Pistol permit denied!

[ladder13]

Bad enough, in this county(not mine) they restrict "lawful" carry options to "target shooting", but check out the reason for denial. Not enough "enthusiasm" for the "sport"


YouTube - JUDGE JEFFREY A. COHEN CONTINUES HIS DESACRATION/DENIES TARGET SHOOTING PERMIT

 

[oldRoger]

Any excuse not to grant the permit would seem good enough to this Judge; I assume he is doing his job to the satisfaction of the Westchester County Government.

 

[oldman45]

Why would she need a permit if she is with her husband? He can carry the firearms. Does her son have a permit?

Sure, I think she has the right to have a permit and the reasons for denial is weak but I see where the Judge may feel since her hubby can carry to the range would be adequate for her.

Since there was a permit given to the husband and not to her, then it would not appear the court is just against guns.

 

[G-Mac]

Why would she need a permit if she is with her husband? He can carry the firearms. Does her son have a permit?

Sure, I think she has the right to have a permit and the reasons for denial is weak but I see where the Judge may feel since her hubby can carry to the range would be adequate for her.

Since there was a permit given to the husband and not to her, then it would not appear the court is just against guns.

New York State laws. The fact that her husband has a permit does not allow her to "possess" his guns while at the range.

If I'm wrong on that, I'd be glad to have somebody correct me...but that's how I understand it.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

I once had a T-shirt made that said in large letters "THIS CRAP" followed by small letters "is a bunch of BS".

Pretty much sums up my feelings about judges (or any other bureaucrat) being given the power to determine when, how, or under what circumstances any citizen may be permitted to exercise his/her constitutional rights!

Until the units that we elect, appoint, hire, allow, suffer, or otherwise permit to hold ANY public office figure out that their function is to SERVE the people, rather than to RULE over the people, those units need to be changed.

Best regards.

 

[borntoraisehogs]

To say the Second amendment is mostly protecting target shooting and hunting , is like saying the First amendment was designed primarily to protect porno magazines and religious nuts who protest at soldiers funerals .

 

[oldman45]

Until the units that we elect, appoint, hire, allow, suffer, or otherwise permit to hold ANY public office figure out that their function is to SERVE the people, rather than to RULE over the people, those units need to be changed.

Best regards.

OK, I can agree with that. But best remember, WE elect those in such positions. So they are there because we put them there.

I will bet that 40% of those on this site voted for Obama and now 90% of those here are not satisfied with his decisions. But many of those here helped put him in office.

 

[oldman45]

To say the Second amendment is mostly protecting target shooting and hunting , is like saying the First amendment was designed primarily to protect porno magazines and religious nuts who protest at soldiers funerals .

Best check the amendments. The Second does not say what we can do with a gun but it does not say what we can not do with one either. I am not saying the lady does not have the right to own a gun. Yet her community may have a different standard of gun use than another might.

People complain about not being allowed to do things but they continue to live where the rules apply. I do not know the lady involved but I can assure you she can move here and carry all the guns she wants and do anything she wants with them short of committing crimes with them.

The good people at S&W and several other gun makers are at the top of the list in complaining about restrictive gun laws. Yet the same people leave their factories located in anti gun states. Let them leave Mass, and the state will relax the gun laws.

I will not live in an anti gun state. I turned down a high paying position with law enforcement in a northeastern state due to their gun laws.

If the lady and her hubby is serious about shooting, then they should not live where they have to request a permit to carry guns anywhere.

Yet nobody has told me why the son can go to the range and shoot without a permit but both the lady and her husband has to have a permit. Something is not being told.

 

[wheelgun28]

NY has some pretty odd gun laws. They have had them since the 1930's. I think its call the Sullivan Laws.

Heres a short read.

Firearm Laws for New York

As I know them, no one other than the permit holder can handle the handguns. The permit holder can only handle the handguns that are listed on the permit by model and serial number. So even if your at the range and your buddy has a new gun you wish to try a few rounds in, would be a violation of the law.

In order to buy a handgun, you pay for the gun at the store, get a receipt with the mod and serial number. Go to the county with your permit and receipt, they will amend your permit with the new gun, (if you are worthy?) This can take several weeks. Then you get the permit back and go to the store to pick up the gun after doing the Brady check plus form 4473 and go only know what other paper work.

When I was a kid we lived in NY, my father and mother had permits with the same guns listed.

I never did understand why they have target/hunting permits, premise permits and carry permits.

 

[2152hq]

New York State laws. The fact that her husband has a permit does not allow her to "possess" his guns while at the range.

If I'm wrong on that, I'd be glad to have somebody correct me...but that's how I understand it.

You got it right. The permit is issued to the individual and for the specific handguns listed on that permit. No other person can legally use the handguns except that permit holder.
Allowing another person to handle & use the pistol(s) is technically outside the law even if that other person were to have a NYS pistol permit (unless the handgun(s) were also listed on that other persons permit, which is possible to do).

Plus the issuing judges are putting restrictions on the permits when they finally grace them with their signiture.
Since NYS is not a 'shall issue' State,,you have to put down a reason why you want a pistol permit on the application. Most everyone puts down something like target shooting, hunting, recreational shooting, etc. When it's issued,,most likely that reason will become a restriction of use on the permit.

In the case of the lady trying to get a permit 'for target shooting',,,if issued, the permit would in most Countys be marked boldly 'for target shooting only' when issued.
The permit is then useless for hunting, CCW, etc.
If out and about and stopped with the gun in your car, you had better be going to/coming from a target shooting activity and definetly not be wearing it on your person when the permit is restricted as such.

Personal Pistol Permits,,Dealer (handgun) License, Gunsmith (handgun) License, are all forms of a NYS Pistol Permit and are applied for on essentially the same forms. Most Countys issue a personal pistol permit for life, but some downstate countys restrict it to 3 or 5 years IIRC. Dealer & Gunsmith licenses are renewed every 3 years. Costs when you get all done run about $200 and up every time you have to apply. Countys have the licensing powers, NYS enacts the laws and directs the show.

Hang on to your rights if you still have them. They can dissappear real quick if you're not watching out for them and you'll never get them back the way they were.

 

[borntoraisehogs]

oldman

The interest founding fathers sought to protect with the Second amendment , was the right of the people to be armed in order to preserve a free state . It is remarkable for someone to argue eventhough the founders believed the right to bear arms was so important it should be addressed right after speech and religion , they were at the same time unmindful of any purposeful reason for the right to be protected . Even more remarkable is the arrogance born of a smug certitude that directs another to reread that which he himself has demonstrated ignorance .

 

[PDL]

Just a quick online dictionary definition.

a·bridge /əˈbrɪdʒ/ Show Spelled[uh-brij] Show IPA
–verb (used with object),a·bridged, a·bridg·ing.
1.to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book.
2.to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom.
3.to deprive; cut off.

All of the fees, tests, qualifying, abitrary blessing and guidance from any govenment ammounts to abridgement. Hopefully, the Chicago trial will get that straight in eveyone's mind. Strict interpretations should be used in the specific cases where an person is a criminal or insane etc. before curtailing their right. Those would be reasonable restrictions. Not showing enought interest in target shooting certainly isn't.

And the amendment says Keep and Bear, not just have around the house.

People should know how to safely and correctly handle firearms, but it's not up to a Chief of Police, Judge, or any other govenment body to determin the extent of their capabilities.

 

[oldman45]

People should know how to safely and correctly handle firearms, but it's not up to a Chief of Police, Judge, or any other govenment body to determin the extent of their capabilities.

Actually it does. If a municipality grants a license for such, they can be sued if the person is not qualified to carry or understand proper use of same.

Assume a person does not understand the operation of a weapon or the legal ramifications for it's use but is issued a permit, then the issuing agency can be held liable due to negligence in issuing the permit. This is why many places require a release from the permittee relieving the municipality of any liability for damages arising from the issuance of said permit.

 

[ladder13]

New York State laws. The fact that her husband has a permit does not allow her to "possess" his guns while at the range.

If I'm wrong on that, I'd be glad to have somebody correct me...but that's how I understand it.

Correct Gordie.

215hq about covered it all.

 

[ladder13]

People should know how to safely and correctly handle firearms, but it's not up to a Chief of Police, Judge, or any other govenment body to determin the extent of their capabilities.

Sadly, that's true in only a couple States. Alaska, Vermont, and I believe now Arizona. EVERY other State is up to either a Judge, Sheriff, or other beaurocrat.