[Leadwipe]

It appears that NYC has decided it will take years for them to implement new CCW rules if SCOTUS rules in favor of the NYSRPA.

Exclusive: Sources say if Supreme Court overturns New York gun carry law, new rules could take years to implement (msn.com)

The City has stated that just because someone has a Premise License, doesn't mean that it will automatically become a Full Carry if SCOTUS rules that "proper cause" is unconstitutional.

I hate to be a cynic and maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that they will drag out issuing Full Carry licenses as long as they can until such a time comes, that SCOTUS swings left and a future court overturns NYSRPA vs. Bruen. It will take years to get a Full Carry, but minutes to lose that Full Carry if a future, more liberal SCOTUS revisits the issue and overturns this Case.

 

[2edgesword]

It appears that NYC has decided it will take years for them to implement new CCW rules if SCOTUS rules in favor of the NYSRPA.

Exclusive: Sources say if Supreme Court overturns New York gun carry law, new rules could take years to implement (msn.com)

The City has stated that just because someone has a Premise License, doesn't mean that it will automatically become a Full Carry if SCOTUS rules that "proper cause" is unconstitutional.

I hate to be a cynic and maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that they will drag out issuing Full Carry licenses as long as they can until such a time comes, that SCOTUS swings left and a future court overturns NYSRPA vs. Bruen. It will take years to get a Full Carry, but minutes to lose that Full Carry if a future, more liberal SCOTUS revisits the issue and overturns this Case.

It will take one civil rights lawsuit to help them along. Imagine NY saying regardless of a SC decision saying separate but equal is unconstitutional it's going to take years to integrate schools and businesses. How would that fly? NY doesn't have to implement anything if proper cause is abolished. There is nothing to implement. You have a license for which proper cause for self-defense isn't required.

 

[Lamont]

Well we can't camp outside 1PP and wait until SCOTUS releases the opinion (Gut 'em Thomas Kavanaugh Barrett Gorsuch Alito...and Roberts if y'all can twist his ears hard enough). We HAVE to work, nevermind the city calling us a bunch of super spreaders. But When the decision comes down in our favor, all NYC Premise license holders apply en-masse for full carry...and let them drag their ass so we'd get them on civil rights violations.

I can see the city saying "oh no no no, you have to let your premise license lapse before you can apply for full carry and you can't go to the range until your new license comes in the mail yadda yadda ha ha".

If 1PP can amend a new handgun to their license, then there's nothing stopping them from amending full carry but their own hubris.

 

[mason852]

Does anyone here think Nassau and Suffolk will
not try to throw up roadblocks to CC if the Supremes vote in favor of the 2nd.
These politicians will not give up power easily

 

[boosti]

The Supreme Court ruling should be coming out by the end of June. If the SCOTUS rules “Proper Cause” unconstitutional. The two types of pistol license are Carry and Premises in New York.
I am sure, each license holder with a restricted license will need to have it amended to remove the restrictions. New York City will be inundated with thousands of current NY pistol license holders to have their license valid to carry in the city.
I don’t expect the NYC Mayor or liberal run counties to implement an online process to help speed anything.

 

[RSL]

Being completely selfish- I just wonder what will Nassau do.
-will they simply allow a current target/hunting permit holder to ask that restrictions be removed and then issue a new permit?

-I can’t imagine they will simply issue a CCW unless the applicant asks for it.

-If we are required to re apply and folks who want to purchase a rifle will now also have to apply for a permit the backlog will be years.

 

[Jimbo 695]

The linked articles bring up the related issue of “sensitive places” and suggest that a long list will be the fallback position that some public officials wil take as a way of dramatically limiting the impact of the expected ruling in Bruen. What seems to get overlooked, however, is the holdings of SCOTUS in both Heller and McDonald that the core right of the Second Amendment is “self defense”. How broad that right will be awaits the ruling. But for a state or municipality to concede that one has the right to carry but prohibits it in mass transit or a public place where more than six people are expected to gather (which one recent New York bill proposed to do), places where it is most likely the right will need to be exercised, the prohibition flies in the face of the SCOTUS ruling.

We also are likely to see dozens of lawsuits to compel local officials to issue permits on a more expeditious basis, since courts frown on bureaucratic delays that frustrate the exercise of a constitutional right. Expect, however, an increase in local taxes should the courts agree. The government will argue that if now bears the burden of proof that an applicant is unfit then before it “must” or “shall” issue a permit it has to do a thorough background check. More work being done faster means more personnel and resources and that means higher cost to the taxpayers.

 

[RSL]

Interesting that currently Nassau and Suffolk do quite a comprehensive background check today. What else could they possibly do.

As a first step they should issue the CCWs in Nassau and Suffolk and we can watch the ensuing sensitive places litigation.

 

[2edgesword]

If SCOTUS declares proper cause is not required how can restrictions based in a requirement to demonstrate proper cause be enforceable? Proper cause is the foundation on which the restrictions are based. If that is taken away what is the basis for the restrictions? Again, there is nothing to implement other than making determinations about what constitutes a sensitive place beyond places that are already considered sensitive places.

So you're walking down a random street and for some unknown reason you're stopped by LE. Somehow they determine you are a license holder with a license that has "sportsman" written on it. That classification has been rendered invalid by this SC decision. That license according to PL 400 is an f class, concealed carry license regardless of what Suffolk County decided to print on it. Can the county suspended the license? Sure they can but upholding that suspension based on carrying out of classification becomes a whole different ballgame if proper cause is deemed invalid by this SCOTUS decision.

I'm not a lawyer and I know rational think doesn't always go hand in hand with pistol licensing in NY. But in my rational mind the current restrictions become invalidated if proper cause no longer exist.

 

[Jimbo 695]

If SCOTUS declares proper cause is not required how can restrictions based in a requirement to demonstrate proper cause be enforceable? Proper cause is the foundation on which the restrictions are based. If that is taken away what is the basis for the restrictions? Again, there is nothing to implement other than making determinations about what constitutes a sensitive place beyond places that are already considered sensitive places.

So you're walking down a random street and for some unknown reason you're stopped by LE. Somehow they determine you are a license holder with a license that has "sportsman" written on it. That classification has been rendered invalid by this SC decision. That license according to PL 400 is an f class, concealed carry license regardless of what Suffolk County decided to print on it. Can the county suspended the license? Sure they can but upholding that suspension based on carrying out of classification becomes a whole different ballgame if proper cause is deemed invalid by this SCOTUS decision.

I'm not a lawyer and I know rational think doesn't always go hand in hand with pistol licensing in NY. But in my rational mind the current restrictions become invalidated if proper cause no longer exist.

Folks we need to put aside all the wishful thinking and start focusing on the facts. As several posters pointed out the Bruen case has nothing to do with the size of magazines. It also will not invalidate in principle or as applied any existing permit or licensing schemes. What most experts on both sides expect is a ruling that having the applicant show “proper cause” is unconstitutional. That’s it. In New York such a ruling will mean that the government still can require an application for a carry permit but it will be the government’s burden to show why the applicant should be denied. But keep in mind that “proper cause” was never a requirement for a premises permit (read NY Penal Law 400’s descriptions of the different types of handgun permits and the eligibility requirements for carry permits). So . . . .how the expected ruling in Bruen possibly could mean that the permit classifications become meaningless and every premises permit becomes a carry permit is beyond me.

 

[2edgesword]

Folks we need to put aside all the wishful thinking and start focusing on the facts. As several posters pointed out the Bruen case has nothing to do with the size of magazines. It also will not invalidate in principle or as applied any existing permit or licensing schemes. What most experts on both sides expect is a ruling that having the applicant show “proper cause” is unconstitutional. That’s it. In New York such a ruling will mean that the government still can require an application for a carry permit but it will be the government’s burden to show why the applicant should be denied. But keep in mind that “proper cause” was never a requirement for a premises permit (read NY Penal Law 400’s descriptions of the different types of handgun permits and the eligibility requirements for carry permits). So . . . .how the expected ruling in Bruen possibly could mean that the permit classifications become meaningless and every premises permit becomes a carry permit is beyond me.

I disagree.

Proper cause means you have to state a reason for requesting the license. Premise is just another proper cause as is target, hunting, employment and self-defence. A decision that days proper cause is unconstitutional doesn't only apply to self-defense but to any need to show cause. The licensing agent may be more lenient in approving a license for hunting or target shooting but it remains a showing of proper cause to get the license.

 

[RSL]

How about this.

Remember that in Nassau you could not even apply for a full carry so I could see the licensing agency stating that you currently hold a Hunting/Target permit; if you want a full carry you must apply for one or request that the administrative restrictions be removed.

If the proper cause requirement is removed NY becomes a shall issue state but the State/County will be able to make you apply for a CCW and could also require a safety course.

I can’t imagine how long the wait will be if you have applications for removal of restrictions- new applications and permits for purchases of semi- automatic rifles.

 

[Leadwipe]

It will take one civil rights lawsuit to help them along. Imagine NY saying regardless of a SC decision saying separate but equal is unconstitutional it's going to take years to integrate schools and businesses. How would that fly? NY doesn't have to implement anything if proper cause is abolished. There is nothing to implement. You have a license for which proper cause for self-defense isn't required.

Outside of NYC, generally yes. But most civilian pistol licenses in NYC are Premise Licenses, so they wouldn't automatically become Full Carry. The old NYC Target License was a restricted carry (in a locked box to and from the range), but America's Mayor Rudy Giuliani, ended that.

 

[Leadwipe]

Folks we need to put aside all the wishful thinking and start focusing on the facts. As several posters pointed out the Bruen case has nothing to do with the size of magazines. It also will not invalidate in principle or as applied any existing permit or licensing schemes. What most experts on both sides expect is a ruling that having the applicant show “proper cause” is unconstitutional. That’s it. In New York such a ruling will mean that the government still can require an application for a carry permit but it will be the government’s burden to show why the applicant should be denied. But keep in mind that “proper cause” was never a requirement for a premises permit (read NY Penal Law 400’s descriptions of the different types of handgun permits and the eligibility requirements for carry permits). So . . . .how the expected ruling in Bruen possibly could mean that the permit classifications become meaningless and every premises permit becomes a carry permit is beyond me.

I agree Jimbo. If you applied for a Premise License, that's what you applied for and will most likely remain a Premise License. Most civilian NYC Pistol Licenses are Premise Licenses. People will have to reapply, for a fee of course, for a Carry License. It will take years for them to issue them, especially if they are not in a rush to do so. The old NYC Target License was in a sense, a restricted carry but America's Mayor Giuliani did away with that. I thought he was a good mayor, but he was no friend of law-abiding gunowners in New York City.

 

[RSL]

Mayor Adams knows exactly what he is saying and is using fear spreading to gather anti 2A votes and to secure the democratic liberal votes. He has a team of lawyers and the NYPD legal team is comprised of officers who are also attorneys who understand exactly what the Bruen case is about.

Secondly, the issuance of a CCW should be separate and apart from the sensitive places discussion. What I mean is, for example, Nassau could issue CCWs and the State or City can enact laws identifying “sensitive places” and these laws will be subject to their own litigation.

The Nassau and Suffolk process to remove administrative restrictions could be very simple or very complicated and it all depends on the County Executive and the licensing authority. I hope that the licensing authority ceases to view itself as “responsible” for the potential misconduct of a CCW holder. Once proper cause is removed the licensing authority coulld make the request to remove restrictions a very simple process. Nassau and Suffolk perform an incredible amount of diligence including state wide mental health checks and I do not know what additional diligence they would need to perform.

Lastly, I could see a requirement for a basic safety course- this will likely reduce the number of applicants who will qualify for a CCW and reduce the initial volume.

 

[Ancap]

Interesting that currently Nassau and Suffolk do quite a comprehensive background check today. What else could they possibly do.

actually they don’t. I sell the investigative software to them. It’s no different then the ones I sell attorneys and private investigators. Plus it takes less then a minute to get a full report.

 

[2edgesword]

I agree Jimbo. If you applied for a Premise License, that's what you applied for and will most likely remain a Premise License. Most civilian NYC Pistol Licenses are Premise Licenses. People will have to reapply, for a fee of course, for a Carry License. It will take years for them to issue them, especially if they are not in a rush to do so. The old NYC Target License was in a sense, a restricted carry but America's Mayor Giuliani did away with that. I thought he was a good mayor, but he was no friend of law-abiding gunowners in New York City.

Again, I disagree. You were FORCED to apply for a premises or sportsman or hunting or employment as a condition of proper cause. Without proper cause you don't have to reference any reason (proper cause) for applying for a license.

I think folks don't understand that while this particular case questioned proper cause with respect to self-protection ALL of the other causes were related to proper cause. If SCOTUS says proper cause is not required then none of the other proper cause conditions are valid. This isn't just about self-protection.

 

[RSL]

Paul

Great point I did not look at it from your point of view. I am sure our respective licensing authorities will miss it.

 

[Leadwipe]

Again, I disagree. You were FORCED to apply for a premises or sportsman or hunting or employment as a condition of proper cause. Without proper cause you don't have to reference any reason (proper cause) for applying for a license.

I think folks don't understand that while this particular case questioned proper cause with respect to self-protection ALL of the other causes were related to proper cause. If SCOTUS says proper cause is not required then none of the other proper cause conditions are valid. This isn't just about self-protection.

I see where you're coming from. "Proper Cause" required a person to literally state a reason for wanting a license. The reason stated for some being "to protect their premises", hence the "Premise License" but if not forced to state a reason or "cause", the person would simply have a CCW.

The only thing I find conflicting with this statement is that the NYSRPA case is pertaining to the "Proper Cause" to carry a gun, not simply obtain a license to possess a pistol. Heller already settled that a person has a Constitutional right to possess a handgun in the home...yet there has not been a challenge to the Pistol License requirement in NY simply to possess a gun in the home. Challenge meaning, nothing high profile that received any traction in the media that I know of. Maybe because a Premise License is "shall issue" and not "may issue" like a Carry license?

EDIT: I stand corrected on my statement about Premise License litigation. I just watched the "Armed Scholar" video about exactly a case of NYC denying an applicant over a Premise License. Go figure.

 

[2edgesword]

I see where you're coming from. "Proper Cause" required a person to literally state a reason for wanting a license. The reason stated for some being "to protect their premises", hence the "Premise License" but if not forced to state a reason or "cause", the person would simply have a CCW.

The only thing I find conflicting with this statement is that the NYSRPA case is pertaining to the "Proper Cause" to carry a gun, not simply obtain a license to possess a pistol. Heller already settled that a person has a Constitutional right to possess a handgun in the home...yet there has not been a challenge to the Pistol License requirement in NY simply to possess a gun in the home. Challenge meaning, nothing high profile that received any traction in the media that I know of. Maybe because a Premise License is "shall issue" and not "may issue" like a Carry license?

EDIT: I stand corrected on my statement about Premise License litigation. I just watched the "Armed Scholar" video about exactly a case of NYC denying an applicant over a Premise License. Go figure.

Heller didn't limit the right to possession in the home. It used in the home as one example of possession. That statement of example gets used by those opposed to 2nd Amendment rights to erroneously claim it is a limiting factor. The idea that keeping and bearing arms is limited to the home not only doesn't hold up to rational thinking but historical practice.

The only Constitutional justification for a license is to insure an individual wanting b to purchase a firearm is not a prohibited person. The idea that you can be trusted to possess a firearm on the promise that you will keep it in the home or only leave the house to go to the range or hunting with it has always seemed a bit bizarre to me. Either you have the right to keep and bear arms or you don't.

My main point is proper cause in NYS is not just a factor in applying for a license for personal protection but includes premises, sportsman and employment.