five year pistol permit renewal
Real agenda

New York, NY

#21 Jul 28, 2013
wildcater wrote:
<quoted text>
My relative went to the county to get one of the new plastic credit card permits a few years ago and turned in his cardboard concealed carry permit, thinking the plastic one would be easier to handle over the years. When he got the plastic one, concealed carry was taken off and sports was put on. Thanks to Judge Richards. Apparently the sports permits only allow you to carry to and from hunting and to and from a firing range. Anyone else have this happen to them? I applied for concealed carry and mine came as a sports only also. I don't think you can get a concealed carry any longer in St. Law Co. thanks to Judge Richards.
That's happening to everybody in SLC. The best course of action is to refrain from "upgrading" to plastic until you absolutely have to.

And for what it's worth, those restrictions on the permit are administrative only. A CCW with the "outdoor sports" restriction is still a CCW. Period. You're not going to be arrested if you're found to be carrying outside of those restrictions, but the issuing authority for your county, should they find out, CAN and probably WILL use that fact to yank your permit.
Moron Wrangler

Ithaca, NY

#22 Jul 28, 2013
wildcater wrote:
<quoted text>
My relative went to the county to get one of the new plastic credit card permits a few years ago and turned in his cardboard concealed carry permit, thinking the plastic one would be easier to handle over the years. When he got the plastic one, concealed carry was taken off and sports was put on. Thanks to Judge Richards. Apparently the sports permits only allow you to carry to and from hunting and to and from a firing range. Anyone else have this happen to them? I applied for concealed carry and mine came as a sports only also. I don't think you can get a concealed carry any longer in St. Law Co. thanks to Judge Richards.
If your relative lives in SLC and had an unrestricted license but went in to get the new credit card form and left with the new outdoor sports restriction on it then it's his own fault. It should not have put on but if he left then he's stuck. He should've reviewed it before leaving the clerk's office and made them change it back. He could always petition them and maybe get lucky but I doubt it. They never admit fault.
Moron Wrangler

Ithaca, NY

#23 Jul 28, 2013
Randy S wrote:
<quoted text>
You can get a full CCW if you have a justifiable reason to need one, like your an LEO.
Negative. Not in SLC. Anti-gunner Judge Jerome Richards does not issue unrestricted CCW's for any reason what-so-ever. The only way he'd have to is if you were a Federally licensed firearm instructor. Fortunately, Richards will be a victim of the NYSAFE Act. It's upstate's only real recourse against local politicians.

HIS TERM is up in 2014 and the 2A movement will make an example of him.
spence

Ardsley, NY

#24 Jul 29, 2013
Real agenda wrote:
<quoted text>
I think maybe you misunderstood me. The fees I referenced are for the initial application process only. I think there will be a fee for the renewals, despite what anyone says today, but they'll be nominal.
You're correct that NYS does not want open carry, and that's why the ONLY type of permit you can get is a CONCEALED permit. What I think WILL change for the majority of current permit carriers is the administrative restrictions placed on them, such as "sport use only", etc. I think that's why the Governor wants to take the renewal process out of the hands of the county judges, whom he can't directly control.
And for what it's worth, the rules in Jefferson County aren't necessarily the rules in other counties. For example, in Jefferson County you are required to take a handgun safety course before you can be issued your permit, and the way they conduct their interviews is different. The process varies county by county and is up to the issuing body, so generalized comparisons don't really work.
I do understand each county has their own way of doing things. If you have a permit in reality you can carry any way you want. I have had a permit for thirty years. I have been through check points. Gotten traffic tickets. I have never been asked to show my permit by an LEO. Only show it to buy new handguns. I have heard. But don't know if it is true. That after you have a SLC permit for a year he will then give you a CCW permit. Besides you are always on your way to hunting camp or on your way home. You may be on your way to the range or on your way home from the range. The sportsman restriction doesn't really restrict anything. If you mind your own business. If you don't do something stupid you will never have a problem. I'm glad I don't live in SLC. All will change after 2014 elections.
Real Agenda

New York, NY

#25 Jul 29, 2013
"I have heard. But don't know if it is true. That after you have a SLC permit for a year he will then give you a CCW permit."

By this I'm assuming you mean that after you'd had your CCW for a year, then the restrictions will be removed? I don't think that's the case at all. I live in St. Lawrence County and have a CCW. Judge Richards places restrictions on all of the CCWs he issues, unless you show cause that meets the guidelines that he follows. I've had the opportunity to discuss it with him. Those guidelines are from recent case law, and he's pretty adamant about following them.

The fact that the case law exists and the rulings are really pretty straight-forward is why I believe that this new renewal process, which will supposedly be handled by the NYSP (ie The Governor's Office), is intended to "adjust", by at the very least restricting and in some cases revoking, every CCW previously issued in NYS.
Derp

Watertown, NY

#26 Jul 29, 2013
What guidelines are those?
Real Agenda

New York, NY

#27 Jul 29, 2013
It all revolves around the applicant has demonstrated "proper cause" to have the license. "Proper cause" has been defined by case law, and Judge Richards uses that definition to base his approval (in all or in part) or rejection on.

Here it is:

-BEGIN-

Penal Law Section 400.00.2(f) sets forth a type of pistol license that allows a licensee to "have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or place of possession, by any person when proper cause exists for the issuance thereof."

"Proper cause" has been held to mean that the license applicant must demonstrate "a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession." Matter of Klenosky v. New York City Police Dept. 75 AD 2d 793 as cited in Matter of Bando v. Sullivan 290 AD 2d 691 at 693 (2002). Also see Matter of Kaplan v. Bratton 249 AD 2d 199 (1998).

In Matter of Kaplan the Court cited police department regulations that set forth the requirements of establishing "proper cause." The Kaplan court at page 201 held the license applicant was required to show "extraordinary personal danger documented by proof of recurrent threats to life or safety." The fact that a license applicant may live or work in a high crime area does not establish "proper cause" for a full carry concealed permit.

A general fear for safety without any documented instances of threats, attacks or extraordinary danger will not establish "proper cause". In the Matter of Klenoskv, supra, "proper cause" was cited as "such an unusual circumstance as to warrant issuance of a permit to carry a concealed pistol." Id at 793-794.

The burden is on the applicant to establish "proper cause" for the issuance of a "full carry" permit under penal law section 400.00.2(f). See Matter of Eddy v. Kirk 195 AD 2d 1009 at 1011 (1993).

The power of County Court to issue pistol licenses has been held by higher Courts not only to be the power to determine "proper cause" but also includes the power to restrict the use of a license to the purposes that justified its issuance. See Matter of O'Brien v. Keegan 87 NY 2d 436 at 439 citing Matter of O'Connor v. Scarpino 83 NY 2d 919, 921.

In the Matter of VanVorse v. Teresi 257 AD 2d 938, 939 (1999) the Court cited O'Brien, supra, stating "a licensing officer possesses the extraordinary authority to cancel, revoke, or restrict the license if the license holder has not demonstrated proper cause for continuing the unrestricted license."

A licensing officer (County Court) has broad discretion to determine whether "proper cause" exists to issue a carry-concealed pistol license.
Thus, unrestricted full carry concealed pistol licenses will not be issued unless the applicant/licensee can establish "proper cause". Carry concealed licenses can be issued with restrictions limited to the reasons for the license, i.e. hunting, trapping, target shooting.

-END-

Hope that helps.
Real Agenda

New York, NY

#28 Jul 29, 2013
Edit in the first sentence above

t all revolves around WHETHER OR NOT the applicant has demonstrated "proper cause" to have the license.
Derp

Ithaca, NY

#30 Jul 29, 2013
That's disgusting and god damn unconstitutional. We're being treated like criminals for no reason. Something needs to be done. Vote every mother fu**er out you can starting with Jerome Richards.
Randy S

Ithaca, NY

#31 Jul 30, 2013
Derp wrote:
That's disgusting and god damn unconstitutional. We're being treated like criminals for no reason. Something needs to be done. Vote every mother fu**er out you can starting with Jerome Richards.
Its neither disgusting, nor unconstitutional. The ability to have a CCW is a privlege, not a right.

Its amuzing you think Richards is antigun for issueing permits with sporting restictions. Richards is a big gun owner and Hunter, but maybe you didn't realize that?

Its people like you that cause issues like this.
spence

Springfield, NJ

#32 Jul 30, 2013
Real Agenda wrote:
It all revolves around the applicant has demonstrated "proper cause" to have the license. "Proper cause" has been defined by case law, and Judge Richards uses that definition to base his approval (in all or in part) or rejection on.
Here it is:
-BEGIN-
Penal Law Section 400.00.2(f) sets forth a type of pistol license that allows a licensee to "have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or place of possession, by any person when proper cause exists for the issuance thereof."
"Proper cause" has been held to mean that the license applicant must demonstrate "a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession." Matter of Klenosky v. New York City Police Dept. 75 AD 2d 793 as cited in Matter of Bando v. Sullivan 290 AD 2d 691 at 693 (2002). Also see Matter of Kaplan v. Bratton 249 AD 2d 199 (1998).
In Matter of Kaplan the Court cited police department regulations that set forth the requirements of establishing "proper cause." The Kaplan court at page 201 held the license applicant was required to show "extraordinary personal danger documented by proof of recurrent threats to life or safety." The fact that a license applicant may live or work in a high crime area does not establish "proper cause" for a full carry concealed permit.
A general fear for safety without any documented instances of threats, attacks or extraordinary danger will not establish "proper cause". In the Matter of Klenoskv, supra, "proper cause" was cited as "such an unusual circumstance as to warrant issuance of a permit to carry a concealed pistol." Id at 793-794.
The burden is on the applicant to establish "proper cause" for the issuance of a "full carry" permit under penal law section 400.00.2(f). See Matter of Eddy v. Kirk 195 AD 2d 1009 at 1011 (1993).
The power of County Court to issue pistol licenses has been held by higher Courts not only to be the power to determine "proper cause" but also includes the power to restrict the use of a license to the purposes that justified its issuance. See Matter of O'Brien v. Keegan 87 NY 2d 436 at 439 citing Matter of O'Connor v. Scarpino 83 NY 2d 919, 921.
In the Matter of VanVorse v. Teresi 257 AD 2d 938, 939 (1999) the Court cited O'Brien, supra, stating "a licensing officer possesses the extraordinary authority to cancel, revoke, or restrict the license if the license holder has not demonstrated proper cause for continuing the unrestricted license."
A licensing officer (County Court) has broad discretion to determine whether "proper cause" exists to issue a carry-concealed pistol license.
Thus, unrestricted full carry concealed pistol licenses will not be issued unless the applicant/licensee can establish "proper cause". Carry concealed licenses can be issued with restrictions limited to the reasons for the license, i.e. hunting, trapping, target shooting.
-END-
Hope that helps.
I have a CCW permit. It is not unrestricted. I can't carry it into federal buildings. I can't carry in NYC. There may be a few other restrictions. In order to have a anytime any place Unrestricted CCW you have to be in imminent danger. I can't walk around Fort Drum with a concealed hand gun. That is a restriction. If I had a full CCW permit maybe I could. Not sure about that. My point is. I still have a CCW permit with restrictions. Restrictions that are very easy to live with. I don't know anyone with a no restriction CCW permit.
spence

Springfield, NJ

#33 Jul 30, 2013
Real Agenda wrote:
"I have heard. But don't know if it is true. That after you have a SLC permit for a year he will then give you a CCW permit."
By this I'm assuming you mean that after you'd had your CCW for a year, then the restrictions will be removed? I don't think that's the case at all. I live in St. Lawrence County and have a CCW. Judge Richards places restrictions on all of the CCWs he issues, unless you show cause that meets the guidelines that he follows. I've had the opportunity to discuss it with him. Those guidelines are from recent case law, and he's pretty adamant about following them.
The fact that the case law exists and the rulings are really pretty straight-forward is why I believe that this new renewal process, which will supposedly be handled by the NYSP (ie The Governor's Office), is intended to "adjust", by at the very least restricting and in some cases revoking, every CCW previously issued in NYS.
Thank you for posting the law. Now I understand. I have always known that there were restrictions on my CCW permit. I would never seek to have those restrictions removed. They do not effect me at all. I read the law you posted. I understand the difference between restricted and unrestricted. I also read the law on the renewal process. I didn't see where it says anything about adjusting CCW permits. If a judge has to issue a permit. A judge has the power to take away a permit or adjust a permit level. Those are not the functions of a NYS Trooper. The way I read S2230 says that I can renew from my computer. I'm not trying to argumentative. You showed me what I didn't know about restricted CCW permit. Like I said I didn't even know that there was a unrestricted. Which I don't need or want. Where do you find that CCW permits will be adjusted with the renewal process?
Real Agenda

New York, NY

#34 Jul 30, 2013
Somehow I think you're confusing the restrictions placed on EVERY civilian CCW holder (not legal to possess a firearm in schools, government buildings, military installations, NYC, etc) and the administrative restrictions some judges/county clerks have printed onto the actual CCW licenses they issue. The cases I cited above pertain to the latter: the administrative ("outdoor sports" etc) restrictions.

The new law states that the NYSP will be handling all the paperwork for the license renewals. Why do you think that is? They don't have the records or the system, the various Counties do. Strange...

Not really. It's clear to me that the State, via the Governor's Office, feels it can't adequately control the various County Clerks, Judges and Sheriff's Departments under its watch. New York is a "Home Rule" state, so there's substantial resistance to the State directly meddling in local affairs. That's part of the reason the CCW permit process varies from county to county. Anyway, I guess he's decided that the solution is to take the entire process out of their hands indirectly, via the renewal process. He might succeed.

And don't be fooled - this "renewal" isn't JUST a simple renewal, it's also a re-examination of the CCW holder. So even if the process takes all of 5 minutes on the web, the review and renewal isn't complete until you receive your new, "updated" license. That you'll receive it at all isn't even guaranteed, because AT LEAST FOR NOW, every "renewed" CCW lands on the desk of the issuing body for review before it can be reissued. In the case of SLC residents, that's the desk of Judge Richards. He can kill it based on the review, or alter it by adding restrictions using the guidelines outlined above. Given his track record and the legal rationale he explained to me in some detail, I'd say the chances of a "regular" (non-law enforcement, non-attorney, etc.) CCW holder receiving an unrestricted license back at the completion of the renewal process is, oh, about zero. That's not written into the NYSAFE Act, it's just common sense.

Finally, I don't think it stops with SLC and Judge Richards, however. I really believe that one of the goals of the renewal process is to get as many CCWs as possible stamped with restrictions, and then give those restrictions the force of law, which they don't currently carry. That's not in the NYSAFE Act either, just my opinion.
Derp

Ithaca, NY

#35 Jul 30, 2013
Randy S wrote:
<quoted text>
Its neither disgusting, nor unconstitutional. The ability to have a CCW is a privlege, not a right.
Its amuzing you think Richards is antigun for issueing permits with sporting restictions. Richards is a big gun owner and Hunter, but maybe you didn't realize that?
Its people like you that cause issues like this.
You're the problem and so are rogue judges like Richards. All CCW holders have regular restrictions like not carrying in schools, federal buildings etc. It's the extra restrictions Jerome Richards adds on that limit our right to defend ourselves that infringe on our constitutional rights whether the courts have allowed it or not. He isn't pro-gun. His record has proven it and even if our upstate votes can't get at Cuomo they CAN and WILL get at our local politicians next year as a result of the NYSAFE act. That spells trouble for Addie Jenny Russel AND your hero Jerome Richards. Count on it.
spence

Springfield, NJ

#36 Jul 30, 2013
Derp wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the problem and so are rogue judges like Richards. All CCW holders have regular restrictions like not carrying in schools, federal buildings etc. It's the extra restrictions Jerome Richards adds on that limit our right to defend ourselves that infringe on our constitutional rights whether the courts have allowed it or not. He isn't pro-gun. His record has proven it and even if our upstate votes can't get at Cuomo they CAN and WILL get at our local politicians next year as a result of the NYSAFE act. That spells trouble for Addie Jenny Russel AND your hero Jerome Richards. Count on it.
Addie Russell. Jenny is her maiden name. You can contact her at. Russela@assembly.state.ny.us Everyone should e mail her about the safe act.
spence

Springfield, NJ

#37 Jul 30, 2013
Real Agenda wrote:
Somehow I think you're confusing the restrictions placed on EVERY civilian CCW holder (not legal to possess a firearm in schools, government buildings, military installations, NYC, etc) and the administrative restrictions some judges/county clerks have printed onto the actual CCW licenses they issue. The cases I cited above pertain to the latter: the administrative ("outdoor sports" etc) restrictions.
The new law states that the NYSP will be handling all the paperwork for the license renewals. Why do you think that is? They don't have the records or the system, the various Counties do. Strange...
Not really. It's clear to me that the State, via the Governor's Office, feels it can't adequately control the various County Clerks, Judges and Sheriff's Departments under its watch. New York is a "Home Rule" state, so there's substantial resistance to the State directly meddling in local affairs. That's part of the reason the CCW permit process varies from county to county. Anyway, I guess he's decided that the solution is to take the entire process out of their hands indirectly, via the renewal process. He might succeed.
And don't be fooled - this "renewal" isn't JUST a simple renewal, it's also a re-examination of the CCW holder. So even if the process takes all of 5 minutes on the web, the review and renewal isn't complete until you receive your new, "updated" license. That you'll receive it at all isn't even guaranteed, because AT LEAST FOR NOW, every "renewed" CCW lands on the desk of the issuing body for review before it can be reissued. In the case of SLC residents, that's the desk of Judge Richards. He can kill it based on the review, or alter it by adding restrictions using the guidelines outlined above. Given his track record and the legal rationale he explained to me in some detail, I'd say the chances of a "regular" (non-law enforcement, non-attorney, etc.) CCW holder receiving an unrestricted license back at the completion of the renewal process is, oh, about zero. That's not written into the NYSAFE Act, it's just common sense.
Finally, I don't think it stops with SLC and Judge Richards, however. I really believe that one of the goals of the renewal process is to get as many CCWs as possible stamped with restrictions, and then give those restrictions the force of law, which they don't currently carry. That's not in the NYSAFE Act either, just my opinion.
We will just have to wait and see how it is done. And hope for the best. I don't see what the state has to gain by restricting the CCW permits. Holders of such permits are very law abiding. They aren't the problem.
Real Agenda

New York, NY

#38 Jul 30, 2013
I think you're basically right. I think what the State gains is CONTROL. Right now they just don't have it at that level.

Also, as I commented earlier, I think one day those restrictions, which are now only administrative and bear no real legal weight, will one day soon become offenses a person can be ticketed for, much like driving out of class, etc.

Here's the way I see it going down: Say you have a CCW license stamped with the restriction "Outdoor Sports". If you get caught with it for any reason when you're not traveling to, from or during one of the "accepted" activities deemed and "outdoor sport", you're in violation. Period. Now if you've ever read the list of "accepted activities", you'd know that list is a big crock of B.S. Regardless, you're still in violation and you'll get an actual ticket instead of a stern lecture. You plead out or go to court and you're found guilty. In addition to a costly fine, your permit goes back to the issuing body for "review", and ultimately gets pulled "for cause". Of course you lose all your licensed handguns as well. One less CCW on the books. It's the backdoor to absolute handgun control, which is exactly what Cuomo and his people want.
Derp

Ithaca, NY

#39 Jul 30, 2013
Thus, not doing anything against illegal guns or the next mass shooting. Just f**king with the law abiding citizen. Essentially proving everything in his State of the Union rant and message of necessity was a lie. Therefore, he and local politicians should all pay by being voted out by each and every gun owner in the north country. This includes Russel and Richards.
spence

Ardsley, NY

#40 Jul 31, 2013
Real Agenda wrote:
I think you're basically right. I think what the State gains is CONTROL. Right now they just don't have it at that level.
Also, as I commented earlier, I think one day those restrictions, which are now only administrative and bear no real legal weight, will one day soon become offenses a person can be ticketed for, much like driving out of class, etc.
Here's the way I see it going down: Say you have a CCW license stamped with the restriction "Outdoor Sports". If you get caught with it for any reason when you're not traveling to, from or during one of the "accepted" activities deemed and "outdoor sport", you're in violation. Period. Now if you've ever read the list of "accepted activities", you'd know that list is a big crock of B.S. Regardless, you're still in violation and you'll get an actual ticket instead of a stern lecture. You plead out or go to court and you're found guilty. In addition to a costly fine, your permit goes back to the issuing body for "review", and ultimately gets pulled "for cause". Of course you lose all your licensed handguns as well. One less CCW on the books. It's the backdoor to absolute handgun control, which is exactly what Cuomo and his people want.
I hope that you are wrong. I'm also cynical. I just can't see how it would work for the Governor. I have talked to a few State Troopers. They don't agree with the law. I doubt many would arrest anyone. I have had hand guns for thirty years. Never have I been ask to show my permit to a LEO. I have had a legal hand gun in my car when stopped at a road check at the county line. They didn't know I had the gun. I didn't tell them. I don't think that I have to by law. I can't see how they would catch people. I think that it will be a toothless law.
Real Agenda

New York, NY

#41 Jul 31, 2013
I've talked to a few troopers as well, and most of them seem to think NYSAFE Act is shortsighted and unworkable. Unfortunately, the rank and file NYS Trooper doesn't run the show. They take orders from their supervisors, who ultimately take their orders from Superintendent Joseph A. D'Amico, a Cuomo appointee.

The NYSP are ultimately controlled by the Governor. Don't let anybody try to tell you otherwise.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Antwerp Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Scum bags 4 hr Buyer 4
This website 7 hr Leroy 15
Assault weapon ban Thu derka der 16
Ben ? Thu Education is key 4
Amanda Henderson (Apr '12) Wed Lopez 17
Bill HisCock what does anyone know about him? Feb 20 WAKE n SMELL THE ... 8
weird Feb 18 ?? 20

Antwerp Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Antwerp Mortgages