Long Island Shooters Forum banner
121 - 140 of 171 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,247 Posts
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"?
Good question.

I'm also wondering what changes in the instructions have been included in renewal packages that have been sent out since the Bruen decision was handed down. Has there been any official acknowledgement of the decision in any correspondence sent out by the county?
 

·
SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,022 Posts
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?
Yes, it's part of the CCIA, which is about to receive injunctive restraint.
Gary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,255 Posts
Yes, it's part of the CCIA, which is about to receive injunctive restraint.
Gary
Gary, I know you heard about the debacle going on in Nassau and other counties who are awaiting for the new law to go in effect before allowing the amendment to proceed for unrestricted carry.
Once the injunction is issued, an appeal will cause a long delay until the Federal Court rules which portion of the CCIA is allowed. The SCOTUS ruling should eliminate any training requirements and limit the sensitive locations.
 

·
SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
7,022 Posts
Gary, I know you heard about the debacle going on in Nassau and other counties who are awaiting for the new law to go in effect before allowing the amendment to proceed for unrestricted carry.
Once the injunction is issued, an appeal will cause a long delay until the Federal Court rules which portion of the CCIA is allowed. The SCOTUS ruling should eliminate any training requirements and limit the sensitive locations.
The Bruen decision is the law of the land. When the injunction is issued, the CCIA is void, pending a full court hearing, unless and until a federal court says it's not. The state cannot legally hold off unrestricted carry, claiming to await the results of the federal court's decision. CCIA is not in effect, once the injunction is issued and the state can't claim they plan to enforce a law which MIGHT take effect, if the court rules in their favor.
Gary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,255 Posts
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.
SCPD has no obligation to a licensee regarding an amendment to remove restrictions by a notification via email or phone call.
We know that NCPD isn’t allowing any amendments until 9/1/22.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,247 Posts
SCPD has no obligation to a licensee regarding an amendment to remove restrictions by a notification via email or phone call.
We know that NCPD isn’t allowing any amendments until 9/1/22.
I and many others have asked and have not yet received any clarification regarding the restrictions. If a licensee ask a question they do have an obligation to answer the question. We don't work for them, they work for us.

Beyond that, if a licensee is told "if you want the restrictions removed you have to submit a request via an amendment form and pay a fee" that does obligate them to provide a response to that request.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Will2WinLLC

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,255 Posts
I and many others have asked and have not yet received any clarification regarding the restrictions. If a licensee ask a question they do have an obligation to answer the question. We don't work for them, they work for us.

Beyond that, if a licensee is told "if you want the restrictions removed you have to submit a request via an amendment form and pay a fee" that does obligate them to provide a response to that request.
If you filed an amendment, a response will be required, any correspondence concerning a question will be answered by the executive officer.
I highly recommend to send it via U.S. mail, certified mail only. You will have a paper trail.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,247 Posts
If you filed an amendment, a response will be required, any correspondence concerning a question will be answered by the executive officer.
I highly recommend to send it via U.S. mail, certified mail only. You will have a paper trail.
This brings up another consideration with respect to licensing and amendments...time.

The powers that be have time on their side. Is there any timeframe requirement that dictates how long they have until a response is provided? We know that with respect to the filing of the "application" PL400 says 6 months. How they've been allowed to get around this by requiring that applicants first complete the "questionnaire" is beyond me. Of course the spirit of the law is that those applying should not have to wait more than six months for a determination yet this questionnaire/application nonsense has been allowed to continue. Is there no legal recourse?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,255 Posts
This brings up another consideration with respect to licensing and amendments...time.

The powers that be have time on their side. Is there any timeframe requirement that dictates how long they have until a response is provided? We know that with respect to the filing of the "application" PL400 says 6 months. How they've been allowed to get around this by requiring that applicants first complete the "questionnaire" is beyond me. Of course the spirit of the law is that those applying should not have to wait more than six months for a determination yet this questionnaire/application nonsense has been allowed to continue. Is there no legal recourse?
An attorney can speed up the application process.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,247 Posts
An attorney can speed up the application process.
On what basis could an attorney argue the delay involved in having to complete the questionnaire is unlawful?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
403 Posts
Just simple Supreme Court questions:
1) When the Supreme Court made same sex marriages the law of the land did they wait for the State to change their laws for same sex marriage or were marriages just preformed?
2) When the Supreme Court passed Roe vs Wade the law of the land, was there a wait period for the State to change the law for abortions?
3) When the Supreme Court allowed integration in Brown vs Board of Education did the states need to change their laws or did they just start to integrate schools?

So why is this different, because the State of NY wants to restrict our Constitutional Rights and we fear retribution? When is the law of the land not the law of the land, when the political system decides? I’m just saying.

Question to be pondered about our current political system! This state may be different if we had an Electoral College for voting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,247 Posts
Just simple Supreme Court questions:
1) When the Supreme Court made same sex marriages the law of the land did they wait for the State to change their laws for same sex marriage or were marriages just preformed?
2) When the Supreme Court passed Roe vs Wade the law of the land, was there a wait period for the State to change the law for abortions?
3) When the Supreme Court allowed integration in Brown vs Board of Education did the states need to change their laws or did they just start to integrate schools?

So why is this different, because the State of NY wants to restrict our Constitutional Rights and we fear retribution? When is the law of the land not the law of the land, when the political system decides? I’m just saying.

Question to be pondered about our current political system! This state may be different if we had an Electoral College for voting.
When the Supreme Court court makes a decision it becomes the law of the land and the states have to honor it. The process by which the states correct their statutes to bring them in line with the Supreme Court ruling is their responsibility but they don't get to enforce their unconstitutional laws until they get around to fixing them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gary_Hungerford

·
Registered
Joined
·
387 Posts
Just simple Supreme Court questions:
1) When the Supreme Court made same sex marriages the law of the land did they wait for the State to change their laws for same sex marriage or were marriages just preformed?
2) When the Supreme Court passed Roe vs Wade the law of the land, was there a wait period for the State to change the law for abortions?
3) When the Supreme Court allowed integration in Brown vs Board of Education did the states need to change their laws or did they just start to integrate schools?

So why is this different, because the State of NY wants to restrict our Constitutional Rights and we fear retribution? When is the law of the land not the law of the land, when the political system decides? I’m just saying.

Question to be pondered about our current political system! This state may be different if we had an Electoral College for voting.
Great points...I think the first same-sex marriage was on the same day of the SCOTUS decision. On point #2, there were some states that already had in place, legislation that would go into force if SCOTUS overruled Roe v Wade....on point #3, many states refused integration or to fully integrate, and the Feds were willing to use Federal troops to force them to comply.

Well, the Feds aren't willing to send the 101st Airborne to Mineola or Yaphank, like they were sent to Little Rock in 1957. This is like Andrew Jackson saying "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him try to enforce it"....We can get pissed off, but at least New York is somewhat respecting the authority of the Court by passing useless legislation and dancing around the decision...they could simply say "John Roberts has made his decision, now let him try to enforce it". And then what? US Marshals arrest Hochul and the entire NYS Legislature? That's not going to happen.

Let's wait a few more weeks and see how the Federal Court decision comes down on Aug. 26th. If Gary and Paul's prediction come true and the CCIA is enjoined, and she refuses to comply, then we have a bigger problem in this Country than we thought. It would be the beginning of the end of the Rule of Law in this country if some Governor of a State tells an entire Branch of our Government to f*ck off.
 

·
Aim High
Joined
·
808 Posts
Discussion Starter · #135 ·
I'm not an attorney and I certainly didn't want to be the Guinea Pig but does any one other than me think we blew it? I believe that when the Supreme Court ruling came down we should have simply accepted it and did our thing and concealed carried. Maybe answers would have been forth coming by doing that. I don't remember any one in authority telling us we couldn't do it and had to wait for something else to occur. All I remember is the idiot and her Sept 1 crap..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,063 Posts
So if an injunction is issued what does that mean to us? The SCPD will sit on their hands till there is some sort of official legal resolution I assume....couldn't that take years with legal challenges? Can the judge issue a partial injuntion blocking some of the most egregious aspects but let others stand? Have no idea how an injunction works. I don't see how any of these new laws can possibly be seen as NOT contrary to the SC decision but some liberal Democratic judge can make that stick. Couldn't this realistically drag on for years? It's not like Governor Botox and her lawyers haven't already prepared for an injunction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,255 Posts
So if an injunction is issued what does that mean to us? The SCPD will sit on their hands till there is some sort of official legal resolution I assume....couldn't that take years with legal challenges? Can the judge issue a partial injuntion blocking some of the most egregious aspects but let others stand? Have no idea how an injunction works. I don't see how any of these new laws can possibly be seen as NOT contrary to the SC decision but some liberal Democratic judge can make that stick. Couldn't this realistically drag on for years? It's not like Governor Botox and her lawyers haven't already prepared for an injunction.
I certainly hope it’s not like the Safe Act debacle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,247 Posts
I'm not an attorney and I certainly didn't want to be the Guinea Pig but does any one other than me think we blew it? I believe that when the Supreme Court ruling came down we should have simply accepted it and did our thing and concealed carried. Maybe answers would have been forth coming by doing that. I don't remember any one in authority telling us we couldn't do it and had to wait for something else to occur. All I remember is the idiot and her Sept 1 crap..
"Simply accepted it and did our thing". That they are but it's called concealed carry for a reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lou G
121 - 140 of 171 Posts
Top