[Leadwipe]

What was the original criteria for consealed carry?

"Original" like "in the beginning" in New York? If that is what you mean, then the first real NY laws restricting concealed carry began in the 1880s...the law required that any town, village or city if they chose, could require a license to carry a pistol. It was written for New York City...but the license was issued by any Magistrate for I think $1-$3 to anyone who asked, and the fees contributed to the Policemen's Pension. There was no "proper cause" or "good moral character". You wanted to carry a pistol, you saved up the fee and applied for the license. Again, it only applied where the village or city chose to implement this license. As far as I know, it was generally only in NYC. This was changed in 1911, with the Sullivan Law.

The Sullivan Law was different. It was mandatory statewide. It required a license just to possess a pistol. If you wanted to carry concealed, you required a reason acceptable to a licensing official whether you need it or not. You needed references for "good moral character" and at first, the license was "good throughout the state", inc. NYC. At first any Judge or Justice of the Peace anywhere in the State could issue a license and many did, for consulting fees of course, and the licenses were good even in NYC. Many of our most civic minded citizens belonging to esteemed charitable groups such as the Five Points Gang, the Monk Eastman Gang and later Jewish and Italian mobsters, all took advantage of the ability to obtain licenses from Judges anywhere in the State. This changed in 1934, when the law was revised that a license to carry in NYC, had to be issued by the Commissioner of the NYPD.

I'm almost positive that 1934 (I'm not certain) was also the year that you were required to apply in your county of residence, and that was when restrictions became common going forward, because it empowered local officials...you could no longer thumb your nose at some obstinate local licensing official who would not issue a license, and just simply go find another Judge anywhere in the State.

It's in a lot of ways better today. If you read some of the court cases going back to even WWII, you'll find people who were denied a license even just for target shooting and losing in Court. Today, you'll generally not be denied a license to carry while target shooting.

 

[ViperJon]

The state's attempt, to circumvent the Bruen decision, via passage of CCIA, will fall on its face, on 8/26, when the injunction is issued. An injunction prevents CCIA from becoming effective. While CCIA is ineffective, the Bruen decision stands, as the sole law of the land. While the federal court hears NYS' arguments, to support the CCIA, it's not in effect, because of the injunction.

Gary

Gary - I am curious why you are convinced an injunction will be issued? Is that considered a done deal and if so how?

 

[Gary_Hungerford]

My expectation is based on the judge's language and attitude, when he ordered the state to show cause why the injunction should not be issued and would not give them the extension of time the state wanted, to respond. The state wanted enough time to respond, so that GOA would not have sufficient time to counter and the judge made it very clear that was not acceptable. When an injunction is requested, in a legal action, the burden is upon the defendent to establish why it should not be granted, which, in this case, since CCIA so extrordinarily contradicts Bruen, it going to be impossible for the state to make a viable argument.
Gary

 

[JAMerolle]

My expectation is based on the judge's language and attitude, when he ordered the state to show cause why the injunction should not be issued and would not give them the extension of time the state wanted, to respond. The state wanted enough time to respond, so that GOA would not have sufficient time to counter and the judge made it very clear that was not acceptable. When an injunction is requested, in a legal action, the burden is upon the defendent to establish why it should not be granted, which, in this case, since CCIA so extrordinarily contradicts Bruen, it going to be impossible for the state to make a viable argument.
Gary

Gary, you have mentioned, if the injuntion is granted by the judge , the Bruen case by default will become the law of the land.

Assuming the injunction manifests late August, are we waiting for a written statement from SCPD or can we just assume full carry at that point?

 

[2edgesword]

Gary, you have mentioned, if the injuntion is granted by the judge , the Bruen case by default will become the law of the land.

Assuming the injunction manifests late August, are we waiting for a written statement from SCPD or can we just assume full carry at that point?

PL400 minus the restrictions is in force today. It would be nice if the county made a formal announcement of that fact but for whatever reasons they have not. If the injunction is granted that situation remains the same, PL400 remains in force minus the license restrictions which are unconstitutional. Again, it would be nice to get a formal announcement from Suffolk County but not really necessary since the Supreme Court has spoken.

 

[spb1122]

PSA fair warning: The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of SCPD PLB or NY State.

 

[Gary_Hungerford]

Gary, you have mentioned, if the injuntion is granted by the judge , the Bruen case by default will become the law of the land.

Assuming the injunction manifests late August, are we waiting for a written statement from SCPD or can we just assume full carry at that point?

Joe:
Paul's response is spot on. There are no legal restrictions.
Gary

 

[JAMerolle]

PL400 minus the restrictions is in force today. It would be nice if the county made a formal announcement of that fact but for whatever reasons they have not. If the injunction is granted that situation remains the same, PL400 remains in force minus the license restrictions which are unconstitutional. Again, it would be nice to get a formal announcement from Suffolk County but not really necessary since the Supreme Court has spoken.

Thank you, Paul, Ok, here is a better question, at what time after the injunction do I not need to be concerned about hiring a lawyer to prove we are not bound by restrictions? SCPD was very convincing during the amendment $ 5 exchange that nothing has changed and restrictions are still enforced.

 

[Gary_Hungerford]

Thank you, Paul, Ok, here is a better question, at what time after the injunction do I not need to be concerned about hiring a lawyer to prove we are not bound by restrictions? SCPD was very convincing during the amendment $ 5 exchange that nothing has changed and restrictions are still enforced.

Joe:
If SCPD or anyone else attempts to enforce the illegal restrictions, they can be sued, for intentional violation of your Constitutional rights, which law suit you are guaranteed to win, since they would be intentionally violating the Bruen decision and they know that. Consequently, they will not attempt it, no matter what they tell you, on the phone. The restrictions do not exist, now and as of the date of the Bruen decision being announced.
The CCIA does not, in any way contradict the absence of the administrative restrictions. There's nothing, in the CCIA, which contradicts the absence of the license's administrative restrictions. What CCIA is attempting to do is limit where you can carry, by making the whole state a "sensitive" area. There isn't one word, in the CCIA, alleging that you do not have an unrestricted license, just where they claim you can use it.
Gary

 

[spb1122]

PSA fair warning: The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of SCPD PLB or NY State.
P.S. : Anyone who presents their opinions and interpretations as if they are hard facts is being irresponsible. Everyone has opinions, but those opinions should be identified as such, as to not put others at undue risk.
Anyone who takes legal advice solely from any member of any forum is being foolish.

Of course, this is my opinion .

 

[ViperJon]

Gary - Is the proposed "law" about buying ammo from out of state now requiring a background check also part of the CCIA? Already got a notice from a dealer that as of 9/1 they can't ship to NY anymore except to an FFL. Would that also be halted with the injunction?

 

[2edgesword]

PSA fair warning: The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of SCPD PLB or NY State.
P.S. : Anyone who presents their opinions and interpretations as if they are hard facts is being irresponsible. Everyone has opinions, but those opinions should be identified as such, as to not put others at undue risk.
Anyone who takes legal advice solely from any member of any forum is being foolish.

Of course, this is my opinion .

What is a "hard fact" in the legal sense? Lawyers render opinions. Those opinions are frequently overturned. Courts render opinions. Those opinions are frequently overturned. We are now in a situation where the Supreme Court has rendered an opinion and that opinion is being ignored. So whose hard facts are you going to rely on.

The hard facts are as Gary stated. The Supreme Court rendered the restrictions unconstitutional. Does that mean we are guaranteed an officer on the street is going to follow that ruling?

At some point you have to use your brain and decide what is the right course of action on your part based on your understanding of the facts as you see them.

 

[JAMerolle]

PSA fair warning: The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of SCPD PLB or NY State.
P.S. : Anyone who presents their opinions and interpretations as if they are hard facts is being irresponsible. Everyone has opinions, but those opinions should be identified as such, as to not put others at undue risk.
Anyone who takes legal advice solely from any member of any forum is being foolish.

Of course, this is my opinion .

If there is a policy or position written here that contradicts SCPD, it is on the SCPD to clarify a concrete position, not us. It would be nice if there was professional courage rendered to the law-abiding citizens of Suffolk County not to enforce unconstitutional defiance of the SCOTUS. There are law abiding members here that put their life on the line defending the constatution for it not to be trampled on and blatently defied. We are not second class citizens for this nonsense to continue and reanforced by SCPD. Enough is enough.

 

[boosti]

Gary, you have mentioned, if the injuntion is granted by the judge , the Bruen case by default will become the law of the land.

Assuming the injunction manifests late August, are we waiting for a written statement from SCPD or can we just assume full carry at that point?

As of now, you are required to submit an amendment for unrestricted with SCPD. It’s anticipated the injunction will happen. It’s up to the Counties to issue to existing licensees an amendment for unrestricted carry. It’s expected New York will appeal this and drag it out.

 

[2edgesword]

As of now, you are required to submit an amendment for unrestricted with SCPD. It’s anticipated the injunction will happen. It’s up to the Counties to issue to existing licensees an amendment for unrestricted carry. It’s expected New York will appeal this and drag it out.

I haven't received any official notification from SCPD to do anything. The fact that some members have submitted a request for amendment is not official notification AND those that have submitted a request for amendment haven't been told their request for an amended license would result in getting an amended license.

 

[2edgesword]

If there is a policy or position written here that contradicts SCPD, it is on the SCPD to clarify a concrete position, not us. It would be nice if there was professional courage rendered to the law-abiding citizens of Suffolk County not to enforce unconstitutional defiance of the SCOTUS. There are law abiding members here that put their life on the line defending the constatution for it not to be trampled on and blatently defied. We are not second class citizens for this nonsense to continue and reanforced by SCPD. Enough is enough.

So far the only think I've heard is that Suffolk County is looking for guidance from the State. It may be that the State is waiting to find out what happens with the injunction. If the injunction is granted Suffolk County is going to play the waiting for guidance from the State game and the State will be saying they are waiting for the outcome of the trial. And the circus goes on.

In my mind what is clear to me is the county applied restrictions are no longer valid. The highest court in the land has said so. How the county and state plan to correct their process to comply with what is now the law of the land is their issue to resolve. In the meantime if they enforce the restrictions they will be breaking the law, they will be sued and twill very likely (IMHO) lose that lawsuit.

 

[JAMerolle]

So far the only think I've heard is that Suffolk County is looking for guidance from the State. It may be that the State is waiting to find out what happens with the injunction. If the injunction is granted Suffolk County is going to play the waiting for guidance from the State game and the State will be saying they are waiting for the outcome of the trial. And the circus goes on.

In my mind what is clear to me is the county-applied restrictions are no longer valid. The highest court in the land has said so. How the county and state plan to correct their process to comply with what is now the law of the land is their issue to resolve. In the meantime if they enforce the restrictions they will be breaking the law, they will be sued and twill very likely (IMHO) lose that lawsuit.

Paul, this is great but who has $ 15, 000 for legal retaining fees to assert restrictions are no longer valid? We pay taxes for law enforcement to uphold the constitution and respect our civil rights. Hochue is not above the constituion. There needs to be a statement of compliance with the SCOTUS. It's been done in other counties in N.Y. and across U.S. it can be done here and now.

 

[2edgesword]

Paul, this is great but who has $ 15, 000 for legal retaining fees to assert restrictions are no longer valid? We pay taxes for law enforcement to uphold the constitution and respect our civil rights. Hochue is not above the constituion. There needs to be a statement of compliance with the SCOTUS. It's been done in other counties in N.Y. and across U.S. it can be done here and now.

These are two related but separate issues.

The question being addressed is what is the official position of the State and SCPD. No official notification has come forth as far as I know. The fact that the county is taking someone's money and having them fill out an amendment form means nothing.

Beyond that you can look at the $15,000 as a long term speculative investment. You sue for a civil rights violation and you might get awarded millions.

On the serious side I'd be shock if any LEO would look to have a license suspended or make an arrest given the very public nature of what is happening in NYS with respect to licensing. The restrictions are unconstitutional. There is no arguing that fact. The question now is will anyone in the state try to enforce them. The fact that no one has come forward to say anything about the issue tells me no one is going to put their rear end on the line to get sued for trying to enforce them.

 

[ViperJon]

Concealed means concealed. I'm certainly not looking to be the beta tester for the new world order here.

 

[Leadwipe]

Have any of the other Counties in the State that restricted licenses, made any announcements in regards to their changing policies since Bruen was announced? Or are they all "waiting for guidance"?