Posted November 01 2020 - 01:34 PM

We do but to get there, fighting through the lower courts, is going to cost a small fortune.

 

My case isn't a complex RKBA case it's a hybrid "interstate commerce" case with Second Amendment principles.


  • 2edgesword likes this

#9 2edgesword

2edgesword

    Gun Guru

  • Topic Starter
  • Donated Member
  • 7243 posts

Posted November 01 2020 - 03:37 PM

My case isn't a complex RKBA case it's a hybrid "interstate commerce" case with Second Amendment principles.


True but it involves the interstate commerce of "evil" firearms.

#10 Cavalier Knight

Cavalier Knight

    Marksman

  • Topic Starter
  • Established Member
  • 74 posts
  • LocationNew York NY

Posted November 01 2020 - 03:42 PM

True but no fed court is going to say an FFL 01 can't lawfully sell firearms in interstate commerce. It wasn't even said in my Article 78 case.

#11 Cavalier Knight

Cavalier Knight

    Marksman

  • Established Member
  • 74 posts
  • LocationNew York NY

Posted November 03 2020 - 01:40 PM

FYI: A document submitted by the U.S. Solicitor General in the NYSRPA v. The City of New York.

Attached Files







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: license, carry, ffl 01, nypd

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users