Big shot NYC attorney sues for LTC

[G4Y4HK]

MA restrictions are bad but NYShitty is a whole 'nother level

John Stossel prefers the HK P30L. Not a bad choice, sir.

 

[mac1911]

We have discussed this here, and I elsewhere.

This is a RENEWAL and he was issued the earlier permits due to large cash transactions and entertaining clients. Thus the reason for this line of stonewalling by the powers that be.

I am sure if there was a 'threat' that would be harder to suddenly disprove.

I hope he wins and then helps the little people.

ETA:

The NYPD concluded, “the activities which justified granting a Business Carry License in the past, do not exist anymore. You no longer carry or transport cash. You no longer transact business involving expensive watches and artifacts. You no longer collect rent from rental properties. This amounts to a change in circumstance.”

He aint helping anyone

 

[fishgutzy]

We have discussed this here, and I elsewhere.

This is a RENEWAL and he was issued the earlier permits due to large cash transactions and entertaining clients. Thus the reason for this line of stonewalling by the powers that be.

I am sure if there was a 'threat' that would be harder to suddenly disprove.

I hope he wins and then helps the little people.

ETA:

The NYPD concluded, “the activities which justified granting a Business Carry License in the past, do not exist anymore. You no longer carry or transport cash. You no longer transact business involving expensive watches and artifacts. You no longer collect rent from rental properties. This amounts to a change in circumstance.”

Because NYC Rulers place the value of stuff higher than the value of human life. And they want to be sure that the applicant has the cash for the required cash tips to be allowed a permit.

 

[Reptile]

Update???

This was from March of 2021.

 

[John4166]

Supposedly Hannity has (or had) one. I remember John Stossel trying to get one a few years back. No dice.

I believe that Hannity lives in long island.

 

[StevieP]

I'm just blown away that there are people -- police officers, politicians, un-elected bureaucrats, etc. -- who get off on exercising some fictitious power they think they get to have over us "regular folks" just by virtue of their job title (?). They are quite literally agents of government infringing on civil rights that say "shall not be infringed" right in their plain text.

Who the F do they think they are? How long will this continue to happen again and again and again and again before we nip it in the bud once and for all? licenses. lists of approved guns. it's all bullshit.

 

[drgrant]

I'm just blown away that there are people -- police officers, politicians, un-elected bureaucrats, etc. -- who get off on exercising some fictitious power they think they get to have over us "regular folks" just by virtue of their job title (?). They are quite literally agents of government infringing on civil rights that say "shall not be infringed" right in their plain text.

Who the F do they think they are? How long will this continue to happen again and again and again and again before we nip it in the bud once and for all? licenses. lists of approved guns. it's all bullshit.

Lol they like to infringe and steal because nobody ever holds them accountable, wether that accountability is a law book/judge/jury, or a bullet in the face, nobody takes them to task. No different than bullying. If the bully never gets "checked" in some way that causes them pain, they'll keep pouring on the bullshit.

 

[MisterHappy]

Imagine a bank statement to vote

Well, it would weed out a significant portion of the FSA.

 

[frenchman]

I think most of us feel the NYC licensing scheme is going to go down in the case being heard by SCOTUS Nov 3rd, how far SCOTUS a will go is the question. This guy should delay action and wait for the ruling next spring. He’ll have a much easier path.

Dude, NYC is above SCOTUS rulings. They don’t even let LEOSA slide.

 

[Roadglide]

I think they denied him because he was in possession of the James Bond like Walther "automatic."
F'n Post

 

[safetyfirst2125]

Such BS. Imagine you had to defend any other right like this? Provide evidence of the necessity of such right just to exercise it? And this is after he's already been vetted for like 50 years of safe ownership. I'm sure people would lose their collective minds if this was religion or speech.

What if...and this may be a huge stretch of the imagination....he hasn't handled cash in an entire year because of some outlandish reason like a global pandemic shutting down everything? Just because he can't show cash now doesn't remove the original need. And even beyond that, I suspect his stance is that he shouldn't even have to show anything to prove need.

While I wish him no harm, it would be poetic if he got mugged now and then sued the city for that as well.

This is why you stick with “ALL LAWFUL PURPOSES”.

 

[ReluctantDecoy]

This is why you stick with “ALL LAWFUL PURPOSES”.

Definitely how it should be, but sadly, there are some jurisdictions where that doesn't fly. I'm fairly certain I would have either been denied or restricted in Cambridge if not for having legitimate need. (and yes, before you get there, I know how moonbat crazy Cambridge is).

But I can't stress enough that the core argument the police are using here is wrong on so many levels and a very thinly veiled attempt at revoking legitimate licenses for no good reason. What if this was a woman who got a gun to protect herself from a former abuser? Is the cop going to ask her to show recent bruises?

 

[drgrant]

This is why you stick with “ALL LAWFUL PURPOSES”.

Cute but that does absolutely nothing in a shit town in MA. (or any other place that doesn't want someone carrying) You have to be more aggressive/creative/resourceful than that.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

I'm just blown away that there are people -- police officers, politicians, un-elected bureaucrats, etc. -- who get off on exercising some fictitious power they think they get to have over us "regular folks" just by virtue of their job title (?). They are quite literally agents of government infringing on civil rights that say "shall not be infringed" right in their plain text.

Who the F do they think they are? How long will this continue to happen again and again and again and again before we nip it in the bud once and for all? licenses. lists of approved guns. it's all bullshit.

The gun laws in NYC date all the way back to the 19th century when gun permits were awarded to those who made large political donations. Nothing has changed in the decades since that time.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Supposedly Hannity has (or had) one. I remember John Stossel trying to get one a few years back. No dice.

John Stossel applied the standard way and did not "work connections", which is what a household name would do it he really wanted a permit. He was doing a story where rejection fit the agenda he was selling; not seriously trying to get a NYC "full carry" permit. I know one ordinary, not "big shot" NYC attorney who has one (have seen it)

First rule about getting/having a NYC permit - don't talk about your special treatment.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

i think the practical reality proved multiple times now that liberal municipalities find million ways of how to bypass any scotus rulings that do not oblige the will of the ruling elites. anybody who would presume that nyc or chicago would alter anything in the way how they conduct business based on scotus - are delirious.

Although not what we would prefer, Heller did not address (one way or another) carry in public, or the practice of giving only important or connected people carry licenses.

 

[Waher]

The gun laws in NYC date all the way back to the 19th century when gun permits were awarded to those who made large political donations. Nothing has changed in the decades since that time.

Nope, Sullivan Act in 1911.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

Cute but that does absolutely nothing in a shit town in MA. (or any other place that doesn't want someone carrying) You have to be more aggressive/creative/resourceful than that.

This guy was resourceful. Now he’s screwed.

 

[ReluctantDecoy]

This guy was resourceful. Now he’s screwed.

But it sounds like he wouldn't have otherwise had it in the first place if not for being resourceful for the past 50 years. And it also sounds like he's in a good position to fight it, being able to represent himself (and probably with a good amount of juice).

 

[Rob Boudrie]

But it sounds like he wouldn't have otherwise had it in the first place if not for being resourceful for the past 50 years. And it also sounds like he's in a good position to fight it, being able to represent himself (and probably with a good amount of juice).

Yeah, but he's probably screwed.

This is the kind of thing that would normally be handled by a back room deal, or a settlement of the suit with "well give it to you" with a tacit agreement for all parties to keep quiet about it. Now that it is public, the NYPD will no doubt fight it to the end to demonstrate others that they have total control over the process, as they can expect the result of the case to make the news.

 

[xtry51]

The solution to all of these patchwork laws is pretty simple, which is why it will never be fixed. Pass a constitutional amendment stating anyone who voted for, enforced, prosecuted or convicted someone for a law found unconstitutional is immediately banned for life from any elected or publically funded position AND those people do not have immunity from civil suits AND they have to payback any money earned from the position they held when aiding in unconstitutional enforcement.

Infringing wouod stop real quick when cops had to pay for arreste they made and "just following orders".

 

[ReluctantDecoy]

Yeah, but he's probably screwed.

This is the kind of thing that would normally be handled by a back room deal, or a settlement of the suit with "well give it to you" with a tacit agreement for all parties to keep quiet about it. Now that it is public, the NYPD will no doubt fight it to the end to demonstrate others that they have total control over the process, as they can expect the result of the case to make the news.

I have a feeling they'll be horn-locked over this for a while then, as the inverse is also true with this guy being a high powered attorney who is now in the spotlight on the case, and he seems like the type to fight a personal point to the end of the earth as long as it's not out of pocket.

I personally think NYPD has a weak case. It would work like 95% of the time though because most people either can't or won't lawyer up over it, but this guy is a different story.

 

[whatluck]

Imagine a bank statement to vote

Bank statements to get a fair and speedy trial.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The solution to all of these patchwork laws is pretty simple, which is why it will never be fixed. Pass a constitutional amendment stating anyone who voted for, enforced, prosecuted or convicted someone for a law found unconstitutional is immediately banned for life from any elected or publically funded position AND those people do not have immunity from civil suits AND they have to payback any money earned from the position they held when aiding in unconstitutional enforcement.

Infringing wouod stop real quick when cops had to pay for arreste they made and "just following orders".

That would never happen because it is not possible to know if something is constitutional (in the legal, not common sense, word) unless SCOTUS rules on it.

I would prefer the ability of candidates to enter into "vote contracts" when campaigning. If a candidate signs a contract to never for for/against "X", that person could not vote in violation of their contract with the voters, and the courts would nullify any attempt to do so.

 

[upcountry]

Back in the day (early '90's) I lived in Cambridge and submitted for an LTC renewal from a small town that was restricted. I was, and am, an NRA instructor and wrote a concise, thoughtful letter that listed my credentials and a list of about 16 reasons for an unrestricted, class A permit. I also included certificates from all training and instructional classes I had taken and completed. Basically, my letter and listed reasons said "I dare you to reject me".
They gave an ALP class A permit. I still have that list of reason filed away somewhere.
I recall going to Collectors and they asked me for my permit before handling a pistol and when I gave it, the clerk said "There are Cambridge cops who can't get this!" and showed it to another clerk.
A firm, well thought out letter or statement that states several lawful reasons always helps.

Life is better in AZ....

 

[xtry51]

That would never happen because it is not possible to know if something is constitutional (in the legal, not common sense, word) unless SCOTUS rules on it.

I would prefer the ability of candidates to enter into "vote contracts" when campaigning. If a candidate signs a contract to never for for/against "X", that person could not vote in violation of their contract with the voters, and the courts would nullify any attempt to do so.

I'm OK with your approach. But my approach reduces the ability to pass laws at all due to fear, so inprefer that approach. The goal should explicitly be to prevent them from passing laws because that is how governments die. Bloat.

 

[bfm]

This is why you stick with “ALL LAWFUL PURPOSES”.

While it was a long time ago, I remember applying for my first LTC and the first renewal or two, when asked for the reason I was applying I said "Legal self defense and all other lawful purposes."

Officer would say,"ok, but what are you actually going to use the guns for?" I would say that that was the statement my lawyer told me to provide, and the only one I would provide, so that when some crook climbing through my window at 3 in the morning somehow manages to survive, his lawyer does get to say "But you said in your permit application that you only intended to use it for duck hunting!" in court.

So far, every licensing officer I have said that to just nodded and moved on with the process.

Admittedly, my experience has been limited to Somerville.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Nope, Sullivan Act in 1911.

Big cities even 'enlightened' cities like NYC had laws preventing foreigners from possessing guns and mainly stopping freed slaves from possessing guns. Even in NYC a freed black slave was not allowed to testify in court against a white person. Slaves still arrived on ships in New York harbor in the mid 19th century, right up to the civil war. NYC has always been a hotbed of repression and gun control is one of the things that always went on the chopping block. Tim Sullivan and his Tammany Hall buddies capitalized on the issue by selling access to the right to keep and bear arms. Pretty much the same situation we are in today.

 

[Palladin]

https://www.issuelab.org/resources/31335/31335.pdf

getting screwed for centuries

 

[drgrant]

While it was a long time ago, I remember applying for my first LTC and the first renewal or two, when asked for the reason I was applying I said "Legal self defense and all other lawful purposes."

Officer would say,"ok, but what are you actually going to use the guns for?" I would say that that was the statement my lawyer told me to provide, and the only one I would provide, so that when some crook climbing through my window at 3 in the morning somehow manages to survive, his lawyer does get to say "But you said in your permit application that you only intended to use it for duck hunting!" in court.

So far, every licensing officer I have said that to just nodded and moved on with the process.

Admittedly, my experience has been limited to Somerville.

Congratulations, you defeated a notorious shit town trying to trick you into basically downgrading yourself.