Well Paladin, I thank you for attending and giving us your take on it. I think your observations were spot on. I do not think they addressed the questions from the attendees, but I am still glad they did ask. Thanks again.......
News from the Front: SCPD PLB Presentation
Greetings All,
Recently, I attended a meeting which included a presentation by Lieutenant Mike Komorowski, Commanding Officer of the SCPD Pistol Licensing Bureau in Yaphank. About 35 people were in attendance in different capacities for different reasons. Law enforcement, some civic leaders, first responders, and members of the public. A Q&A session followed with extremely interesting results. Given the setting and vibe, and especially because I was not there merely for myself, I summoned every ounce of restraint.
Fortunately, others in attendance were not so hindered and let the Lieutenant have it—hard. The questions (and comebacks to their answers) were along the lines of those I myself would have broached. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for him, especially given his attitude, but I still somehow pity the poor bastard. After all, he’s not the Commissioner who makes these stupid and illegal rules. But I’m sure he could be a better advocate. An attitude adjustment was certainly in order.
What follows is not meant to be a full set of minutes. Instead I picked out the most pressing stuff I could unobtrusively take note of or remember. If per chance some of you were there, feel free to weigh in on what I missed or got wrong.
--PLB has 15 applicant investigators, civilian and sworn, that do the same job and heavy lifting of the department.
--There are two “counter people” and three administrative employees.
--There are 139,000 registered guns on 45,129 active SCPD-issued pistol licenses. This does not include law enforcement officers who “carry on the badge.” According the Lieutenant, the Sheriffs have 7,000 pistol license. (I’ve heard from Sheriff personnel that number is actually about 5,000, but perhaps my number is out of date (September 2022).
--In the first quarter of 2023, 1,040 people applied for licenses and 843 were issued.
--370 licenses were cancelled from people passing away, moving away, etc.
--5,470 amendments (all types) were applied for from existing license holders.
--Every year, about 6,000 “questionnaires” (the fake application they use to skirt the 6 month time requirement of the NYS Penal Law) are submitted.
Since January 18, licensing amendments are at about 40 per day during the week. On Saturdays, (apparently they do it every other Saturday) it’s about 140 people per day.
The next few stats don’t make sense to me because he wasn’t very clear on the specific item or the timeline and like I said, I wasn’t in a position to ask clarifying questions. These are my raw notes ie the quotes are from my writing, not the Lieutenant’s, so maybe it will make sense to someone who understands the context and process better.
--“1810 carry concealed licenses since September.”
--“4800 have been requested. 3741 have been issued.”
--“961 carry concealed.”
I would have liked to have asked how many people have turned in training certificates to get “upgraded,” how many did so applying as first time license applications, and how many have been issued.
One gentleman asked how many instructors/entities were giving the training and the CO didn’t have an answer. I don’t blame him since they don’t register the instructors, but you would think he would have an idea of how many instructors have submitted their credentials/curriculum to administer the course.
Another asked why it takes them so long to issue the amended licenses for people who have taken the training, especially when the Sheriff does it right there on the spot. The Lieutenant said it was because it was the law that people have to be reinterviewed and get a new background check before getting a carry license. When the audience member asked again why did the Sheriff’s do it their way, the Lt responded “Well you are asking the wrong person. You should ask the sheriff that. We do it this way because we are following the law.” Implying the sheriff was not, which was really rude in my view, not to be mention wrong. So someone else asked “Then does everyone else do it that way, not just the sheriff?” Same answer.
New audience member: “Yes, the law requires an in person interview and background check prior to issuing the carry license. You already did that when the license was originally issued because initial sportsman license was licensed to “carry concealed.” Turning in the training certificate or adding a semi-auto rifle endorsement is like any other amendment like updating your address or adding a gun. SCPD is treating it like it’s a new license.”
Lieutenant: “The law says we have to.”
Audience: “No, it doesn’t.”
Lieutenant: “Okay.”
New Audience member: Why are you registering semi-auto rifles to the license instead of just adding a semi-auto rifle endorsement?”
Lieutenant: “For safety.”
Audience: “How is it for safety?”
Lt asks Sergeant Tommy Healey Community Support Unit. “I’ll let him answer that. If you were resonding to a domestic incident, wouldn’t you want to know what they had in the house?”
Sergeant “Yes, because blah blah blah”
Audience back and forth
Audience member who pointed out the background/interview stuff for carry licenses: “I would think that training would require officers to respond to any incident with caution. At least if know if it’s a pistol license holder’s house, you know it is someone who has passed a background check and is not a criminal. I don’t know about Suffolk County, but nationally, police officers are five times more likely to a crime than a pistol license holder. Statistically, the person inside the home would be less dangerous than the officer responding.”
Lieutenant: “Well in truth we would not now who was in the house.”
Audience member: “Then what’s the point of checking if they are a license holder or what semi-autos they have?”
No answer.
Audience member asks about validity out of state and taking pistols on vacation. Some back and forth ensues. Final answer by Lieutenant: “Anything you have in New York has to stay in New York.”
Another audience member asks if anyone is actually getting the “Dwelling/Formerly Sportsman” permit referenced in the new applications even though people getting new licenses right now are getting Sportsman.
Lieutenant said “the dwelling permit will be exactly the same as the current Sportsman.” They just can’t get the new licenses to say that because they haven’t gotten the new software yet. [Confirming my suspicious on a thread here from a few months ago.” With the dwelling license, a gun “can be carried concealed to and from the range, exactly like your sportsman. But we don’t recommend it.”
Why? Asked another audience member. “In case you are pulled over.” Officer safety nonsense reignited but didn’t go very far.
Some more back and forth until Lt says “Our handbook comes right out of the law.” Yeah okay.
Another audience member asked if he “WANTED to issue more licenses faster.” “Well we can’t because……”
Audience, “Yes, but would you WANT to?”
Lieutenant: “Oh yes. We would love it.” [to issue more licenses.]
Hope this helps add to our community knowledge guys!
Recently, I attended a meeting which included a presentation by Lieutenant Mike Komorowski, Commanding Officer of the SCPD Pistol Licensing Bureau in Yaphank. About 35 people were in attendance in different capacities for different reasons. Law enforcement, some civic leaders, first responders, and members of the public. A Q&A session followed with extremely interesting results. Given the setting and vibe, and especially because I was not there merely for myself, I summoned every ounce of restraint.
Fortunately, others in attendance were not so hindered and let the Lieutenant have it—hard. The questions (and comebacks to their answers) were along the lines of those I myself would have broached. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for him, especially given his attitude, but I still somehow pity the poor bastard. After all, he’s not the Commissioner who makes these stupid and illegal rules. But I’m sure he could be a better advocate. An attitude adjustment was certainly in order.
What follows is not meant to be a full set of minutes. Instead I picked out the most pressing stuff I could unobtrusively take note of or remember. If per chance some of you were there, feel free to weigh in on what I missed or got wrong.
--PLB has 15 applicant investigators, civilian and sworn, that do the same job and heavy lifting of the department.
--There are two “counter people” and three administrative employees.
--There are 139,000 registered guns on 45,129 active SCPD-issued pistol licenses. This does not include law enforcement officers who “carry on the badge.” According the Lieutenant, the Sheriffs have 7,000 pistol license. (I’ve heard from Sheriff personnel that number is actually about 5,000, but perhaps my number is out of date (September 2022).
--In the first quarter of 2023, 1,040 people applied for licenses and 843 were issued.
--370 licenses were cancelled from people passing away, moving away, etc.
--5,470 amendments (all types) were applied for from existing license holders.
--Every year, about 6,000 “questionnaires” (the fake application they use to skirt the 6 month time requirement of the NYS Penal Law) are submitted.
Since January 18, licensing amendments are at about 40 per day during the week. On Saturdays, (apparently they do it every other Saturday) it’s about 140 people per day.
The next few stats don’t make sense to me because he wasn’t very clear on the specific item or the timeline and like I said, I wasn’t in a position to ask clarifying questions. These are my raw notes ie the quotes are from my writing, not the Lieutenant’s, so maybe it will make sense to someone who understands the context and process better.
--“1810 carry concealed licenses since September.”
--“4800 have been requested. 3741 have been issued.”
--“961 carry concealed.”
I would have liked to have asked how many people have turned in training certificates to get “upgraded,” how many did so applying as first time license applications, and how many have been issued.
One gentleman asked how many instructors/entities were giving the training and the CO didn’t have an answer. I don’t blame him since they don’t register the instructors, but you would think he would have an idea of how many instructors have submitted their credentials/curriculum to administer the course.
Another asked why it takes them so long to issue the amended licenses for people who have taken the training, especially when the Sheriff does it right there on the spot. The Lieutenant said it was because it was the law that people have to be reinterviewed and get a new background check before getting a carry license. When the audience member asked again why did the Sheriff’s do it their way, the Lt responded “Well you are asking the wrong person. You should ask the sheriff that. We do it this way because we are following the law.” Implying the sheriff was not, which was really rude in my view, not to be mention wrong. So someone else asked “Then does everyone else do it that way, not just the sheriff?” Same answer.
New audience member: “Yes, the law requires an in person interview and background check prior to issuing the carry license. You already did that when the license was originally issued because initial sportsman license was licensed to “carry concealed.” Turning in the training certificate or adding a semi-auto rifle endorsement is like any other amendment like updating your address or adding a gun. SCPD is treating it like it’s a new license.”
Lieutenant: “The law says we have to.”
Audience: “No, it doesn’t.”
Lieutenant: “Okay.”
New Audience member: Why are you registering semi-auto rifles to the license instead of just adding a semi-auto rifle endorsement?”
Lieutenant: “For safety.”
Audience: “How is it for safety?”
Lt asks Sergeant Tommy Healey Community Support Unit. “I’ll let him answer that. If you were resonding to a domestic incident, wouldn’t you want to know what they had in the house?”
Sergeant “Yes, because blah blah blah”
Audience back and forth
Audience member who pointed out the background/interview stuff for carry licenses: “I would think that training would require officers to respond to any incident with caution. At least if know if it’s a pistol license holder’s house, you know it is someone who has passed a background check and is not a criminal. I don’t know about Suffolk County, but nationally, police officers are five times more likely to a crime than a pistol license holder. Statistically, the person inside the home would be less dangerous than the officer responding.”
Lieutenant: “Well in truth we would not now who was in the house.”
Audience member: “Then what’s the point of checking if they are a license holder or what semi-autos they have?”
No answer.
Audience member asks about validity out of state and taking pistols on vacation. Some back and forth ensues. Final answer by Lieutenant: “Anything you have in New York has to stay in New York.”
Another audience member asks if anyone is actually getting the “Dwelling/Formerly Sportsman” permit referenced in the new applications even though people getting new licenses right now are getting Sportsman.
Lieutenant said “the dwelling permit will be exactly the same as the current Sportsman.” They just can’t get the new licenses to say that because they haven’t gotten the new software yet. [Confirming my suspicious on a thread here from a few months ago.” With the dwelling license, a gun “can be carried concealed to and from the range, exactly like your sportsman. But we don’t recommend it.”
Why? Asked another audience member. “In case you are pulled over.” Officer safety nonsense reignited but didn’t go very far.
Some more back and forth until Lt says “Our handbook comes right out of the law.” Yeah okay.
Another audience member asked if he “WANTED to issue more licenses faster.” “Well we can’t because……”
Audience, “Yes, but would you WANT to?”
Lieutenant: “Oh yes. We would love it.” [to issue more licenses.]
Hope this helps add to our community knowledge guys!
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
I wish I had known. I could have been your bad guy. I would have laughed out loud, at the guns stay in NY bit.
A very good question to ask is about a Part Time Pistol Licensee, under New York Law SCPD must follow the law. People who live out of state with a valid NY Part Time Pistol License can’t remove a legally registered firearm out of New York State as per SCPD.I wish I had known. I could have been your bad guy. I would have laughed out loud, at the guns stay in NY bit.
I would’ve pounced on if you’re following NYS law, what’s your sorry stance on training for carry? . I might have used words like “hypocrisy “ and “selective enforcement” maybe throw in a dash of “artificially manufactured equine manure”.
Is there any validity to the statement by the Lieutenant about your firearms NOT to leave NY? Is this a State law, or a SCPD "Policy" Either way, that can't be legal, or Constitutional. Is this BS in ink somewhere 🤔I wish I had known. I could have been your bad guy. I would have laughed out loud, at the guns stay in NY bit.
I apologize for not clarifying this in my report. SCPD thinks they can tell people to keep their guns in New York State. It is or was in their handbook. You know, the one he says that "comes right of the law." It is an entirely made up rule of theirs like all the "rules" that a "Sportsman" licensee had to supposedly follow like making one stop for non-alcoholic beverages on the way to the range. At least that rule got a half-assed blessing by the Second Circuit 10 years ago.Is there any validity to the statement by the Lieutenant about your firearms NOT to leave NY? Is this a State law, or a SCPD "Policy" Either way, that can't be legal, or Constitutional. Is this BS in ink somewhere 🤔
But to answer your question about the guns not leaving the state, no they can't enforce that. Sure they can try taking away your license if they ever found out, but an Article 78 appeal in state Supreme Court in Riverhead could get it restored.
Thanks for shedding some light on the subject, and your lengthy report aboveI apologize for not clarifying this in my report. SCPD thinks they can tell people to keep their guns in New York State. It is or was in their handbook. You know, the one he says that "comes right of the law." It is an entirely made up rule of theirs like all the "rules" that a "Sportsman" licensee had to supposedly follow like making one stop for non-alcoholic beverages on the way to the range. At least that rule got a half-assed blessing by the Second Circuit 10 years ago.
But to answer your question about the guns not leaving the state, no they can't enforce that. Sure they can try taking away your license if they ever found out, but an Article 78 appeal in state Supreme Court in Riverhead could get it restored.
I believe Lieutenant Mike Komorowski's responses meet the below definition of gaslighting -
Gaslighting - A form of psychological abuse in which a person or group causes someone to question their own sanity, memories, or perception of reality. People who experience gaslighting may feel confused, anxious, or as though they cannot trust themselves.
Gaslighting - A form of psychological abuse in which a person or group causes someone to question their own sanity, memories, or perception of reality. People who experience gaslighting may feel confused, anxious, or as though they cannot trust themselves.
I don't know if this is just a Suffolk County thing but I was under the impression that you could transport legal (registered) firearms from State to State as long as they're unloaded and in a locked box depending on the State's laws? Am I misunderstanding something here?
He’s just pushing county imposed policies, not NYS law. … I know I do… but with my current permits I can CC out with the exception of nyc and nj. I actually don’t care what that prick with ears has to say. If everything is on the legit, who’s going to prosecute ? If he pulls my permit, over a slam dunk….. I will see him in court, and win a few for us.I don't know if this is just a Suffolk County thing but I was under the impression that you could transport legal (registered) firearms from State to State as long as they're unloaded and in a locked box depending on the State's laws? Am I misunderstanding something here?
You CAN. NYS Law (and their administrative bullshit) ends at the borders of NYS. They can threaten and bluster all they want, but it is all hot air. If they DID suspend/revoke your license for it, an Article 78 would get it back right away, as they can't defend their actionsI don't know if this is just a Suffolk County thing but I was under the impression that you could transport legal (registered) firearms from State to State as long as they're unloaded and in a locked box depending on the State's laws? Am I misunderstanding something here?
Thanks for going, and for the Cliff's Notes. I understand the frustration of not being able to take the shots when you have them, been there too many times. This jackass and many before him have always lied, cited non-existent "Officer safety" bs and much more when they are on the carpetI apologize for not clarifying this in my report. SCPD thinks they can tell people to keep their guns in New York State. It is or was in their handbook. You know, the one he says that "comes right of the law." It is an entirely made up rule of theirs like all the "rules" that a "Sportsman" licensee had to supposedly follow like making one stop for non-alcoholic beverages on the way to the range. At least that rule got a half-assed blessing by the Second Circuit 10 years ago.
But to answer your question about the guns not leaving the state, no they can't enforce that. Sure they can try taking away your license if they ever found out, but an Article 78 appeal in state Supreme Court in Riverhead could get it restored.
Thanks for the very thorough review of the meeting.
One thing I would have hoped would be pressed is the questionnaire prior to the actual application. It adds an additional burden on the applicant and the licensing division, delaying a process that is suppose to take a maximum of six months. There should be no requirement to pre-screen an applicant prior to them completing the state application.
One thing I would have hoped would be pressed is the questionnaire prior to the actual application. It adds an additional burden on the applicant and the licensing division, delaying a process that is suppose to take a maximum of six months. There should be no requirement to pre-screen an applicant prior to them completing the state application.
The State gives the Licensing Authority the ability to place restrictions and add additional requirements for a pistol license. Only a lawsuit will change this.Thanks for the very thorough review of the meeting.
One thing I would have hoped would be pressed is the questionnaire prior to the actual application. It adds an additional burden on the applicant and the licensing division, delaying a process that is suppose to take a maximum of six months. There should be no requirement to pre-screen an applicant prior to them completing the state application.
I understand this. The question is why the additional requirements? What is the rational reason for a questionnaire that in many respects duplicates the application?The State gives the Licensing Authority the ability to place restrictions and add additional requirements for a pistol license. Only a lawsuit will change this.
Because the don't want you to apply, and want to make it as difficult as possibleI understand this. The question is why the additional requirements? What is the rational reason for a questionnaire that in many respects duplicates the application?
Peconic:
Excellent job of summation. Thanks and, yes, SCPD is doing what the Dem controllers are telling it to do, regardless of the actual law, then claiming that what they do is in and required by the law or is for "officer safety," another non sequitur.
Gary
Excellent job of summation. Thanks and, yes, SCPD is doing what the Dem controllers are telling it to do, regardless of the actual law, then claiming that what they do is in and required by the law or is for "officer safety," another non sequitur.
Gary
Gary, the excuse I heard back from SCPD 20 years ago was for public safety. At the time the Suffolk County Sheriff was issuing full carry to the East End residents or businesses. That changed when Sheriff DeMarco was elected as Sheriff. It is clearly political and to have control.Peconic:
Excellent job of summation. Thanks and, yes, SCPD is doing what the Dem controllers are telling it to do, regardless of the actual law, then claiming that what they do is in and required by the law or is for "officer safety," another non sequitur.
Gary
And that's understood but I would have loved to have had them pressed to VERBALIZE that sentiment or challenged if they gave any other excuse for it.Because the don't want you to apply, and want to make it as difficult as possible
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Long Island Shooters Forum
A forum community dedicated to Long Island firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities
