dumb ?? ive had forever- open carry in NY state?

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thorn726

Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2004
Messages
1,388
Location
berkeley, CA
ok i know- What? no such thing as open carry in NY state is there?

here it is- so i was at a 7-11 in Long Island real early one morning, this would have been 1991, i remember because it was the year i graduated HS.
anyway at 7-11, this guy pulls up, gets out of his car, and has a revolver in a holster on his hip- not in a police car, not uniformed- (not concealed)
so i never figured it out then, but since being on this site i assume he must have been LE on way to work, or possibly a detective-

can anyone give me any sort of idea?
like i said, my guess is LEO's can carry open in NY whenever???

just curious, only been wondering for what ., 14 years?
 
Police can carry off duty in their mode of choosing. Otherwise, there is no such thing as open carry in NYS when it comes to "ordinary" civilians. A'course, while hunting, there is sorta an exception. :rolleyes:
 
Police can carry off duty in their mode of choosing. Otherwise, there is no such thing as open carry in NYS when it comes to "ordinary" civilians. A'course, while hunting, there is sorta an exception.
Click to expand...

ok that's what i figured- he looked like police officer, but did not look on duty at all. thanks!

was way too confident to be doing it illegally.
 
VARifleman,

Who cares if he was an LEO? Unjust laws deserve nothing but to be broken by the people.
Click to expand...

The problem becomes, who decides which laws are unjust?

I was talking to my wifes cousin about this sort of thing. He had several court dates for not wearing a helmet on his Motorcycle. He said it was an unjust law, I happen to agree, and it was his duty to break it.

I said, "so if I decide the law against shooting long haired bikers is unjust I can start blasting away?" He thought about it for a while and decided to try changing the law by lawful means.

He ran for local government last year and almost made it, he'll win next time.

You can't change a law by breaking it, you are only perceived as a criminal and no one will pay attention to you. The only way to change or remove an unjust law is to work from within the system. No matter how long or confusing the process.

Just my opinion.

DM
 
Who cares if he was an LEO? Unjust laws deserve nothing but to be broken by the people.
Click to expand...

i think more appropriate in this case would be- what good does it do any of us if LE's break whatever laws they feel are unjust while the rest of us can't?

that particular type of lawbreaking will not win us anything.

there are times when certain things should be brought to court to prove the law is unjust, but you better be sure you can do it.
 
You obviously couldn't start blasting away as that's not an unjust law. It is a fallacy to equate those two. The law is obviously not providing equal protection as the 14th amendment states, and it is obviously infringing on the people's right to bear arms. Is that hard to grasp?
 
You obviously couldn't start blasting away as that's not an unjust law. The law is obviously not providing equal protection as the 14th amendment states, and it is obviously infringing on the people's right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

That's what I am saying. To you and me and most of the others on this board the law prohibiting law abiding citizens from carrying is unjust. To many others it is just.

If we are all allowed to choose which laws we will obey, then there is no law, and we only have anarchy.

DM
 
He had several court dates for not wearing a helmet on his Motorcycle. He said it was an unjust law, I happen to agree, and it was his duty to break it.
Click to expand...

I don't care whether motorcyclists wear helmets—as long as they don't rely on public money to treat their injuries. If I'm forced to help pick up the medical tab with my tax dollars, my attitude toward helmets tends to undergo a change.
 
How about a law forcing men to wear condoms? Since the female condom is a reality lets make the law force men and women to use condoms at the same time. LEO will be exempt, of course. After all, why should I pay more for my health care and higher taxes due to other peoples reckless behavior? What costs more - a head injury, AIDS patient, or an unwanted child?

Sorry for the OT rant, but talk of the super-citizens chaps my a** every time.
 
"If we are all allowed to choose which laws we will obey, then there is no law, and we only have anarchy."

DM, I can't say you don't have a point there, but I wonder where the threshold is.
I'm older than most here and I remember clearly that ordinary soldiers who happened to be enlisted in the wrong army were convicted and sentenced for not choosing to disobey a law or lawful order. Many of those soldiers were in a "no win" situation too. Had they not followed orders and herded those Jews into the boxcars they would themselves have been shot.
On a somwhat lesser scale, Rosa Parks disobeyed a law by not vacating her seat on the bus. Now she's celebrated as a heroine while the German soldiers are still criminals. Where's the dividing line between a bad law to obey and an equally bad law to disobey?
Many of us hold in disdain those citizens who rely on the "Government" for their safety. How can we justify asking that same "Government" to decree which laws are truly just and worth obeying? "Government" will always hold that all laws must be obeyed.
A few years ago, a couple of hundred miles south of where I sit typing this, a man walked into a bar and blew the brains out of a patron while the "victim" sat drinking his beer. It seems that the victim was a local drug dealer and had issued a very believable threat regarding the daughter of the shooter. The shooter was arrested of course, but a jury acquitted him of all charges, feeling that he had acted in defense of his daughter. Here was a case of someone clearly disobeying a law for a good reason. Was it anarchy? Possibly, but since it didn't set off a wave of drug-dealer executions it was obviously pretty small-scale.
If I find it neccesary to go into a bad section of town late at night and stick a gun in my waistband, knowing full well that I don't have permission from the "Government" to do so... am I an anarchist? Or am I merely putting my money where my mouth is when I say that I firmly believe that the Second Amendment to the Constitution forbids "Government" from controlling the way I choose to protect myself?
My wife has a Master's Degree in Divinity and is studying hard to become ordained in her Church. This evening she was wondering aloud whether she might be too conservative for her chosen Church affiliation. We discussed it over the dinner table for awhile and she finally decided that she has to do what she feels is right, even if her Bishop isn't in agreement.
I think that's where the earlier issue has to stand too. I don't have to live with other people. Even at my age, I could go off and live alone and not have to worry about what others might think of my actions. But if I intend to live, I must live with myself, so I have to make decisions that I can live with. If "Government" passes a law that I cannot in good conscience obey, then I must disobey it. There may be consequences for my action but I won't have trouble looking at myself in a mirror.
 
I don't care whether motorcyclists wear helmets—as long as they don't rely on public money to treat their injuries. If I'm forced to help pick up the medical tab with my tax dollars, my attitude toward helmets tends to undergo a change.
Click to expand...

uh yeah even better- (and i ride a motorcycle, gonna get on it soon as this is posted)

how about when you run a stop sign (slowly) and knock a guy over-
and instead of owing him $800 for damages you owe him
$1 million for making him a vegetable. the price we pay for using the publicly funded roads- having to deal with the public.
it is sad the laws that have been created by lawsuits.

the funny thing is a bunch of bikers who hate helemt laws
can only blame previous bikers for being sue happy, maybe hospitals for being so expensive

i personally enjoy my noggin and my teeth
 
Addressing the original question..... (sorry for steering the car back onto the road). My father retired from the NYCPD and was required to carry his revolver off duty which included hunting. He used to wear it on his belt (not concealed) when hunting up state.
 
Well, it's clear NYS requires concealment if you're an ordinary citizen.

(a) have and possess in his dwelling by a householder; (b)
have and possess in his place of business by a merchant or storekeeper;
(c) have and carry concealed while so employed by a messenger employed
by a banking institution or express company; (d) have and carry
concealed by a justice of the supreme court in the first or second
judicial departments, or by a judge of the New York city civil court or
the New York city criminal court; (e) have and carry concealed while so
employed by a regular employee of an institution of the state, or of any
county, city, town or village, under control of a commissioner of
correction of the city or any warden, superintendent or head keeper of
any state prison, penitentiary, workhouse, county jail or other
institution for the detention of persons convicted or accused of crime
or held as witnesses in criminal cases, provided that application is
made therefor by such commissioner, warden, superintendent or head
keeper; (f) have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or
place of possession, by any person when proper cause exists for the
issuance thereof; and (g) have, possess, collect and carry antique
pistols which are defined as follows: (i) any single shot, muzzle
loading pistol with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar
type of ignition system manufactured in or before l898, which is not
designed for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition;
and (ii) any replica of any pistol described in clause (i) hereof if
such replica--

Notice "To have and carry concealed". You can open carry in your own dwelling if you have a premise license.
 
The problem with breaking "unjust laws" is when you are arrested, & if it is a felony, now you loose your legal right to carry in the 1st place - not all that smart really...YOU have to decide if the cost is worth it.

Don't like the laws? Convince a majority of the people to think the way you do, vote in better reps, and get them changed. Or move to someplace where that has happenned already.
 
You can't change a law by breaking it, you are only perceived as a criminal and no one will pay attention to you.
Click to expand...
I believe Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, and more than a few others would disagree with you on that point.
 
was way too confident to be doing it illegally.
Click to expand...

Confidence is the key to doing anything in this world. Looking like you know what you are doing will take you pretty far.

The problem becomes, who decides which laws are unjust?
Click to expand...

Each and every person has to decide for themselves which laws are unjust. They should know the consquences of there actions as well. If you belive what you are doing is the right thing to do, and you know of the consquence of your actions you should be able to make your own descision. If it turns out that you goto jail over the unjust law you had choosen to break. That is one of the consquences you had accpeted as being worth it when you made your desicision.

The name of the game is personal responisibility. You are accountable for your actions.

Chris
 
We must all hang together or else we will all hang separately.
Click to expand...

If I'm going to be "hanged by the neck until I am dead" to use the Olde Englishe Judicial Speak than I'm damn sure that I'm going to pick a fight that is actually worth the cost.

Wars are won not by fighting every last chance of a battle that comes along but by choosing which battles to fight very carefully.

Breaking the carry laws on mass right now would be unbelievably counter productive and would lead to more infringments not less. On the other hand the quiet approach has landed us with half the country having some form of shall issue CCW and most in a lot of the other states to do the same.

Our rights were infringed slowly over time by our enemies picking and choosing their fights carefully using the divide and conquer technique. We will only get then back the same way, slowly and peice by peice.
 
"On the other hand the quiet approach has landed us with half the country having some form of shall issue CCW and most in a lot of the other states to do the same."

I've always thought that the primary reason divorces are so contentious is because neither party really wants to admit they made a stupid mistake. They'd much rather blame the other person.
Maybe that's why no one seems to want to talk about the 'dark side' of CCW. It has one, you know.
Sure, if you jump through the hoops and pay your money you can carry in most states now. But Big Brother knows about it too and the day will come when he will want you to turn your guns in. It'll probably be awhile, maybe even fifty or a hundred years, so we (that's you and I) won't have to worry about it. During that time though, BB is busily "educating" our kids and grandkids about how they can depend on BB for everything from personal protection to a comfortable retirement. The few who will still want to own guns will be so brainwashed by then that they won't hesitate to behave like good little drones and rush down to turn them in. Those few who don't will be on a list which we have helped to establish.
When the Third Reich swept into France and Belgium the first thing the local commanders did was consult the lists of gunowners kept by the local police. All honest gun owners had dutifully registered their guns. There were a few gangsters who had owned guns "off paper," and they weren't in any hurry to turn them in to the Gestapo. Later, when a resistance was mounted, those 'gangsters' were the only ones with any firepower.
It'll all happen again too. Only, as I said, you and I won't have to worry about it. Instead, we're leaving a legacy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top