Well, New York has wasted no time whatsoever
- Thread starter csmsss
- Start date
I'll try. What we really need is someone in NY who is well versed in all the current requirements. My knowledge is detailed, but dated to the 1970s when I had a NY pistol permit. I know a few things have changed since then, additional requirements have been added, though I strongly doubt any of the requirements that existed when I got my permit have been reduced until the recent SCOTUS ruling.
Back then (and still today) NY state required a permit to possess a handgun. And the gun was listed on the permit by make, caliber, barrel length, and serial number. Only the gun(s) listed on the permit were legal to own and the permit allowed legal (open) carry of the listed gun(s). The regular permit did not allow concealed carry.
The permit application had a space for "reason for permit". Now, here's where it gets a little sticky. NY permits are issued by county judges. Approval of the permit was entirely up to the local judge.
In 1975 the application required 5 sets of fingerprints, 4 photographs (passport type) and 3 "character references (who were not family members), investigation by several different LEO groups and then, after all that, the judge could approve or deny the application for any reason they chose.
And this was JUST for ownership with open carry (such as for hunting).
You had to do a little "judge shopping" where you lived, to find out what kind of reason to put on the paperwork so the judge would approve it.
For example, in Saratoga County, the judge would not approve any application if the reason given was "self defense/self protection". But he would approve applications for "hunting and sporting use".
The Judge in Albany county would not approve any application if the reason listed on the paperwork was anything other than "self defense".
This was NOT the concealed carry permit, this was just the basic permit to possess. Getting a concealed carry permit was another step beyond that, requiring every thing the regular permit did, and also requiring a specific reason why you needed a concealed carry permit. Acceptable reasons included a "valid" threat (verified by the state) or something like carrying large amounts of cash/jewels (like making an after hours deposit, or things like that).
This additional requirement, needing a state approved specific reason for concealed carry is what the recent SCOTUS ruling shot down. It had been in place for generations, before that.
So, thanks to the can of worms that is NY law, it was possible for someone to have a pistol permit allowing (open) carry issued for "hunting and sporting purposes" OR it was possible to have the same permit issued for "self defense". Its possible there was a judge somewhere in NY that would approve a permit for both, or either, its entirely up to them.
Also, it was entirely legal to use a pistol for self defense if necessary no matter what the permit application said was the reason for wanting the permit. People could also carry or even use their handgun while hunting, if the permit application only said self defense. That might have been an technical violation, but nobody seemed to care....
Also, FYI, ONLY permits issued by NYC were valid in NYC. An NYC permit was valid in the rest of the state, but a state issued permit was not valid in NYC.
These were the rules in the 70s (and earlier) I know that since then, the state changed the lifetime permit to one that expires every few years, increased the cost (hugely) added training requirements (beginning in the very late 70s) which the new law expands tremendously, and probably some other things I'm not aware of at this time.
Some additional information (for background) about how obsessive NY is about handguns and their permits....
I moved out of NY permanently in 1979. In 2001, NY (Saratoga county) apparently "found me" and sent me a letter, informing me that since I was no longer an NY resident, my NY permit was no longer valid. And, they wanted it back!!! (wallet sized (when folded) non laminated piece of paper (not even cardstock) issued in 1975 and they wanted it back!! Also, they wanted to know where the guns listed on that permit were.
The guns I had listed on that permit were my Dad's pistols. Which I had not even seen in over a decade, so I could hardly tell NY where they were, even if I wanted to. (and, I didn't want to
)Due to an auto accident in the later 60s we learned that if my Dad had died, and no one else in the household had a permit for his pistols, they would have to be surrendered. If you turned them in to the county Sherriff, and applied for a permit, they would hold them until the permit was approved or denied. If you turned them in to the State Police (or local police) they would be held X number of days ( I think 90 days but no longer remember exactly) and if you didn't come up with a permit by then, they would be destroyed.
So, as a result, Mom applied right away, and both my brother and I applied when we came of age to do so. (another NY quirk, you could apply for a permit at any age the judge would accept. If the judge would accept it, you didn't have to be 21 or older. You couldn't buy a pistol unless you were 21 but if the judge approved, you could get a permit to possess one at a younger age. My brother and I both got ours at age 18. And we all had all the pistols in the house (Dad's and Mom's) listed on all our permits.
When Dad passed in 2003, I went back home for the funeral and to take care of all the "loose ends". My NY permit was no good, but my brother still had his, with Dad's pistols listed on it, so the state could not take them.
He had to be the one to take the 3 of them I was getting to an FFL dealer for shipment to my out of state FFL. I could not legally do it, as I could not legally possess those guns in NY state. (I did go with him, to arrange the details, and pay for the shipment).
Hope this gives you some background on how NY is about handguns, and clarifies what I said earlier.
Excellent post and it clearly illustrates what is wrong with the idea of permits for ownership.
Constitutional rights are limits on the government. A constitutional right that requires approval from the government to exercise is no constitutional right at all. This is especially true when the criteria used by the government are subjective and arbitrary.
The same people who advocate restrictions on gun ownership would never tolerate requiring "5 sets of fingerprints, 4 photographs (passport type) and 3 character references (who were not family members), investigation by several different LEO groups and then, after all that, the judge could approve or deny the application for any reason they chose." before people were allowed to vote.
mikejonestkd
New member
44 AMPS post is almost spot on as far as the process in NYS.
One clarification - all NYS carry permits are concealed only. Openly carrying a handgun, even with a permit, is brandishing and could lead to charges.
There are very few exceptions - for example a person can open carry when hunting, or at a range/ competition.
Bruen was supposed to be a big win for NYS firearm owners, but it certainly does not feel like it to everyone i talk to. The CCIA certainly does not improve on the process.....
One clarification - all NYS carry permits are concealed only. Openly carrying a handgun, even with a permit, is brandishing and could lead to charges.
There are very few exceptions - for example a person can open carry when hunting, or at a range/ competition.
Bruen was supposed to be a big win for NYS firearm owners, but it certainly does not feel like it to everyone i talk to. The CCIA certainly does not improve on the process.....
Good to hear from someone who is there and knows what is currently going on. Thank you Mike.
I have a couple of questions, the main one is, does the current permit system include concealed carry as part of the "basic" possession permit?
Back when I had my permit, it did not allow concealed carry. A concealed carry permit was another step that had to be applied for, and required the "special reason" that the SCOTUS recently struck down.
Legal carry (such as for hunting) was covered by my permit, and back in thiose days, it was a common thing to see people with holstered pistols having an early AM breakfast or a late lunch in Adirondack diners during hunting season.
Walking down the street in Albany with your pistol on your hip in technically legal carry wasn't done, even back then, before people got so paranoid about it. It wouldn't have been considered "brandishing" back then, but it was a "public nuisance", depending on where you were. Small town, "upstate" not a problem, downtown in a major city? Usually a problem.
So, is the permit now an "all in one" thing?? Permitting possession, legal open carry (where applicable) AND concealed carry? or is it something else??
I have a couple of questions, the main one is, does the current permit system include concealed carry as part of the "basic" possession permit?
Back when I had my permit, it did not allow concealed carry. A concealed carry permit was another step that had to be applied for, and required the "special reason" that the SCOTUS recently struck down.
Legal carry (such as for hunting) was covered by my permit, and back in thiose days, it was a common thing to see people with holstered pistols having an early AM breakfast or a late lunch in Adirondack diners during hunting season.
Walking down the street in Albany with your pistol on your hip in technically legal carry wasn't done, even back then, before people got so paranoid about it. It wouldn't have been considered "brandishing" back then, but it was a "public nuisance", depending on where you were. Small town, "upstate" not a problem, downtown in a major city? Usually a problem.
So, is the permit now an "all in one" thing?? Permitting possession, legal open carry (where applicable) AND concealed carry? or is it something else??
mikejonestkd
New member
The NYS process is still a county by county patchwork of inconsistent methodologies.
Some counties allow full concealed once an applicant goes through the 1 to 1.5 year process. Other counties only allowed target/ hunting permits initially, then a person could apply for full carry after a period of time.
The entire process was ( and still is ) completely up to each county and issuing judge, even with the apparent Bruen victory. I frequent a few NYS specific forums and members still rant about police, county licensing agents and Judges putting their fingers on the scales to tip the outcome of each application, and none of it is in favor of the application's approval
We were hopefully that Bruen would make NYS SHALL ISSUE. That has not happened, in fact it is worse than before
A year to a year and a half to GET the permit???
wow....
I guess modern technology has really helped the process!
back when I got mine 2 months was about average, 3 months was rather unusual. Bet its not $20 and good for life unless revoked, anymore either, is it?
To be completely fair, having it entirely up to each individual judge isn't automatically a 100% bad thing. Though it seems these days to be a 99.95% bad thing....
No doubt if/when they tip the scales in favor of the applicant, we never hear about that....
I know of one case (again, way back in ancient history) where a judge denied a permit to a guy who was not legally disqualified. This particular guy had a couple dozen speeding tickets (and some other "minor" incidents but nothing that ever got him arrested). The judge did not approve his pistol permit application, citing his past behavior indicated a "pattern of disrespect for the law" and a couple years later that pattern did put that fellow in prison as a convicted felon.
Regarding each judge being the final ultimate authority, it ought to be a good thing, but that requires good people in those positions, and sadly that is not something that can be guaranteed.
I am reminded of a quote ascribed to Henry Kissinger...
"The 5% of politicians who actually are honest make the rest of us look bad!"
wow....
I guess modern technology has really helped the process!
back when I got mine 2 months was about average, 3 months was rather unusual. Bet its not $20 and good for life unless revoked, anymore either, is it?
To be completely fair, having it entirely up to each individual judge isn't automatically a 100% bad thing. Though it seems these days to be a 99.95% bad thing....
No doubt if/when they tip the scales in favor of the applicant, we never hear about that....
I know of one case (again, way back in ancient history) where a judge denied a permit to a guy who was not legally disqualified. This particular guy had a couple dozen speeding tickets (and some other "minor" incidents but nothing that ever got him arrested). The judge did not approve his pistol permit application, citing his past behavior indicated a "pattern of disrespect for the law" and a couple years later that pattern did put that fellow in prison as a convicted felon.
Regarding each judge being the final ultimate authority, it ought to be a good thing, but that requires good people in those positions, and sadly that is not something that can be guaranteed.
I am reminded of a quote ascribed to Henry Kissinger...
"The 5% of politicians who actually are honest make the rest of us look bad!"
San Diego permit is running 11 months just to get the interview, then another 3 to 5 months for the background check . Before Bruan it was about a 5 or 6 month process total but most did not qualify. It’s basically shall issue here now as long as you pass there background check and pass the firearms training/class .
It's an echo of the situation in Washington DC after Heller. The District did all it could to avoid compliance without looking like they were avoiding compliance. They allowed people to get a permit to own a handgun in theory, but made it as difficult as they can get away with in practice. One writer chronicled the process, and it's ridiculous.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The same happened in Illinois after McDonald.Tom Servo said:
The same kind of thing has happened many times in different places and slightly different ways, but whenever the govt creates a ruling that is unpopular with the gun control zealots, they do everything they can think of that is not clearly and specifically listed as being illegal in order to screw up the ruling's effect as much as they can.
For another example, just look back at what they did after it was ruled that airline pilots could, if they wished, have a gun in the cockpit.
IT was only a few small things, like requiring specific approved training, only given in one place in the country, pilots had to take time off work and pay money out of their own pocket to attend, and on top of that, the gun had to be in a special "lock box" which testing revealed actually increased the risk because of the additional requirement that it had to be taken out checked and put back in before each flight (and, IIRC there was a projection in the box that COULD hit the trigger...) little things like that...
What we hoped for was that if a pilot already had a permit they would be allowed to carry their own personal arm, but no, that safe and logical step simply wasn't good enough, so they added enough additional requirements that the majority of people who could, simply didn't try. De facto result? Legal to do, but about nobody did it, because meeting the mandated "safety" requirements was just too much hassle and expense.
This was, essentially what NY did, SCOTUS ruled one of their requirements was excessive, so while they HAD to drop that one, they added a host of other, NEW, additional requirements, and no one can convince me they didn't have that entire list already written up and waiting, considering they passed their new law within a handful of weeks after the SCOTUS ruling and without the usual and normal legislative give and take discussion process. It was virtually a passed in the middle of the night "emergency" thing without either the time or the opportunity for normal debate on the bill before it became law.
I doubt the new additional requirements will stand, long term, but until the legal challenges are resolved they are the law. And that, I think is what their proponents are counted on.
For another example, just look back at what they did after it was ruled that airline pilots could, if they wished, have a gun in the cockpit.
IT was only a few small things, like requiring specific approved training, only given in one place in the country, pilots had to take time off work and pay money out of their own pocket to attend, and on top of that, the gun had to be in a special "lock box" which testing revealed actually increased the risk because of the additional requirement that it had to be taken out checked and put back in before each flight (and, IIRC there was a projection in the box that COULD hit the trigger...) little things like that...
What we hoped for was that if a pilot already had a permit they would be allowed to carry their own personal arm, but no, that safe and logical step simply wasn't good enough, so they added enough additional requirements that the majority of people who could, simply didn't try. De facto result? Legal to do, but about nobody did it, because meeting the mandated "safety" requirements was just too much hassle and expense.
This was, essentially what NY did, SCOTUS ruled one of their requirements was excessive, so while they HAD to drop that one, they added a host of other, NEW, additional requirements, and no one can convince me they didn't have that entire list already written up and waiting, considering they passed their new law within a handful of weeks after the SCOTUS ruling and without the usual and normal legislative give and take discussion process. It was virtually a passed in the middle of the night "emergency" thing without either the time or the opportunity for normal debate on the bill before it became law.
I doubt the new additional requirements will stand, long term, but until the legal challenges are resolved they are the law. And that, I think is what their proponents are counted on.
Briefs should have been submitted to the 2nd circuit on Monday on this case . I'm trying to find them but don't actually know case name . It's not the same as before ( Bruan )
Anyone have a link or case name/# so we can follow along ?
Still surprised SCOTUS has not said anything yet , thought they would have wanted some clarity before the 2nd started hearing the case .
Anyone have a link or case name/# so we can follow along ?
Still surprised SCOTUS has not said anything yet , thought they would have wanted some clarity before the 2nd started hearing the case .
You're missing one of the "joys" of our system. Look at the history of the Supreme Court. While there may be examples I'm not aware of, looking at the way they normally do business, they make a ruling and then, they're done with it. They don't "waste" their time correcting anyone who misinterprets it. Unless/until it comes up again in some future case they are hearing.
Making sure all the ...people understand the ruling the way the Supreme Court does, and seeing to it that those people in govt follow the ruling, including making laws in line with that ruling is not the function of the Supreme Court, (no matter how much we think we might be better off, if they did) it is the function of lower courts and other parts of government to do that.
And it is only if they fail in that, that the Supreme Courts gets another case on the matter. IF they choose to hear it. Seems that usually the high court will kick it back to lower courts until those lower courts "get it right".
I wouldn't expect to hear any kind of official "clarification" from SCOTUS unless it becomes clear that lower courts cannot or will not resolve the matter in line with whatever the SCOTUS ruling on the subject is.
the supreme court has unanimously upheld the injunction on the temporary restraining order
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/11/supreme-court-allows-new-york-gun-law-to-remain-in-effect.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/11/supreme-court-allows-new-york-gun-law-to-remain-in-effect.html
Last edited:
Total BS once again they are a one and done court . there is zero reason to let that law continue , It's not like it's some long standing ordinance that by blocking leaves the state with no scheme . I hate this idea of status que on brand new legislation . The status que is what ever the law was before it was changed , not what it was changed to . I'm seeing this more and more . The courts don't want to upset an apple cart that was literally just loaded , completely ignoring the other cart that came before it .
Today 02:35 PM
Metal god Total BS once again they are a one and done court . there is zero reason to let that law continue , It's not like it's some long standing ordinance that by blocking leaves the state with no scheme . I hate this idea of status que on brand new legislation . The status que is what ever the law was before it was changed , not what it was changed to . I'm seeing this more and more . The courts don't want to upset an apple cart that was literally just loaded , completely ignoring the other cart that came before it .
And the mighty Casey struck out. Well now we only have to wait for about 3 years for it to wind its way through the system.
Metal god Total BS once again they are a one and done court . there is zero reason to let that law continue , It's not like it's some long standing ordinance that by blocking leaves the state with no scheme . I hate this idea of status que on brand new legislation . The status que is what ever the law was before it was changed , not what it was changed to . I'm seeing this more and more . The courts don't want to upset an apple cart that was literally just loaded , completely ignoring the other cart that came before it .
And the mighty Casey struck out. Well now we only have to wait for about 3 years for it to wind its way through the system.
I looked at the linked article, and as usual with Internet "news" (and especially anything with NBC associated with it) they included enough actual facts to make it seem plausible and made a hash of the rest by misstating some facts, omitting others and generally writing to imply their desired conclusions, more than reality.
The entire "stay/counter stay" thing is being reported as "upholding" or "approving" the law in question, and is, in fact, nothing of the sort.
It has nothing to do with, and is not any kind of ruling on the NY law, it is a procedural matter in the court system.
Any law passed with proper due process can only be struck down or overturned with proper due process. The due process can be a court ruling or it can be another law, superseding the previous one.
Actually, there are valid reasons why the law must continue UNTIL the challenges are either upheld or dismissed. One of them being "because it is the law". And, from what I've heard, the way the new NY law was written it replaces the previous law so now, there is, technically NO OLD LAW to go back to.
Right or wrong in your opinion, our system is set up that a law is the law, and stays the law (for good or bad) until it is replaced or removed by due process. The system (the courts, generally) can order SECTIONS of the contested law to be "stayed" from enforcement WHILE the law is contested, OR they can just let it run. This depends on the specifics of the matter, and the opinion of the judges about the potential harm/benefits of proceeding either way.
It is the nature of the beast that no matter what the decision is (on any subject) some people will not be happy with it, or with the way it was done.
Do the best you can to avoid lurid internet "click bait" headlines and articles filled with partial truths, misleading statements and factual omissions from shaping the way you think about issues. Sadly, its not a simple or easy task, these days....
The entire "stay/counter stay" thing is being reported as "upholding" or "approving" the law in question, and is, in fact, nothing of the sort.
It has nothing to do with, and is not any kind of ruling on the NY law, it is a procedural matter in the court system.
Any law passed with proper due process can only be struck down or overturned with proper due process. The due process can be a court ruling or it can be another law, superseding the previous one.
Actually, there are valid reasons why the law must continue UNTIL the challenges are either upheld or dismissed. One of them being "because it is the law". And, from what I've heard, the way the new NY law was written it replaces the previous law so now, there is, technically NO OLD LAW to go back to.
Right or wrong in your opinion, our system is set up that a law is the law, and stays the law (for good or bad) until it is replaced or removed by due process. The system (the courts, generally) can order SECTIONS of the contested law to be "stayed" from enforcement WHILE the law is contested, OR they can just let it run. This depends on the specifics of the matter, and the opinion of the judges about the potential harm/benefits of proceeding either way.
It is the nature of the beast that no matter what the decision is (on any subject) some people will not be happy with it, or with the way it was done.
Do the best you can to avoid lurid internet "click bait" headlines and articles filled with partial truths, misleading statements and factual omissions from shaping the way you think about issues. Sadly, its not a simple or easy task, these days....
Ummmmmm so , not our problem . I don’t see a relevance . That was a choice the legislature made while purposefully thumbing there nose at the clear new precedent . They passed a bill in 8 days they can do it again and slow walk any applications for a few days with nobody noticing . In fact they wouldn’t even have to slow walk anything because the background check will take longer then getting new legislation in order and they can write in the law if you’re still in the process of getting your permit any and all new laws must be followed before the new permits are issued .
Those again are not reasonable arguments. It “might” be different if it was a different state but the same state and same basic law type only months later . All they had to do is reverse the stay sending a message to the lower courts ( stop playing games ) . However I feel now these very important cases In CA just got the green light to be stalled out even more . This IMHO was much bigger then just this case . All the anti judges now have free rain to rule however they feel . With the 9th circuit now knowing SCOTUS is not going to do anything if they go against Bruan .
The make up of the court is not going to be in our favor for long we don’t have to three years of these cases to work their way back up . I feel this is a really big deal and not in our favor .
Last edited:
i agree Metal God, plus in the meantime there are people who are being irreparably harmed, denied a constitutional right while the court case winds its way through the system and facing felony charges if they violate a maze of places where carry is prohibited. some of the prohibited places to carry depend on who owns the building, not what the current occupancy is. My understanding was that if the plaintiffs had a case that was likely to be successful and involved a constitutional right that a temporary restraining order was the proper course of action.