Long Island Shooters Forum banner

News from the Front: SCPD PLB Presentation

1649 Views 31 Replies 14 Participants Last post by  Peconic Paladin
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 (I’ve heard from Sheriff personnel that number is actually about 5,000, but perhaps my number is out of date (September 2022).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!
See less See more
  • Like
  • Helpful
Reactions: 5
21 - 32 of 32 Posts
peconic thanks for taking your time out to go and inform us much appreciated!
  • Like
Reactions: 1
I believe all this "resistance" is policy coming from the higher-ups, any LEO I've spoken to has said they know we are not the problem and they have no intention of denying us our legal Second Amendment rights. Of course you could always come across that "one"...
  • Like
Reactions: 2
peconic thanks for taking your time out to go and inform us much appreciated!

No prob! You are most welcome.
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.
20 Years ago, under Sheriff Al Tisch, Sportsman was the default license issued. You could also get the next most popular Sportsman/Business (which was like a full carry as long as you were doing something related to your business) as long as you owned some kind of business and had a bank letter; Sportsman/Employment which was almost like that, but for a business you didn't own; and Retired Police Officer or Retired Peace Officer which was unrestricted. Retired PD was good in the City. There was another license called "Full Carry" which was held by comparatively very few people. They typically worked in the DAs office, were "connected" in some way, or had serious documented threats against them.

DeMarco, who came into office January 1, 2006, continued this regime and was particularly generous with the Sportsman/Business licenses. He then implemented a means for regular mortals to get a "Full Carry" if they had their license for at least five years with no problems and they asked for it specifically. Under Toulon, who came into office in January 2017 and did not change the licensing staff, such requests were still accepted by the Sheriff's PLB, but paused their issuance. He resumed it but required people to take course run by a DCJS instructor that covered the state laws on "Use of Force."
See less See more
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.
So much for DeMarco being “pro 2A” and opposing the safe act. I give credit to Sheriff Toulon for issuing full carry on the spot once a training certificate is issued to an existing license holder(as opposed to the ridiculous SCPD PLB months long investigation).
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.
I did so at a gathering at Touro College quite a few years ago. The Chief at the time (ex NYPD) actually said (with a thick Irish accent): "We want to make it hard for them to get the guns". When I pressed him for WHY, and wasn't that against the law and the whole reason for the division, the meeting came to a swift end
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2
Would love to see the crime stats on offenses committed by legal licensed handgun owners in New York State. Or is it as in the words of our beloved Botox soaked governor when she was asked about the imperceptible statistic..."I don't care we have to keep NY safe".
  • Like
Reactions: 1
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?
[/QUOTE
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.
Under the firearms owners protection act of 1986, you are permitted by federal law to transport a firearm unloaded and lock out of reach, along with the ammo stored separately. You must be able to legally posses it where you started and in your final destination. In addition, in this law 18 USC 926 forbids Federal, state and local agencies from maintaining firearms registration numbers. The safe act and parts of the CCIA are in direct violation of this law. I am waiting for the lawsuit to challenge that one. This law also gives retired law enforcement the right to carry in all fifty states 218(LEOSA). You should all read it, its quite enlightening.
Would love to see the crime stats on offenses committed by legal licensed handgun owners in New York State.
I swear that guy in Medford that robbed the pharmacy a while back is the only pistol license holder to ever shoot someone unlawfully.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
He had a prior domestic abuse charge, but pistol license never pulled his permit.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
I swear that guy in Medford that robbed the pharmacy a while back is the only pistol license holder to ever shoot someone unlawfully.
and that case (Laffer?) was the one directly quoted by Sini when we were meeting with him
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2
and that case (Laffer?) was the one directly quoted by Sini when we were meeting with him
What a dingus...
  • Like
Reactions: 1
21 - 32 of 32 Posts
Top