Article 78: NYPD Carry Business License Denial

As per “15 U.S. Code - Chapter 105 - Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms”; the legal acquisition of arms is a “fundamental right” protected by the Second Amendment. Therefore N.Y.S. P.L. § 400.00 (2) (f); “as-applied” by Respondent to Petitioner who is an FFL 01 Firearms Dealer; violates his Second Amendment “fundamental right” to engage in lawful commerce in arms. Petitioner requires a Carry Business License to legally perform essential duties’ of his business.

Petitioners’ “as-applied” challenge asserts that as an FFL 01 Firearms Dealer; Petitioner is not prohibited from lawfully storing firearms inventory offsite at any location where such inventory can be securely maintained; or participating within gun shows or sporting arms events within the State of New York. Under Title 27 CFR “§ 478.50 Locations covered by license”, “§ 478.100 Conduct of business away from licensed premises” and “15 U.S. Code - Chapter 105 - Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms.”

Respondent argues that although Petitioner is a federally licensed FFL 01 Firearms Dealer; Petitioner still does not meet the standard for “proper cause” to possess a Carry Business License under N.Y.S. P.L. § 400.00 (2) (f).

Respondent legally requires all FFL 01 Firearms Dealers in the City of New York to possess a Carry Business License to handle firearms inventory; yet for no legal reason Respondent refuses to issue a Carry Business License to Petitioner. This is “prejudicial”, “arbitrary and capricious” and an “abuse of discretion.”

Respondent fails to state how issuing a Carry Business License to Petitioner who is not a prohibited person as per N.Y.S. P.L. § 400.00 (2) (f); constitutes a violation of federal, state or local laws; by enabling Petitioner to engage in lawful commerce in arms as a FFL 01 Firearms Dealer in the State of New York.

The case is fully submitted and pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The Judge adjourned and re-calendared it until May 12, 2015 because I had to alert the NYS Attorney General of my constitutional challenge as applied of NYS PL 400.00 (2) (f). I received the NYS Attorney Generals response on April 13, 2015 and he declined to intervene as a right so it will move forward now.

Article 78 Documents: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/t57ps0qd7jfx0x6/AABfXFZZ569JsStMsKS98wZ2a?dl=0

That's pure stupidity. I believe the licensing should be shall issue period but under the current terms when you are ok with an FFL 01 selling firearms but not lawfully carrying one something is wrong. Thanks for your support.

Already have thanks

Thanks but I have no store I'm internet based but I can transport firearms to and from offsite storage locations and go to gun shows and here lies the issue.

When the Respondent requests that the Judge use rational basis and not apply heightened scrutiny in a Second Amendment case and the NYS Attorney General declines to intervene as a right...it is what it is. Thanks.

Well Respondent did state that every molecule of my Petition should be dismissed as well as citing violating CPLR 3012 for allegedly not having some paragraphs numbered and:

In the Verified Answer Respondent swore under “penalty of perjury” that within the “Application” and “Letter of Necessity”; that Petitioner “applied” for a Carry Business License in his capacity as an FFL 01 Firearms Dealer. Whereas Respondent states Petitioners employment as an “FFL 01 Firearms Dealer”:

a) Respondents Verified Answer ¶ - 138: Included with petitioner's application was a Letter of Necessity, describing his employment and explaining why he believes that his employment required him to carry a concealed handgun. A copy of petitioner's Letter of Necessity ("Letter of Necessity") is attached hereto as Exhibit "C." The Letter of Necessity states that, petitioner is, “FFL 01 [Federal Firearm License 01] firearms dealer….” See Exhibit “C” at page 1. [sic]

Then Respondent contradicts his “sworn statement”; now stating that within the “Application” and “Letter of Necessity; that Petitioner “did not apply” for a Carry Business License in his capacity as an FFL 01 Firearms Dealer. Whereas Respondent now states:

a) Respondents Verified Answer ¶ - 176: In the first instance, petitioner's Letter of Necessity did not allege that petitioner was applying for a Carry Business License because he needed it for his business as a firearms dealer using an FFL 01. See Exhibit “C.” [sic]

Notice how Exhibit "C" contradicts itself. Respondent made two irreconcilable statements under oath.

What's odd is I found every NYPD Article 78 I could and multiple people cited the Second Amendment constitutional right even before the McDonald decision. Not once did I see any mention of the NYS Attorney Generals intervention as a right.

Yet they acknowledged his intervention as a right against me I wonder why? Since he declined to intervene I wonder if that works in my favor or it doesn't affect anything as the Assistant Solicitor General requested that the Judge not make an inference adverse to the state based upon their declination.

Interesting as my challenge was "as applied" to me and not a facial challenge to the entire statute. The fact that the Respondent tried to get the AG involved I wonder if they felt they needed some help with this one hey I'm only a little pro se litigant, lol. Call me Bilbo Baggins.

Derry 1946 said:

Haha! Miranda, Gideon, Plessy, Brown, and McDonald were all "little people." From small acorns great oak trees grow. Can't wait to hear how it comes out.

Click to expand...

Thanks I will keep the post updated my Article 78 documents are in my first post if anybody likes to do a lot of reading.

An Article 78 is required before you can go to the next stage. People have to realize that the judicial system is a process. To be continued.