[Peetmoss]

He nailed my butt to the wall. I requested my restrictions be lifted from my NYS carry permit. Well I was denied and shot down big time. I am posting his response to my request. If anyone can give me some info on the case he sighted or tell me how to get the info it would be appricaited.

"Demonstration of "proper cause" for the issuance of an unresricted carry concealed pistol license has been defined as "a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession." See, Matter of Kaplan v. Bratton,249 A.D.2d 199 (1st Dept. 1998). Manifestly, were a desire to hunt or engage in marksmanship compititions, even in another state, to constitute "proper cause", such restrictions on a fireamres license would be renered unnecessary. As such, the applicant has demonstrated no specific, real and imminent danger to his personal saftey. In all respects, he has failed to demonstrate "proper cause" and, therfore, the court is prohibited by law from approving an unrestricted pistol license.

Futhermore, for the purposes of hunting and/ or target shooting, the applicant must transport his unloaded weapons and ammunition in separate locked containers.

The application for an unrestricted carry concealed pistol license is DENIED."

William D. Walsh Onondaga County Court Judge

This guy is a waste of a Black Robe. It's kinda a funny how the next county over only issues unrestricted permits.

[MitchSchaft]

Move to a real State.

[CZ-75]

Do you know someone in the next county you can use as an address, or just plain up and move to the next county (or state)?

[spacemanspiff]

i suppose rape victims had no 'specific, real and imminent danger' of being targeted for such attacks?

what is "imminent danger"? to me, thats when someone has confronted me with a weapon and verbalized his threat. what are NY'ers supposed to do? fill out the application right then? take pictures of their attacker to prove they are in danger?

send him back a response asking when a "real judge" will be appointed who cares for the safety of the people who live in his district.

[MeekandMild]

One might consider moving to the next county or get an out of state Florida permit. OTOH I would be tempted to sue him to get the names of the people who were issued unrestricted licenses then start digging to find out where is the payola.

[Frohickey]

"Bad things do not follow a set schedule."

[Peetmoss]

I can move to a pretty friendly county it will quadrupale my drive tiime to work but I am seriously considering it. The only prob is there is no gaurintee that when I transfe my licensee over to the new county they will remove my restrictions. Although the county only issues full permits.

[Peetmoss]

Would love too! However I work for the State LOL. Will have been there 10 yrs this june. And I make pretty good money. I don't know if I can give it up without first changing counties or sueing.

[Byron Quick]

What about moving, allowing your present license to expire, and then reapply?

On the other hand, you could get some of your buddies to beat the hell out of you every month or so for a year or so and then reapply in your present county. Hey! I'm kidding!:D

[MitchSchaft]

Yeah, I guess you gotta weigh the odds.

[Peetmoss]

"send him back a response asking when a "real judge" will be appointed who cares for the safety of the people who live in his district."

The only problem with that suggestion is that my permit is valid untill suspended or revoked. At the licenesing authoutity
(AKA Walsh) can revoke or suspend my licnense at will. Piss off judge no more handguns.

[Hkmp5sd]

Ask the judge what the proper cause was that he used to get his carry license, which you can bet he does have.

[Peetmoss]

I don't have to ask I can tell you right now what it is. He has to administer sentence to criminals as part of his job. Therefor he is subject to repriasials from said criminals and or there families.

[Standing Wolf]

You couldn't pay me to live there.

[Jim March]

Did you ask who WAS getting the permits, to check and see if your "good cause" was similar to theirs?

Did you make an equal protection claim?

Did you get REAL tricky and get a minority person to apply, so that you could total up how many minorities are in the county versus what percent have permits, and make a claim of racism on that basis?

That latter trick is what's REALLY gonna kick butt :). See also:

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/practicalrace.html - the first chapter is OK as background, but the 2nd chapter on equal protection is a full-tilt courtroom gameplan.

[TarpleyG]

I like Jim's idea. Those should be public records that you can request but I would bet they will charge you a "filing fee" or some crap like that. Armed with those records, you should be able to determine what "reason" would be adequate since the obvious isn't.

GT

[warddc]

Peetmoss,

I live a few counties south of you in Steuben. Here they give unrestricted carry by default. There is a bill before the legislature by Senator Kuhl to change the law so that 'proper cause' proof is not necessary. That just applying for a carry permit is sufficient cause.

Maybe the law will change.

Dave.

[Smurfslayer]

I think Jim's possibly on to it... It would seem that if what you say "they only ever issue unrestricted in the next county over"...

is true, than wouldn't you have been the victim of the violation of "Equal Protection Under the Law?"

[Skunkabilly]

"a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession."

So much for a classless society.

[Jim March]

If any of you think I'm blowing smoke, here's what the wildly liberal Federal 9th Circuit had to say on equal protection issues in discretionary CCW similar to NY's system:

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/guillory.html

Short form: Mr. Guillory was denied CCW by sheriff Gates of Orange County in 1982. At the trial court level, Guillory's lawyer put Gates up on the stand and asked him about who IS getting permits, but the judge put a stop to that line of questions as "not relevent to Guillory's personal situation".

Guillory (with two co-plaintiffs also involved, same deal) lost at trial. They then appealed to the 9th Circuit, which said that the trial judge had erred: there was indeed an equal protection element going on in this law, and Guillory & co. should have been allowed to question Gates on that subject! The circuit reversed the decision and then ordered a new trial on that basis.

Instead of letting himself be questioned on those issues, Gates surrendered and issued CCW to all three plaintiffs - but the circuit's ruling that there's an equal protection issue at stake is still valid case law.

It gets better: in 1986, CBS radio tried to get a list of permitholders off of Sheriff Baca of LA. Baca would provide names, but didn't want to give up details of "good cause" information. That case made it to the California Supremes, who threw the records open to public inspection. While they didn't use the term "equal protection", it's clear that they thought equal protection violations or other problems may be going on. To quote the court:

--------------
FN12. Even more significant is the fact that the reason for issuance proffered in the majority of the current applications is the blanket statement: "For protection of life and property." The current licenses are primarily renewals. Contrary to the policy promulgated by the sheriff, these applications for renewal do not provide "convincing evidence of a clear and present danger to life or great bodily harm to the applicant."

While some of the holders of concealed weapon licenses may prefer anonymity, it is doubtful that such preferences outweigh the "fundamental and necessary" right of the public to examine the bases upon which such licenses are issued. It is a privilege to carry a concealed weapon. Furthermore, there is a clear and legislatively articulated justification for disclosure--the right of the public and the press to review the government's conduct of its business. [Ed. note: the legislation in question is the Public Records Act throwing open gov't records in general.] Public inspection of the names of license holders and the reasons the licenses were requested enables the press and the public to ensure that public officials are acting properly in issuing licenses for legitimate reasons. Defendants' conclusion that White v. Davis precluded disclosure would obliterate the fundamental right of the press and the people to have access to "information concerning the conduct of the people's business." (s 6250.) It is possible, of course, that certain information supplied by individual applicants may under certain circumstances entail a substantial privacy interest. For example, the records may contain intimate information concerning an applicant's own or his family's medical or psychological history. In such special cases, the confidential information may be deleted. [Ed: we generally consider street addresses, gun make/model/SN information, phone numbers, employer and social sec. # to be private.]

The interest of society in ensuring accountability is particularly strong where the discretion invested in a government official is unfettered, and only a select few are granted the special privilege. Moreover, the degree of subjectivity involved in exercising the discretion cries out for public scrutiny. For example, the sheriff of Orange County has issued over 400 licenses; in Los Angeles County only 35 licenses have been issued. Ostensibly, both sheriffs are applying the same statutory criteria for granting or denying these licenses. The apparent discrepancy indicates that something may be amiss. If the information on which the decision to grant can be kept from the public and the press, then there is no method by which the people can ever ascertain whether the law is being fairly and impartially applied. [Ed. note: "fairly and impartially applied" means equal protection, exactly in line with Guillory v. Gates]
--------------

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/cbsvblock.html - when I did an onsite records inspection at the Alameda County Sheriff's Office, I found that case printed out and in their binder of CCW policies. Guess where they got the case? Yup, they printed it out from MY website, with my own editorial comments included :D.

[Peetmoss]

"Did you ask who WAS getting the permits, to check and see if your "good cause" was similar to theirs?"

No I did not. However I know one individual personaly and know of others that have used similar "good cause" excuses. They were succesful. However in my county there are three diffrent judges that issue permits. They all had diffrent judges then I.

"Did you make an equal protection claim?"

No I havn't had a chance to yet. I have to be prepaired to submit factual proof before I go that far.

"Did you get REAL tricky and get a minority person to apply, so that you could total up how many minorities are in the county versus what percent have permits, and make a claim of racism on that basis?"

Jim it's sad to say but I don't know any minorities. Well I know one but he is retired and moved to Georgia. I will post my original letter to the judge for all to see next.



That latter trick is what's REALLY gonna kick butt . See also:

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/practicalrace.html - the first chapter is OK as background, but the 2nd chapter on equal protection is a full-tilt courtroom gameplan.

[Peetmoss]

"Your Honor:

I am hereby asking that my restrictions be removed from my pistol permit, for the reasons stated below.

I am an avid hunter, and I wish to expand my hunting experiences outside New York. I would really like to do this with my handgun. I have looked into the possibility of doing this in New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. These states offer Non-Resident pistol permits. Unfortunately New Hampshire and Pennsylvania require me to have an unrestricted permit before they will consider my application for a non- resident permit.

Secondly I have recently joined the IDPA (International Defensive Pistol Association) and the GSSF (Glock Sport Shooters Foundation). These are organizations that have handgun marksmanship competitions. These competitions require a sizeable amount of ammunition. These competitions are held all over NYS and the country. I will be primarily competing in the northeast. The problem with this is the closest competition to my home is held in Cortland, NY. This is about an hour drive, with a competiton that lasts for several hours. I will have to stop and eat at least once. Stopping to eat breakfast or lunch the way I understand it, would require me to leave my handgun in my automobile. This, along with the sizeable amount of ammunition that will be in the automobile with the handgun, I believe is a far greater danger to the public than it would be for me to be able to carry my handgun with me.

Thank you for the time you spent reading and considering my request."


I guess I should have said that having my guns and the ammuntion requiered to participate in these compitions with me puts me at a greater risk to robbed, assualted or even murderd. Seeing that asset protection seems to be a valid cause from everything I have seen.

[geegee]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but New York blows! :cuss:
I grew up in Buffalo, and have told my sister that once my parents have passed away, I'll probably never go back. Any state that is willing to vote in a %$#$#@^ like Hillary Clinton, who never even lived there, is undoubtedly a place I have nothing in common with. geegee

[Blackhawk]

Peetmoss, the judge ruled appropriately based on your letter to him. Get a lawyer recommendation from GOA, the NRA, the IDPA for one who can write a letter in legalese for you that will show why your restrictions should be lifted. It will cost you $150-$200 for the letter, but hey, it's only money! :D

[Peetmoss]

I agree NYS sucks. The economy is crap, the policies are crap just to name a few bad things. However I was born and raised here. Most of my family lives here. I have a great job here. Also I I don't want to run from my problems I would like to try to make this state better for others. I wish NY was like Vermont but it won't happen if everyone just runs out of state. I may however run a little I havn't decieded yet. I may run to the next county.

[Peetmoss]

You really believe I was that far off on my reasons? Maybe I was I don't know. Hell though 200 dollars I have been thinking of spending alot more then that. My only problem now is that I have already stated a reason that I either have to defend or in my opinion I will appear to be fishing for cause. Unless I get a crafty lawyer who can make it seem otherwise. I guess I should see if my membership fee to the GOA and the NRA gets me anything like the names of a few lawyers in my area :D

[Blackhawk]

Don't worry about your first letter. The judge is a lawyer. He knows you, not being a lawyer, are woefully unable to articulate what you mean in legalese. Judges appreciate it when petitioners hire lawyers to state their case. Some kind of professional courtesy.... :rolleyes:

[Peetmoss]

I think you are right about that Blawkhawk. I know from ticket expierance you get know where on your own, However if you spend the 150 for the lawyer to say the basicly the same thing you either get off or get a conviction of a reduced non moving violation give everyone some cash and everyone but your bank account is happy.

[Jim March]

OK, first step is seeing that there's an equal protection element in question, and digging into who HAS the permits. If the entire issuance system is "arbitrary and capricious", that's sometimes grounds alone to fix it.

However.

Next lesson is that the gov't CAN discriminate against people.

If the discrimination is along the lines of income, social and political connections, it may be ugly but it isn't affecting "protected classes", and therefore the courts apply a "rational basis" test to the discrimination. Where gun control is concerned, the courts will automatically determine that what's up is "rational".

I was warned about that almost three years ago by attorney Don B. Kates, who has more experience with equal protection law than anybody else in the RKBA movement - he used to do pro-bono law for Martin Luther King Jr. back in the early 60's.

So what do you do?

When racial discrimination is going on, the courts apply "strict scrutiny", at which point the law/procedure in question is generally toast.

So, is the race of each applicant even being recorded? If not, how many Hispanics are there in your area? If it's up around 15% or higher, good, a list of permitholders can be analyzed for last names like "Garcia" or whatever, giving you a rough comparison of permitholder demographics compared to the general population.

If proving racial discrimination is impossible, there's maybe a backup plan: *gender* discrimination is judged on a standard somewhere between "rational basis" and "strict scrutiny". I can tell you that ladies hold about 19% of the permits in two shall-issue states that keep a count online: Texas and Tennessee. In California, under the "good ol' boys" issuance policies that are all too common, the gals hold a LOT less than that. And ladies are generally easy to spot in the list of names.

[grapenut67]

Peetmoss, have you tried to reapply? Any luck? I am about to have a go at it and was curious of there had been any changes?

[rbernie]

According to his public profile (which you can view, by the way), he's not been online since September 15th, 2004 06:54 PM.

I doubt he'll answer.