!warning! Bringing Firearms To New York State

[Tracy Hightower]

Tam,
They were all handguns. 3 of them were airsoft guns and 5 of them were handguns.

Regarding knowing the law. I did in fact look at the law after getting the answer that I got from the state police and to check on any significant differences in the use of force as I also gave a lecture on the use of deadly force during the class. I found in looking at the law that I would in fact have to rely on HR 218 to be in posession of handguns while in the state. I am aware that it is incumbent on me to know the law and I made a minimal effort to do so knowing that regardless of the state law I would in fact be exempt under HR 218. Therefore I produced LEO credentials when all other means had been exhausted. I was not traveling on Police business and do not use my credentials to gain any favor or benefit. I did however use them to stay out of jail. Does that make me better than anyone else? Of course not and I make no apologies for being a LEO. Do I wish that things were different in that all citizens and not just law enforcement were entitled to carry nationwide? You bet I do and I will continue to push for and support legislation that would allow all citizens to carry nationwide.

The whole point of my post was to let anyone who might not be aware of this law that they could in fact be arrested for doing something in NY state that most of us have done legally in nearly every other state. Those of you that wish to sit there and say that you should know the law, then by all means contimue to do so. I just do not want to see ANYONE arrested because they did'nt know the law.

In my state it was just a few short years ago that the police were the only ones who could carry a gun anytime unless you knew someone (a local sheriff of police chief) who would give you a permit. Our citizens got tired of it and elected law makers who worked toward getting a shall issue permit system that allowed just about anybody who wanted to carry a gun the right to do so. Even other states and countries citizens. Yes if you are not a citizen of this country but you reside legally in Tennessee you too can get a carry permit. I don't know what it would be like to have to live in a state that requires me to get a permit to merely possess a handgun. I do know that I would not keep electing the same people who continued to support and make these kinds of laws.

So as I stated I am not against ALL citizens rights to carry, I do not think that police should have any special rights to carry or self protection. I do not think that everyone is aware of the stringent regulations in a couple of states while the vast majority of states and its citizens do not have to suffer such ridiculous laws (Hence my original post). I do think that they are ridiculous laws. I do think that they could be changed but apparantly the citizens of those states don't want it changed badly enough. I do think that HR218 is a good law because I think that if the police were never allowed to carry nationwide then the average citizen would never be able to. I do think that HR218 is a stepping stone to nationwide carry for all. I do think that it will take a while and that reciprocity will probably be more effective sooner. And finally I do think that the things I have heard about New Yorkers are not true as all of the folks I met while there both students and strangers alike were fantastic and that I will be back and I will be bringing firearms and I will be carrying while I am there.

FLAME AWAY

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

First, the Constitution isn't written in plain language. Terms like "ex post facto" and “habeas corpus†are not plain language. The Constitution was written by lawyers and contains lots of legalese.

"Plain language" is a bit of a legal term of art itself. An example of its usage in a sentence would be as follows: "We believe that, based on the plain language of the FCRA, much of the detail required in the Proposed Interpretation cannot be justified." Merely because a legal document contains legal terms of art does not mean that it cannot be understood according to its "plain language."

You are giving the words “full faith and credit†powers that they never had.

Maybe you are not giving them the power that they do have

No state can tell another state what to do. That’s the bottom line. Nothing that one state does can create any kind of obligation on another state.

Really? That's not what the Black's Law Dictionary says, and it is the accepted standard text for the legal profession. According to said text, a public act of one state "shall have the same obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage in the state from whence taken."

Marriage was a terrible example for you to use. Right now states are mulling over bills to not recognized gay marriages from other states. This is a power of the states that was never delegated away.

This is because marriage, under the laws of the United States, is a legal union between a man and woman. To write a law exempting any other kind of marriage is like writing one exempting marriages between men and kitchen tables. It is something that ought to be needless to say, but has become something needing saying only because it has come of late to be challenged by a vocal minority, with the eager support of the leftist mainstream media.

Full faith is really complicated. What I know of it is about a drop’s worth from the bucket. But this document from Findlaw is a good start I think.

Thanks. I will look at your materials.

P.S. I have read the material you provided, and the salient quote was as follows, "More recently this doctrine has been stated in a very mitigated form." Now the word mitigated means to make less severe, the implication being that the original meaning was considered too severe in that state's would be required to bend too much to the laws of other states when dealing with a visiting resident of another state, thus it needed mitigating. Well, this, if anything, supports my position, which is based on the clause's plain meaning, rather than a mitigated recent interpretation.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

What happens... if you find yourself inadvertantly in NY? Over the last 25 years of flying, several times I have been on flights that had to be diverted to a different city. The airlines always eventually got me to my destination but not necessarily through the same cities where I was originally scheduled. Most of the time I did not have to retrieve my checked luggage but a couple of times I've had to claim my luggage and manually transfer it to whatever airline I had been alternately booked on.

My question is how would this play out if I were diverted to NY and had firearms in my luggage? If my original routing would not have caused me to violate any laws would being forced into NY (that will be the only way I would go) cause me to be arrested and my firearms confiscated? I know all the answers will be mere conjecture...but I would like to hear thoughts on this situation.

Go back and read the quote from the FOPA in Stand_Watie's post. There might be a bit of an argument involved, but it seems clear to me that if you're on a plane from Minneapolis to Boston and get diverted to JFK due to weather, that pretty well fits the criterion of "just passin' through." Actually, whether flying or driving with firearms, it's probably a good idea to print out and carry two copies of same -- one to show the cops, and the other for reference if they take the first one away from you and then try to pretend it doesn't say what it says.

I suppose it might be a bit more open to dispute if flights are diverted and then delayed, such that you spend a night in an airport hotel. Even then, however, it seems reasonable to hope that a sane jury would agree that the hotel stay was part of the travel and not a destination in and of itself. I would assume this would be similar to stopping for the night at an interchange motel on the Kansas turnpike if I were driving from St. Louis to Denver, but if anyone has any specific precedents on this I'd like to see them.

 

[Stand_Watie]

one to show the cops, and the other for reference if they take the first one away from you and then try to pretend it doesn't say what it says.

This is what I do when I'm driving interstate (although I usually go out of my way and drive around Illinois which is the only state I would worry about going through that I am normally in the neighborhood of).

A secondary reason for that (the first being to avoid arrest) is that if you can get the arresting officers to read it, and especially if you can get it documented that they read it (like on the dashcam) you are weakening their 'good faith exemption' claim from personal liability in your future false arrest lawsuit.

 

[tcsd1236]

I asked him if the circumstances would have been such that two of our instructors that were not Police Officers had taught this class, would they have been arrested. He said yes that unless you are a Police Officer or have a New York State permit to possess EACH FIREARM, NOT JUST ANY FIREARM, then then you will be arrested regardless of whether you are teaching a class or taking a class or attending a shooting event

Then that officer needs to review the following:


265.20 Exemptions.
a. Sections 265.01, 265.02, 265.03, 265.04, 265.05, 265.10, 265.11,
265.12, 265.13, 265.15 and 270.05 shall not apply to:
1. Possession of any of the weapons, instruments, appliances or
substances specified in sections 265.01, 265.02, 265.03, 265.04, 265.05
and 270.05 by the following:

7-a. Possession and use, at an indoor or outdoor pistol range located
in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization
organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in small
arms or at a target pistol shooting competition under the auspices of or
approved by the national rifle association for the purpose of loading
and firing the same, by a person duly licensed to possess a pistol or
revolver pursuant to section 400.00 or 400.01 of this chapter of a
pistol or revolver duly so licensed to another person who is present at
the time.
7-b. Possession and use, at an indoor or outdoor pistol range located
in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization
organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in small
arms or at a target pistol shooting competition under the auspices of or
approved by the national rifle association for the purpose of loading
and firing the same, by a person who has applied for a license to
possess a pistol or revolver and pre-license possession of same pursuant
to section 400.00 or 400.01 of this chapter, who has not been previously
denied a license, been previously convicted of a felony or serious
offense, and who does not appear to be, or pose a threat to be, a danger
to himself or to others, and who has been approved for possession and
use herein in accordance with section 400.00 or 400.01 of this chapter;
provided however, that such possession shall be of a pistol or revolver
duly licensed to and shall be used under the supervision, guidance and
instruction of, a person specified in paragraph seven of this
subdivision and provided further that such possession and use be within
the jurisdiction of the licensing officer with whom the person has made
application therefor or within the jurisdiction of the superintendent of
state police in the case of a retired sworn member of the division of
state police who has made an application pursuant to section 400.01 of
this chapter.


A signed letter from the hosting agency or lead instructor that you are enrolled should be all that you need to be covered.

Posted by Greystar

Yes, and in New York if an unregistered gun is found in a car then *everyone* in the car is guilty of possession.

Only if no one in the car claimed it to be theirs, the same as with drugs or other illegal items. That standard is not NY's alone.

Posted by CTDonath:

LEGAL SPORTING ACTIVITY ...not training, etc etc...

From above:


"organized for conservation purposes "

"OR"

" to foster proficiency in small arms"

"OR"

" at a target pistol shooting competition under the auspices of or approved by the national rifle association "

I admit that the penal law as it is worded adheres too closely to limiting any recognized competition to NRA events, but as you can see from the above, there is a BIG OR in there......; the laws fixation on the NRA probably hearkens back to the NRA being the granddaddy of shooting competitions; with the rise of IDPA, IPSC, and the rise of any number of other training events that are not NRA-sponsored, the penal law needs to be amended to recognize the plethora of other bodies who host legitimate training events in this state.

 

[Graystar]

Only if no one in the car claimed it to be theirs, the same as with drugs or other illegal items. That standard is not NY's alone.

From the Penal code...

S 265.15 Presumptions of possession, unlawful intent and defacement.
...
3. The presence in an automobile, other than a stolen one or a public
omnibus, of any firearm...is presumptive evidence of its possession by all persons occupying such automobile at the time such weapon, instrument or appliance is found, except under the following circumstances: (a) if such weapon, instrument or appliance is found upon the person of one of the occupants therein; (b) if such weapon, instrument or appliance is found in an automobile which is being operated for hire by a duly licensed driver in the due, lawful and proper pursuit of his or her trade, then such presumption shall not apply to the driver; or (c) if the weapon so found is a pistol or revolver and one of the occupants, not present under duress, has in his or her possession a valid license to have and carry concealed the same.

There’s no exception for claims of ownership.

"organized for conservation purposes "
"OR"
" to foster proficiency in small arms"
"OR"
" at a target pistol shooting competition under the auspices of or approved by the national rifle association "

You’re mixing apples and oranges. The exemptions that exist under the guise of being "organized for conservation purposes" or "to foster proficiency in small arms," exist only for license holders or license applicants...as is explicitly stated in the exemptions you posted.

The only exemption available to out-of-state shooters is the third..."at a target pistol shooting competition under the auspices of or approved by the national rifle association."

 

[Graystar]

Really? That's not what the Black's Law Dictionary says, and it is the accepted standard text for the legal profession. According to said text, a public act of one state "shall have the same obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage in the state from whence taken."

Well, here again is a situation where what was said can be correct or incorrect depending on the context, which I, unfortunately, didn’t supply. So let me clarify...

The obligation spoken of in Black’s is not the same type that I was referring to. For example, lets say you get a monetary judgment against me in state A, and I move to state B. You are able to take all remedies against me that state B provides to a holder of a monetary judgment. That’s because the Full Faith clause obligates state B to recognize the judgment. However, state B is not obliged to provide the same remedies that state A may have provided.

This is not the type of obligation I was referring to. I was referring to the passing of law that would somehow immediately create obligation on the part of other states. For example, the passing, by state A, of a concealed weapon law that, somehow, would now obligate other states to allow citizens of state A to carry concealed weapons even when its own citizens cannot. THAT type of obligation does not exist.

P.S. I have read the material you provided, and the salient quote was as follows, "More recently this doctrine has been stated in a very mitigated form." Now the word mitigated means to make less severe, the implication being that the original meaning was considered too severe in that state's would be required to bend too much to the laws of other states when dealing with a visiting resident of another state…

According to the document, what was actually mitigated was a previous interpretation by the court which itself was a move away from a still earlier view of Justice Nelson in the Dred Scott case. Here’s his quote from Findlaw...

''No State . . . can enact laws to operate beyond its own dominions . . . Nations, from convenience and comity . . . recognizes [sic] and administer the laws of other countries. But, of the nature, extent, and utility, of them, respecting property, or the state and condition of persons within her territories, each nation judges for itself.'' He added that it was the same with the States of the Union in relation to another.

Afterwards the court decided to take a harder line, and then after that the court mitigated its view closer to the original view held by Justice Nelson.

 

[Tracy Hightower]

OK

I will make this as simple as I can.

It does not matter what the law said. I would have gone to jail had I not had LEO credentials. The cop plainly stated that the credentials or a NY state permit was the only thing that will keep anyone out of jail.

Is it right? no The point is, BE CAREFUL IN NY STATE. THE LAW IS WHAT THE OFFICER YOU ARE DEALING WITH SAYS IT IS.

BE CAREFUL, I DO NOT WANT TO SEE ANYONE ARRESTED.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

''No State . . . can enact laws to operate beyond its own dominions . . . Nations, from convenience and comity . . . recognizes [sic] and administer the laws of other countries. But, of the nature, extent, and utility, of them, respecting property, or the state and condition of persons within her territories, each nation judges for itself.'' He added that it was the same with the States of the Union in relation to another.

I understand that state A cannot pass laws which will bind state B in regard to their own residents. However, official acts of state A, such as marriages for example (and here I am referring to the actual and long standing definition of marriage, being a legal union between a man and a moman), must be recognized as valid in state B, such that when married residents of state A travel to state B, they must be legally recognized as a married couple. The same should apply to authorizations to carry, as these authorizations are clearly "public acts" of state governments. This would have no effect on how other states deal with their own residents, however, as they have no claim to the laws and public acts of states of which they are not residents or legal domiciliaries.

P.S. Do you have any evidence to show how the Founders understood the Full Faith and Credit clause?

 

[sar]

THE LAW IS WHAT THE OFFICER YOU ARE DEALING WITH SAYS IT IS.

Never had anything truer been said about NY on this board. Within the same the police department license bureau (Suffolks to be exact) I got two conflicting answers when I asked if my NYC pistol permit is honored in Suffolk County. One police officer said no, one said yes.

 

[Graystar]

However, official acts of state A, such as marriages for example (and here I am referring to the actual and long standing definition of marriage, being a legal union between a man and a moman), must be recognized as valid in state B, such that when married residents of state A travel to state B, they must be legally recognized as a married couple.

Yes, I agree with that, although I think the definition of marriage being between a man and woman has only existed since 1996. I’ll have to research that more...

The same should apply to authorizations to carry, as these authorizations are clearly "public acts" of state governments.

This is what you’re not understanding. The same *does* apply to authorizations to carry. State B will recognize a carry license as a valid document issued by state A. However, just as my previous example with the monetary judgment, where state B’s recognition of state A’s judgment does *not* mean that state B must provide the same remedies that state A might provide, state B’s recognition that a carry license is a valid document issued by state A does *not* mean that state B must provide the same privileges that state A would provide.

P.S. Do you have any evidence to show how the Founders understood the Full Faith and Credit clause?

I’m sure there is...I’ll see if I can dig some up. However, it’s my personal belief that the fact that the country was first organized as a confederation is fairly convincing evidence that states did not want other states telling them what to do. Based on that, I would give the state's relations clauses the most minimal view possible.

Look at Vermont. You don’t need a license to carry in Vermont, and this situation came about through a court’s judgment. By your view, the entire country should be bound by the findings of the Vermont court. I mean, don’t you think there’s something not right with state B allowing people from state A to carry, but not people from state C, just because state A decided to issue licenses and state C considers it a God-given right? That doesn't make sense. It would mean that any state could extend its power beyond it's boarders simply by issuing a piece of paper that says you have a privilege or exemption.

 

[Graystar]

Never had anything truer been said about NY on this board. Within the same the police department license bureau (Suffolks to be exact) I got two conflicting answers when I asked if my NYC pistol permit is honored in Suffolk County. One police officer said no, one said yes.

The correct answer is, yes it is.

State law clearly states that the state-issued license is valid throughout the state, the only exception being non-NYC licenses when within NYC limits. NYC licenses, being regular state-issued licenses, are good everywhere in the state. Local authority outside of NYC has not been given the power to invalidate any license.

 

[carpettbaggerr]

BE CAREFUL IN NY STATE. THE LAW IS WHAT THE OFFICER YOU ARE DEALING WITH SAYS IT IS.

As to detention or arrest, this true aNYwhere. Being prosecuted is another matter entirely -- ADA's generally have a greater knowledge of the law than patrol officers do.

 

[Deavis]

Hawkeye,

I had to find the context of Notwithstanding. I guess that is the single word that says Federal comes first since it nullifies any state laws. Once again though, Texas has a similiar provision for carrying a handgun in the car. You have to be travelling but once you reach your destination you are no longer travelling and can no longer have the weapon... So, I guess this situation is the same, you can travel there with it and through it but you can't have it if you stop there.

Suck!

 

[Art Eatman]

Deavis, say you arrive in Texas as a tourist. You stay at a motel for some length of time. You can have the handgun in your car if it is unloaded and in the trunk or a locked glove box--and the ammunition is somewhere else in the car, away from the handgun.

This might not be absolute protection from an arrest, but the history of court decisions is that you've shown your intent to obey the law to the greatest extent possible.

If you're from a state whose CHL is recognized by Texas, no problem...

Art

 

[Stand_Watie]

Deavis, say you arrive in Texas as a tourist. You stay at a motel for some length of time. You can have the handgun in your car if it is unloaded and in the trunk or a locked glove box--and the ammunition is somewhere else in the car, away from the handgun.This might not be absolute protection from an arrest, but the history of court decisions is that you've shown your intent to obey the law to the greatest extent possible

Deavis there is a little further exposition on Art's point here (see below), also I'm not sure if you meant that you thought you wouldn't be allowed to posess the weapon at the motel or not, but your motel room would be treated as your residence, and you'd of course be exempt from the "carrying" prohibition within. The specific language is

'The provisions of Section 46.02 of this code do not apply to a person;
...on his own premises or premises under his control..."

http://www.utsystem.edu/pol/weapons.html

Sec. 46.02 - Unlawful Carrying Weapons (Texas Penal Code)


"A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his person a handgun, illegal knife or club..."

***
ON OR ABOUT THE PERSON

The terms "on or about" are generally construed as to mean close by, convenient, quickly and easily available, and within such distance that a subject could obtain the weapon quickly without materially changing his position.

EXAMPLES:

On the person, in a basket held in the hand, under seat -or cushion upon which subject sits, between seat and back cushion directly behind steering wheel, in glove compartment, in a handbag on the floor of the car, and in one case, in the passenger side door pocket where defendant was sitting behind the wheel and another subject was closer to the weapon (defendant stated that the weapon was his).

 

[alan]

Tracy Hightower:

It was for exactly this reason, the creation of a specially privileged class of persons, that being certain government employees, that I strongly OPPOSED recently passed federal law granting certain retired and or serving police personnel the privilege of universal concealed carry. The idea simply does not either make sense to, nor does it "sit right" with me. It never will either.

As to those whom I consider to be "ill advised" people who supported enactment, assuming that once the cops "got theirs", that they would support extention of same to "the little people", that's the rest of us mere mortals, I suggested that they needed to quit smoking those funny cigaretts. I've seen nothing to date that leads me to think otherwise.

Mind, I have no bone to pick with you personally, I grew up and lived for many years in NYC, or with people from Tn, or with police officers in general. Matter of fact, when I spent a few months in Columbia, several years ago, one evening, I had a most interesting conversation with the Chief Deputy from the County Sheriffs Office. I had stopped by their office, to inquire as to state law there. I was armed and have a PA carry permit.

The Chief Deputy called me that evening, at my motel, and explained the law to me. He also gave me his home and private phone numbers, and told me to call him if "anything came up", particularly involving some of his "younger officers", allowing that he might be able to smooth over minor problems. He also thanked me for stopping by, and asking. I appreciated his time and efforts.

As to the rest of it, as some others have mentioned, you were extremely lucky.