CCW Against your Restrictions

[n3twrkm4n]

!! PLEASE READ ENTIRE THREAD BEFORE VOTING !!

In my current county of residence in NY, we have restrictions placed on our pistol permits to "Hunting and Target" shooting only. Irregardless if other places have this or not I was wondering if despite certain restrictions if people would be willing to carry for personal protection even though their permit says hunting and target only.

Afterall a CCW permit is a CCW permit regardless of 'restrictions' right? I dunno.

If you do not wish to discuss for fear of 'the man' please just vote.


Yes = You carry even if your permit has restrictions to things like hunting and target only

No = You carry with the law, and abide by restrictions on your permit

 

[mvpel]

What if, as here in New Hampshire, the only restricted places are all found on the far side of metal detectors, namely courtrooms and secured areas of airports? I guess that would be "within restrictions," right?

 

[jrklaus]

Tennessee does not have too many restrictions either. Most have to do with schools, courthouses, and businesses who post against carry ("they must not want my business" is what that means).

 

[jeff_troop]

i think this poll is a terrible idea. if many people vote that they carry illegally, here it is for everyone to see. not the kind of stats i want public.

 

[EricN]

I agree Jeff.... now I wish I hadnt voted, it is a terrible idea.

ericn

 

[n3twrkm4n]

I'm not talking about illegal locations. Please read.

I'm talking about restrictions on your permit.

Restrictions are what you can carry your permit for such as hunting and target shooting, hiking, personal defense, etc.

Say if someone has a restriction to hiking and only hiking would a person carry it for hunting?

I'm not talking about location of carry, that has been discussed to death. I guess if any of you do not understand what is being said perhaps it is better to say nothing at all?

Forget Post Offices, schools, court houses. That is not what is being talked about.

Voting then recinding your vote just proves that your prone to hasty decisions, it's unfortunate but this poll is not a 'public' one which it lists the results of each person by name.

Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

Sounds like your post is leading to an argument or 'flame' war? Does that mean we're headed to the special olympics?

As a summary of the way things are done in my county:

Go to Sheriff's office get paperwork
Fill it out for a CCW permit for 'hunting & target only' - home defense is intrinsic in the nature of the paperwork
Go to class
Paperwork goes to sheriff's office saying you took the class
County Judge signs your paper pistol permit with the restriction to 'hunting & target only'.
Receive pistol permit in the mail.

You HAVE to carry your pistol concealed because there is no open carry law.

Would YOU carry your pistol concealed for any other purpose (such as errands to walmart) for uses other than 'hunting & target only' ?

Perhaps that will clarify.

Restrictions on application - not location

 

[Musketeer]

Carrying outside restrictions is not illegal!

http://www.troopers.state.ny.us/FAQs/Firearms/Permits.cfm

Q - What section of the Penal Law authorizes the placing of restrictions on pistol permits by the issuing authority?

The Penal Law does not specifically authorize the placing of restrictions on pistol permits. However, court decisions have consistently supported the ability of licensing officials to impose these restrictions. Such an imposition is an administrative function of the licensing officer.

Licensees in violation of these restrictions would therefore not be subject to criminal prosecution but would face action being taken by the court of issuance in the form of suspension or possible revocation of the license.

It is not illegal to carry outside the restriction. The restrictions are applied arbitrarily and without any weight of law. At least if the County Sheriff or an elected judge applies them they are being handled by an elected official, it still is an abuse of power by the authority though. In all of Nassau and most of Suffolk county it is handled by the unelected police departments.

The legislature has given ZERO power to the issuing authorities to place the restrictions on permits, it is nowhere in the law. The issuing agency are often judges, the same judges who are responsible for enforcing the law on the issuing authorities as written by the legislature. Does anybody else see the problem here? We have the fox gaurding the henhouse. The courts uphold their own authority to restrict permits in violation of the law.

The question initially posed is not one of "would you rather be carried by six or judged by twelve?" His question is "would you risk having your permit pulled to carry?"

 

[n3twrkm4n]

It's funny that you bring that up. I'm not sure if your defending me or pitting a battle against me

However; our ELECTED county judge does sign our permits, but our Sheriff's department enforces the laws as well as other law enforcement agencies. It's funny too because the place where you get your permit from has an ELECTED Sheriff.

I didn't realize how messed up the process was until I went to apply for my permit. The other crappy thing is when I apply for an amendment I have to fill out more paperwork at the Sheriff's office (which is inside the county jail), and then have them send the paperwork to the judge for 'approval', he signs off on it then it is mailed back to me within 2 weeks usually.

I only raised this question because at our CCW course (an NRA sanctioned event) I did not understand the reasoning behind our instructors telling us "if you do carry, make sure it IS concealed", I see now that it was to be taken with a wink and a nod. Basically giving the people the right to carry the weapon everywhere as long as they are not brandishing.

The other thing is that there is only things stated about brandishing, but technically open carrying on a hip holster is not brandishing because it is not perceived as a threatening gesture to just be carrying a firearm on your hip. This upsets me because I see 'undercover' LEOs carrying their weapon with NO badge present, so I do not know who this individual is.

Also the other problem with these 'rules' is that when hunting, who carries concealed? If I'm hunting deer with my .44 mag, how can I conceal that? I wouldn't be able to take a shot off before the deer saw me rustling my clothes to pull out my weapon. But that goes to the "if a tree fell in the forest would anyone hear it? And would it have really fallen?" (or if a man spoke in the forest would he have lied even though no one heard it?).

I think our State's laws are very vague, but of course the state gets their money for our permits. Overall it cost me $150+ for the whole process, when all was said in done. Each time I want an amendment it's like $3-$4.

It makes me upset, the system we have, but it isn't that bad compared to California? hah.

So all anyone is facing is the suspension or revocation of their pistol permit if carrying 'outside the restrictions'? That is what I got from your quote.

But after all is said and argued if someone is truly carrying concealed, no one will know. Don't ask, Don't tell?

I know for a fact 'unrestricted' permits are impossible to come-by in my county unless you know the judge personally or have done him/her a favor or his family or some 'scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' bull crap.

My father is fortunate to have a unrestricted permit which allows him to carry anywhere allowed to by LAW (not choice). So he can carry around town, and such. But I find it ridiculous that one word on a piece of paper determines your right to carry for self defense. And because of that, if you were to put down 'self-defense' as your reason for an unrestricted permit you would most likely become immediately declined.

New Judge = New 'rules', and it's unfortunate that second amendment rights are held by the you know what by an elected official with no real choice in doing the delegation of pistol permits because it is part of his elected official duties.

This is not a 'moral' debacle for me, I was just curious in the opinions of others on the matter. I was hoping for more responses in the discussion nature, rather then "we need to shut this post down", "he's trying to frame us", because that is what has been posted.

I did not require a reply to the post, I did not require your names be on the poll results, no one NEEDED to participate in the poll. I would not have cried myself to sleep because no one voted or replied.

Musketeer - Thank you for the informative reply rather than aiding the flame war.

 

[Weeg]

North Carolina has many, and if you read into it, you are very limited.

.

 

[jeff_troop]

Sounds like your post is leading to an argument or 'flame' war? Does that mean we're headed to the special olympics?

it's called a tag line, has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

fwiw i have never heard of "restrictions" so i assumed it meant illegal. my mistake.

this poll is completely public. anyone can come here and the see the results of the poll then they can print it in the local paper and show how many people here violate their restictions. then they can prove that people who get their cwp legally still can not be trusted.

 

[MidKnight]

In MA we have similar restrictions. Mine says target and sporting. However, the MGLs say that I must obey the restrictions placed on the license. As of right now, I obey.

If there were some reason (i.e. stalker, fear of retribution for reporting a crime, civil unrest) I would definately carry against the restrictions! So, if my treat level goes up past a point (arbitrary, I know) then yes.

 

[n3twrkm4n]

This poll is not mandatory or forced.

Think of it as a discussion point, because many other websites have discussed this same issue, and people do it and talk about it freely in their 'circles'.

I do not mean to be harsh but it upsets me that people jump to conclusions rapidly without fully understanding the content at hand. I will admit I'm not perfect, no one is, but I always try my best to understand a good chunk before contributing.

I recognize the fact that not all states have these restrictions, and that is where it makes things interesting. How do people feel without these restrictions in their state about those states who have these restrictions.

Compare Vermont who has an open carry law where you can carry your pistol without a permit openly, compared to New York which has a concealed carry law only and you must take a class, and yadda yadda yadda.

It's always in good fun but this poll is hardly discriminatory toward the TFL community, or the firearm community at large, especially when there are much larger statistics to focus on. No offense but I haven't seen in the news anytime in the near future where the TFL was quoted from a poll run on our forums to show how we as gun owners are negligent idiots who disobey laws.

Self-defense is a hot topic in government none-the-less, most generally they do not want us armed because they have seen in the past what armed citizens have been able to accomplish.

Also this poll delves into the politics involved with choosing 'restrictions' and who actually picks who gets to do what with their firearms as Musketeer pointed out.

Just like does anyone carry their shotgun in their truck or car? How many people have illegal knives? How many people use police quality tear gas spray when they shouldn't or where it is illegal.

They are all TABOO questions which everyone is afraid to answer in the publics general eye. But why? For fear of proving that we as American Citizens are proud enough to show that we're willing to stand up for ourselves and family to protect them.

Granted there are individuals out there who use them for bad, and that seems to be the only thing the media sees, and that is where our 'good statistics' show through, but I doubt the media will really use the pro-gun statistics, because that doesn't make news. They want the dirt.

I honestly don't carry my pistol outside my restrictions, but have seen discussions of this on previous posts on THIS forum and others. I use my pistol for HOME defense if necessary but only as a backup, my shotgun comes first.

I carry a knife with me in 'public' and some pepper spray. Seems to be more than enough, but I guess it would matter on the situation.

Please keep in mind that we here at the TFL need to be a community of supporters, and the only way we can keep our rights and our weapons is to be educated and see all aspects of the industry and nation at large.

When we become narrow-minded we close out the possibility of defending ourselves in verbal, and in writing. In order to defeat the enemy we need to understand the enemy. (I'm sure that can be quoted by someone).

Good luck and happy shooting.