Long Island Shooters Forum banner
41 - 60 of 162 Posts

·
Sharp Shooter!
Joined
·
420 Posts
I applied to SCPD, PLB earlier this year to have the restrictions removed off license, applied for an unrestricted license.

I'll be giving them a call tomorrow to see what's going on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,688 Posts
Following. Suffolk county sportsman restrictions here, I would like to know how we go about having said restrictions removed.
The Supreme Court removed them this morning. As far as the technicality of having a new license printed, that's up to Suffolk County to decide.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
676 Posts
The Supreme Court removed them this morning. As far as the technicality of having a new license printed, that's up to Suffolk County to decide.
Paul- I want to go along with your interpretation that restrictions are no longer valid, however, when I applied in Nassau I applied for a sportsman license - true that I did not have a choice - but the restrictions still exist on my license and I have not applied to have them removed. Am I overthinking this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,688 Posts
Paul- I want to go along with your interpretation that restrictions are no longer valid, however, when I applied in Nassau I applied for a sportsman license - true that I did not have a choice - but the restrictions still exist on my license and I have not applied to have them removed. Am I overthinking this?
I understand your point. I think the flip side is you were forced into that position via an unconstitutional exercise of executive authority. As mentioned there is no Sportsman licence according to the penal code. The license you were issued is in fact an f class, concealed carry license. The county will have to decide how to correct THEIR ERROR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leadwipe and RSL

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,860 Posts
When I leave my home tomorrow in Suffolk County can I leave with my Sportsman CC permit and not worry about being out of class and spending time in the Yaphank Hotel with bars on the windows?
You will never be arrested for carrying out of restrictions with a valid New York pistol license if stopped for a traffic violation. The mayor had his Police Commissioner say in a press conference today that nothings changed. If you have a Premises license you will get arrested if caught carrying concealed.
Right now the liberals are looking for ways to mess things up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
When I leave my home tomorrow in Suffolk County can I leave with my Sportsman CC permit with firearm and not worry about being out of class and spending time in the Yaphank Hotel with bars on the windows?
You have a concealed carry license which Suffolk County put an administrative restriction they called sportsman. That restriction has now been ruled unconstitutional. NYC is still off limits with our Suffolk licenses unless they are marked “Retired Police Officer”
 

·
Now an Ex NYer
Joined
·
24,993 Posts
Heads were exploding in NYC today
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
Wow.
I'm going to wait for absolute confirmation on this, but if those end up being the facts, that is great.
Any chance she said anything about how SCPD PLB is going to formally announce/document any of this?
She said they know nothing right now. When i asked if they had prepared for this outcome with some potential procedures. She said…. Its suffolk county we’re talking about… haha. I encourage everyone to call and post the answer they hear. As well dont take it from me… i will say the lines were tied up most of the day for what i assume the same calls asking the same thing as she made it seem. She definatley said and i made her repeat it that we who are licenced by pistol bureau can carry now. I imagine they’ve been instructed to say that as if they try and prohibit would be a major lawsuit
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
So, literally, overnight, our restricted NYS concealed carry license changed into an unrestricted NYS concealed carry license. This is terrific news, but it just sounds just a little too good to be true. I really expected at least some sort of "hoop jumping" exercise would be imposed. I mean, like, is the Police Commissioner on board with this? I guess we shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.
I think right now while they figure it out they dont want a lawsuit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
228 Posts
Adding restrictions to "sensitive places" is really going to boggle up the LEO / retired LEO carve outs. Minimally, a retired LEO's license will be the same as the rest of ours. It's going to make the carve outs a lot more complicated. The PBAs are going to go broke sending lobbyists to Albany while all these "sensitive places" laws are drawn up.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but todays decision will not have an effect on QRLEO’s, as it pertains to LEOSA privileges.
I am assuming your answer that today's Decision does not affect Retired LEO licenses, because they are not issued with "Proper Cause" as part of the process, but subsequent Legislation and amendments to current laws regarding where guns are prohibited (sensitive places) would if the Legislature wanted them to be. Do you agree?
 

·
SASI Firearms Chairman, LISAPA Training Committee
Joined
·
6,664 Posts
I am not an attorney and, therefore, what I’m saying, here, should not be construed as legal advise or anything other than my personal opinion, about my interpretation of what I believe to be the plain and clear language of the Bruen decision.
I had an opportunity, last night, to thoroughly read, then evaluate, the Bruen decision. Those of us, myself included, who believed that the ramifications of this decision were going to be huge were WRONG. Hear me out.
Much of this decision is based on the language of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, as well as the entirety of the 2nd Amendment. For those, for whom the text of that section of the 14th Amendment does not come to immediate mind (myself included), it reads as follows:
“Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
I’ve highlighted the two portions of that Section of the 14th Amendment which I believe to be the crux of much of the Bruen decision.
The fact that the decision was based on a combination of interpretations of the 2nd and 14th Amendments takes the ramifications thereof completely out of the realm of huge, then places it, squarely, in the footprint of MONUMENTAL.
Here’s how I see what this SCOTUS decision has done:
1) O’Brien v Keegan, 87 N. Y. 2d 436, 438–439, 663 N.E. 2d 316, 316–317 (1996) (the NY decision which granted licensing authorities as much issuing discretion as they felt appropriate) is now VOID,
2) the concepts of “proper cause,” “special circumstances,” “special need,” “extraordinary need” or any similar euphemisms, used by licensing agents, are VOID and, therefore, any “administrative restrictions,” which were only made valid, by the Keegan decision, are, now, also, invalid and VOID,
3) this decision does not apply just to NYC or NYS but to every square inch of this country; every state, territory and DC are subject to and must abide by it; it’s a country-wide decision, affecting all citizens,
4) ALL states and other levels of government MUST recognize and honor the firearms license and/or Constitutional Carry status of any citizen of any other state or city; therefore, there can no longer be a separate requirement, within NYS, for an NYC “endorsement” to one’s license or a separate NYC license (14th A’s equal protection clause, above),
5) the concept of “sensitive places,” where firearms will not be allowed to be carried, is going to be defined very narrowly, by SCOTUS, regardless of what any state’s, county’s or city’s ordinance may claim to be a “sensitive place,”
6) anyone, who violates the Bruen decision, can be personally subject to the penalties of 42 US Code §1983 (violation of Constitutional rights); violations of this section of federal law are federal felonies, subjecting anyone convicted thereof to imprisonment and fines. While there is a “qualified immunity” feature, in that statute, for governmental officials, the immunity does not apply to intentional violations and any refusal, to conform to a SCOTUS decision, could only be viewed as an intentional violation of rights.

Now, all we have to do is wait for the MD case to be heard by SCOTUS, to clarify that no license or other form of governmental approval is needed, to exercise any Constitutionally-protected right.

Gary
 
41 - 60 of 162 Posts
Top