New York Firearms Forum banner

21 - 30 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
If it's not generic then it's specific. Where on the sign does it list a specific law statute or violation? It doesn't. Just says gun violation 1 year minimum.

I have already explained that no person when issued a permit under the penal law may be charged with unlawful possession. It's right in the law in writing. Take a look instead of coming here with your head in the sand and insisting it doesn't. It's easily verifiable. Also it's not some mysterious case law that I heard third hand. I read the court decision for myself. I cant locate it off the top of my head but if you search you will find it. The guy had a home possession only permit and took his gun out in public and used it to commit a crime. He was arrested and charged with unlawful possession but the court ruled he cannot be and dismissed the charge.

You have ignored those facts and have kept with your point that is actually opinion and has nothing to back it up. Please state the charge.
Man you can NOT read lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
So these jurisdictions are trying to supersede state law, no? They're effectively saying they will not enforce the concealment requirement. Good for them, actually.

My position, however, is how they reconcile that with state law and the "concealed" clause included in a "proper cause" carry license. The only license under the statute that has no "concealed" clause is 400(2)(g) "have, possess, collect and carry antique pistols which are defined as follows: [...]". Presumably one could assume that open carry of an antique handgun with an antique pistol license would be legal under state law, but regardless of these statements by the Chemung Sheriff and a Herkimer licensing officer, the state statute would allow a police officer (particularly the State Police, I would imagine) to take action. Even with an antique pistol license I would expect some sort of summons and trouble for a violation or misdemeanor along the lines of "disorderly conduct" or something to such an effect, whatever the charge may be. Though, the antique pistol license may fare better in court. Then again, judges invented restrictions and restrictions were upheld as acceptable by judges, so in practice it's pointless. There's no real uniform rule of law in NYS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,764 Posts
So these jurisdictions are trying to supersede state law, no? They're effectively saying they will not enforce the concealment requirement. Good for them, actually.

My position, however, is how they reconcile that with state law and the "concealed" clause included in a "proper cause" carry license. The only license under the statute that has no "concealed" clause is 400(2)(g) "have, possess, collect and carry antique pistols which are defined as follows: [...]". Presumably one could assume that open carry of an antique handgun with an antique pistol license would be legal under state law, but regardless of these statements by the Chemung Sheriff and a Herkimer licensing officer, the state statute would allow a police officer (particularly the State Police, I would imagine) to take action. Even with an antique pistol license I would expect some sort of summons and trouble for a violation or misdemeanor along the lines of "disorderly conduct" or something to such an effect, whatever the charge may be. Though, the antique pistol license may fare better in court. Then again, judges invented restrictions and restrictions were upheld as acceptable by judges, so in practice it's pointless. There's no real uniform rule of law in NYS.
My position is as follows:

1) If something is not banned by law, it is by default legal
2) State law does not ban the carry of pistols, only the possession
3) The fact that the state law specifically allows for concealed carry does not imply nor create a defacto ban on carrying outside those exceptions. Again, the law does not ban the carry of pistols. The fact that you must have a license to possess one has no bearing on the manner in which you may carry a pistol.

Consider that it was not that long ago that folks in PA thought open carry was banned for the same reason: "we have a License to Carry Firearms that grants concealed carry priviledges, therefore it must be illegal for us to openly carry." Folks more savvy with the law recognized the reality of #1 (and the PA variant of #2), and today open carry is recognized across the state as legal (though there are a handful of situations where one must possess an LTCF to do so). This massive about-face came about without any change to the law - rather, a more careful examination and application of existing law.

We're all entrenched in our positions, no one is going to move from their camp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
My position is as follows:

1) If something is not banned by law, it is by default legal
2) State law does not ban the carry of pistols, only the possession
3) The fact that the state law specifically allows for concealed carry does not imply nor create a defacto ban on carrying outside those exceptions. Again, the law does not ban the carry of pistols. The fact that you must have a license to possess one has no bearing on the manner in which you may carry a pistol.

Consider that it was not that long ago that folks in PA thought open carry was banned for the same reason: "we have a License to Carry Firearms that grants concealed carry priviledges, therefore it must be illegal for us to openly carry." Folks more savvy with the law recognized the reality of #1 (and the PA variant of #2), and today open carry is recognized across the state as legal (though there are a handful of situations where one must possess an LTCF to do so). This massive about-face came about without any change to the law - rather, a more careful examination and application of existing law.

We're all entrenched in our positions, no one is going to move from their camp.
I agree with the first point.

To be honest, it's an interesting legal argument concerning the differences between "possession" and "carrying", but I honestly don't see it, especially since I can't fathom someone just walking into New York carrying a handgun and claiming he wasn't in possession of it, only "carrying". I don't have a high enough understanding of New York law to evaluate that claim, but what I can see is the "concealed" clause in the actual law. Further, I really wish the die-hards who insist that it is in fact fully legal and there are no charges to be brought upon them, to go to every county north of NYC and test it. None of them seem to keen to prove their point. Sure, I don't really expect someone to take the time to do this, but even if it is found to be legal to carry openly with a license that was issued, by statute, to carry concealed, I think they know they run the very real risk of a charge of "menacing" or "disorderly" or something of that nature, because this is New York. In this way I still maintain that it is effectively illegal even if 400 was determined not to prohibit it, or that there is no consistent rule of law in the state (which there really isn't).

In any case I am, in all sincerity, very interested to hear people's anecdotes of they themselves carrying openly, in town (eg - not hunting or in the middle of nowhere), and how it goes for them. If it turns out that this is just another form of the Pennsylvania scenario you provided, then I happily stand corrected.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,072 Posts
Been following you folks on this. I believe that own the ride is correct. There is no law to be found that prevents a person licensed to own a handgun in NYS from open carry. Strictly speaking I don't think residentjew disagrees .I also believe that residentjew is correct when he /she suggests that actually doing it will most likely result in an unpleasant experience for those who attempt it. I am guessing that owntheride would not disagree.
The problem is the situation as it exists today was allowed to be born and throughout the years has established some very firm roots. Mainly because the courts will support the scheme. A sorry state of affairs really.
Residentjew and I discussed this briefly on a different level in a different thread focused on administrative restrictiction. Same principle applies. I wish I were a younger man with adequate resources because I would push the issue by doing as residentjew suggests. I sincerely mean that. However, at my point in life that is an aggravation and monetary expense that I am not willing to take on. I hold some hope ( though a glimmer at best ) that newly appointed judges on the lower courts as well as SCOTUS will start to remedy some of the nonsense we are subject to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,764 Posts
I agree with both of you (DD and RJ) that attempting to assert the legality of OC would be fraught with peril. OC in a place of sufficient population for long enough and you will most certainly have some encounters with police, and subsequent court dates, that will not be a fun time. Of note, that's precisely how it went down in PA... many times. Additionally, your case would be unlikely to succeed in NY courts because of the things DD mentions.

But, I do believe that a person with sufficient intestinal fortitude and financial resources could eventually succeed. I am not that person, but if I ever get rich, NY had better watch out, as I will be coming after everything, including the Sullivan Act.

RJ, I've OC'd in plenty of places throughout NY, primarily Broome and Allegheny counties. Not in a (highly populated) town, but also not always in the middle of nowhere. Think walking down the street in rural-ish areas. There is also a judge near me who OCs while walking his dogs every day. Of course, that proves absolutely nothing... we agree that doing so in a city-like environment would result in a lot of unwanted attention.

In a way, it's like Tannerite. We all know Tannerite is legal to possess and use, but we also see semi-regular stories about people getting charged with disorderly conduct (or worse) for using it in what some deem to be an excessive manner. Amusingly, the same arguments against disorderly conduct charges would apply: as the law states, disorderly conduct occurs when someone does something with the intent of causing alarm. Someone blowing up a large amount of Tannerite is probably not intending to cause alarm, they are intending to have fun. But, it is a whole lot cheaper to pay a DC fine than it is to fight it tooth and nail with a lawyer.

Great convo, gents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
571 Posts
There is no ban on open carrying a handgun in NYS. However, it is still illegal.

Handguns are prohibited in NYS unless you are exempted. One of the exemptions is having a license to carry concealed. This isn't because the license itself says concealed, the actual penal code states "concealed". Because possession with this license stipulates the firearm is to be concealed, if you are openly carrying a handgun you can be charged with criminal possession of a firearm.
This reply starts out good (as a solid opinion) then goes right off the rails. You may not be charged with criminal possession if you possess a permit. Period. Regardless of type of permit. Period.

This has already been tried and proven in cases that you can look up. The one in particular I read is someone with a household only - not carry permit was charged after using the gun in a crime. The charge was dismissed as the courts ruled the charge cannot stand as he had a permit even though he took the gun out of the household. The law specifically prohibits the charge to anyone licensed under the penal law.

If someone who committed a crime with a gun wasn’t able to be charged under the law with criminal possession certainly a law abiding citizen open carrying on a carry permit could not be. End of story.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
This reply starts out good (as a solid opinion) then goes right off the rails. You may not be charged with criminal possession if you possess a permit. Period. Regardless of type of permit. Period.

This has already been tried and proven in cases that you can look up. The one in particular I read is someone with a household only - not carry permit was charged after using the gun in a crime. The charge was dismissed as the courts ruled the charge cannot stand as he had a permit even though he took the gun out of the household. The law specifically prohibits the charge to anyone licensed under the penal law.

If someone who committed a crime with a gun wasn’t able to be charged under the law with criminal possession certainly a law abiding citizen open carrying on a carry permit could not be. End of story.
Thanks for your review of my comment and I support your admissions to the armchair bar.
 
21 - 30 of 30 Posts
Top