NYS Rifle & Pistol Association v. The City of New York & The NYPD License Division

[GEM]

If you look at the NY state SAFE act, most prosecutions occur when the person is caught doing something else.

 

[GEM]

A strong anti-gun-control decision from the Supreme Court will be a fundraiser and electoral rallying cry for Team Blue.

There is a flip side to that. If SCOTUS ever truly supports gun rights, gun sales will drop and NRA membership will drop. Some analyses says the NRA is in some financial trouble as Trump was seen as a pancea and thus financial support was not needed. Until that bump in the night made folks take stock of the situation.

 

[Styx]

With any luck, DiBlasio will fight this battle as fanatically... and ineptly as Daley fought Chicago's handgun ban.

Honestly, I can see no reason for them to fight this battle. If the plaintiffs were challenging the NY assault weapon ban, for example, then it would make sense; however, allowing permit holders to be able travel to other ranges and residences within the state isn't the hill to die on IMHO.

NYC mentioned in their defense of the current law that they previously issued "target licenses" that were later converted to “premises licenses” in 2001 after "NYPD observed widespread abuses of the target license." It should be noted that NYC also (discriminatively) issues carry licences as well as premises licenses. NYC can simple revert back to a "target license" type of legislation they previously had and not risk blowing up their and the entire county's restrictive firearm licencing regime... Also, wasn't NY one of the states that cautioned DC from allowing the challenge to their gun laws to be decided on by SCOTUS using this very same logic?

 

[Styx]

There is a flip side to that. If SCOTUS ever truly supports gun rights, gun sales will drop and NRA membership will drop. Some analyses says the NRA is in some financial trouble as Trump was seen as a pancea and thus financial support was not needed. Until that bump in the night made folks take stock of the situation.

IMHO and as history has shown, their will always be a vigorous attack on 2A rights regardless if SCOTUS rules in our favor on a few cases or not. Control of Congress, the presidency, as well of the make up of SCOTUS doesn't stay the same forever. The pendulum is always swinging....

As far as gun sales dropping, I personally seen people buying more guns and ammo at lower prices while Trump was president vs buying expensive overpriced firearms and ammo under Obama. Profits may go down, but I doubt gun companies will go out of business. Plus I rather it be buyers market anyway..

 

[George P]

That's the same with pretty much every law. A small percentage of violations are caught.

That's part of why penalties are typically so much greater than the actual cost/impact of the crime itself. If you've only got a 1% chance of getting hit with a $50 fine, most people just ignore the issue. If you've got a 1% chance of going to jail for 10 years (which will mean losing your job, likely losing your spouse, losing certain rights forever, wrecking whatever financial/retirement plans you had, subjecting you to a much higher risk of violence in prison, rendering you near-unemployable on release, etc.), then that 1% starts to seem material.

People get stopped and searched for odd reasons. (Being a member of an ethnic minority really increases those odds.) And in NYC, it's not unreasonable to suspect that the few firearms permit holders would be specifically targeted for extra scrutiny by the local LEO's.

I doubt it; my dad was NYPD; he was more concerned with coming home after every shift of dealing with really bad guys than if one of our neighbors (who owned various guns) was taking one on a road trip.

 

[Styx]

I doubt it; my dad was NYPD; he was more concerned with coming home after every shift of dealing with really bad guys than if one of our neighbors (who owned various guns) was taking one on a road trip.

Very anecdotal... Tell that to all the people sitting in prison for carrying an un-permitted firearm. Furthermore, when it comes to case before SCOTUS, NYC has testified that it has in fact caught many permit holders who were violating/abusing the previous law that allowed permit holders to travel outside the city to second other gun ranges only hense the reason why they implemented the current, more restrictive law that's currently being challenged...

 

[Metal God]

The City asserts that its transport ban promotes public safety by limiting the presence of handguns on city streets. But the City put forth no empirical evidence that transporting an unloaded handgun, locked in a container separate from its ammunition, poses a meaningful risk to public safety. Moreover,

My hope is that's not all they asked and pointed out that even having a loaded gun in the glove compartment by a law abiding citizen posses no more threat then leaving it at home . CA tried the same argument in the Peruta cases . Stating more guns on the street means likely more gun violence . The mistake IMO they made although the 9th didn't care was they just used the statistic more guns on the street , rather then the more accurate more guns on the street by law abiding citizens . Which they had plenty of data on that said either crime and gun violence stay the same or went down when more law abiding citizens carried guns .

The city could have protected itself from nuillification by allowing locked up guns to be transported, but they got cocky and greedy.

I sure hope that is not are only argument . I'd hate to see a ruling come down that says you can transport your firearms anywhere if they are locked up , unloaded and ammo separate from the firearm . If so that will be the only way you will be "allowed" to transport your firearms in many states .

 

[ilbob]

I sure hope that is not are only argument . I'd hate to see a ruling come down that says you can transport your firearms anywhere if they are locked up , unloaded and ammo separate from the firearm . If so that will be the only way you will be "allowed" to transport your firearms in many states .

That is better than not being able to transport them at all. I will take incremental improvement over no improvement most any time.

I would point out the the safe passage part of the firearms owners protection act says this.

18 U.S. Code § 926A - Interstate transportation of firearms

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

No where does it say that the 'transportation" has to be interstate. It only mentions "Interstate" in the title. It may be that NYC cannot restrict someone who can legally possess and carry a firearm in his home from taking it out of state to somewhere he can also legally possess and carry it. I don't know if this idea has ever been litigated before or not.

maybe the court just says the question is moot because the FOPA already covers this situation. That is the kind of thing courts routinely do since they do not usually want to make new law when an existing law already covers a situation.

 

[George P]

. Tell that to all the people sitting in prison for carrying an un-permitted firearm

So who are all these people (links please) and what exactly did these honest folks do to be rousted and searched for their firearm by the police?

 

[Metal God]

That is better than not being able to transport them at all. I will take incremental improvement over no improvement most any time.

I used to think that way to when it came to my states gun rights ( CA ) then realized how selfish I was being by dooming the rest of the country just so I could have a little relief in my state . Be careful what you ask for you just might get it for the rest of the country .

All I hear the anti's saying is how the Heller case says the right is not unlimited and restrictions are connotational . What do you think they'll say when there's a federal precedent stating all you need to give the pro second groups is unloaded locked separated ammo to transport . Anyone think the anti's won't take that to mean that's the only way you can carry period ? Trust me CA already had open unloaded carry and the 9th said that was reasonable to satisfy the 2nd . Heller clearly states the right to have on ones person at the ready . Yet CA thinks at the ready means unloaded with ammo near by . You know like your car is ready to drive with no tires on it but sitting near by .

 

[ilbob]

I used to think that way to when it came to my states gun rights ( CA ) then realized how selfish I was being by dooming the rest of the country just so I could have a little relief in my state . Be careful what you ask for you just might get it for the rest of the country .

All I hear the anti's saying is how the Heller case says the right is not unlimited and restrictions are connotational . What do you think they'll say when there's a federal precedent stating all you need to give the pro second groups is unloaded locked separated ammo to transport . Anyone think the anti's won't take that to mean that's the only way you can carry period ? Trust me CA already had open unloaded carry and the 9th said that was reasonable to satisfy the 2nd . Heller clearly states the right to have on ones person at the ready . Yet CA thinks at the ready means unloaded with ammo near by . You know like your car is ready to drive with no tires on it but sitting near by .

Just because NYC is allowed to be more restrictive than say VT, does not require VT to become more restrictive.

 

[Metal God]

does not require VT to become more restrictive.

Nope , just allows them to legally with precedent behind them . Just remember the coasts set the trends and the rest of the country follows . It's been that way since the beginning .

 

[ilbob]

Nope , just allows them to legally with precedent behind them . Just remember the coasts set the trends and the rest of the country follows . It's been that way since the beginning .

The trend has been the other way though as far as firearms related freedom goes. It is slow and uneven but it is improving.

 

[Gridley]

The trend has been the other way though as far as firearms related freedom goes. It is slow and uneven but it is improving.

I wish you were right, but I think you're wrong. The latest round of legislation, both at the Federal level and in many states, is the worst I've seen so far. Most of it won't pass. Some of it looks like it will.

We won't have "won" even if we peel back everything including the NFA; after all for a century and a half that's what we had! If the gun control side ever wins they win for good.

 

[Deanimator]

From a political perspective, it's very plausible that DiBlasio would rather have "the issue" than actually navigate to the most-legally-permissible level of gun control, at least over the short term. A strong anti-gun-control decision from the Supreme Court will be a fundraiser and electoral rallying cry for Team Blue.

If you can pick your enemy, try to pick one who's:

1. arrogant
2. stubborn to the point of stupidity
3. willfully ignorant of the correlation of forces

That fit Daley to a tee and seems to describe DiBlasio equally well.

 

[BlueHeelerFl]

So who are all these people (links please) and what exactly did these honest folks do to be rousted and searched for their firearm by the police?

I don't remember the details, but there have been several people in recent history who moved to NYC from a more gun friendly state and brought a handgun with them who came to the attention of the NYPD for whatever reason .

Being naive about the law wasn't a valid excuse

 

[BlueHeelerFl]

If you can pick your enemy, try to pick one who's:

1. arrogant
2. stubborn to the point of stupidity
3. willfully ignorant of the correlation of forces

That fit Daley to a tee and seems to describe DiBlasio equally well.

I can DiBlasio wasting city resources having hand picked police keep track of gun owners.

He certainly spent enough city money traveling the world the last few years promoting the current cause of the moment

 

[George P]

I don't remember the details, but there have been several people in recent history who moved to NYC from a more gun friendly state and brought a handgun with them who came to the attention of the NYPD for whatever reason .

Being naive about the law wasn't a valid excuse

So , contrary to what you were saying about current folks, etc., etc. blah, blah blah............gotcha, another internet rumor about nothing.

 

[BlueHeelerFl]

So , contrary to what you were saying about current folks, etc., etc. blah, blah blah............gotcha, another internet rumor about nothing.

Here is a story about arrests at airports. Google isn't cooperating with the story I was really looking for.

https://www.pressherald.com/2014/03/26/new_york_city_laws_tough_on_traveling_gun_owners_/

 

[danez71]

The trend has been the other way though as far as firearms related freedom goes. It is slow and uneven but it is improving.

You're certainly not the only one to say that.

The flip side is all the others that post that people keep moving out of CA etc and moving to thier states and vote in anti gun laws.


I don't think both can be true.....?

 

[Speedo66]

Back when I had my NYC Target handgun permit I believe the city reserved the right to inspect how your firearms and ammo were secured (separately of course).

So getting caught with a gun in your trunk during a surprise inspection would raise some questions

There were a number of ranges in Queens and Nassau Cty. that were "key card" ranges, i.e., ranges able to be opened 24 hours a day by members. One of their selling points was when caught at night with a gun in your car with only a target permit, you could say you were on your way to one of those ranges.

NYPD does not have the resources to monitor permit holders so closely as to follow them on a regular basis. It's paranoiac to think so.

As far as arrests at NYC airports, yes, we had a lot of those. I don't know how ordinary people think they won't be caught if they try to sneak a gun through an airport. "I forgot" just didn't make it.

Before HR218, we also had many out of state LEO's who either didn't realize or didn't care that it was also illegal for them to bring a gun into NY off duty. They were also arrested.

 

[Deanimator]

As far as arrests at NYC airports, yes, we had a lot of those. I don't know how ordinary people think they won't be caught if they try to sneak a gun through an airport. "I forgot" just didn't make it.

You seem to be overlooking the people LAWFULLY traveling THROUGH NYC airports with guns, who for various reasons were delayed, and prosecuted for "illegally" having firearms in their possession. Apparently if your connecting flight is delayed or canceled, you're supposed to dump your guns in the Hudson.

 

[George P]

You seem to be overlooking the people LAWFULLY traveling THROUGH NYC airports with guns, who for various reasons were delayed, and prosecuted for "illegally" having firearms in their possession. Apparently if your connecting flight is delayed or canceled, you're supposed to dump your guns in the Hudson.

No, you are supposed to leave your baggage with the airlines who will then place it on your connecting flight in the morning. Since you can't have possession of your gun in NYC, it makes no sense to claim the baggage.

 

[ATLDave]

The felony-trap of changing planes in NY has nearly gotten some high-profile competitive shooters recently. Lots of international flights go in and out of JFK, and these are folks traveling with lots of paperwork/licensing/permitting from other countries to allow them to bring their IPSC handgun(s) (for instance) into other countries. Ordinarily, these people check their guns with the airline in, say, Atlanta or Milwaukee or wherever, and then the gun gets transferred as baggage without the passenger ever having (or being allowed) to touch the locked gun case. But if, on return to the states, their domestic connection has been cancelled or delayed, the airline will try to force them to claim all their checked baggage - including the pistol(s). And the local law enforcement will immediately arrest them.

Ben Stoeger had a big discussion about this with Hwansik Kim (who nearly got tangled up in this) on one of his youtube-channel shows recently. It's a big deal, with the potential to seriously impact the lives of individuals who are trying their very, very best to be compliant.

 

[ATLDave]

No, you are supposed to leave your baggage with the airlines who will then place it on your connecting flight in the morning. Since you can't have possession of your gun in NYC, it makes no sense to claim the baggage.

The airlines will often try to FORCE you to take the baggage. The passenger can't just follow directions from people in airline uniforms. Following directions will end up with an arrest. It's on the passenger/gun-owner to know that they have to refuse and insist the airline hold it overnight.