NY Judges have known for decades the whole Handgun Licensing Law was being violated by placing "Administrative Restrictions" and then self-affirming its validity (aka Legislating from the Bench) and this was likely done to keep a Civil Rights case from manifesting from which it ultimately did. If you won't issue a Licenses to someone otherwise qualified (sans the "good reason" clause) they you're arbitrarily denying the Right to own a Handgun. That "Target Shooting and Hunting only" clause has no basis in Law, does not appear in PL400. or in 265. and the State Police we ordered to not take any action against someone allegedly violating those restrictions as there is no Law or penalty for carrying outside those conditions except the threat of the Judge revoking it. Remember, there are only two types of Licenses: Premis or Carry, and now you cannot be discriminated simply wanting the ability to protect yourself and those in your charge.The bolded part is what is illegal. A blanket ban on people exercising their right to self defense.
That they try to justify it by requiring people to jump through their hoops for PERMISSION to exercise that Right, ie: "see judge, we allow it a little", flies in the face of the 2nd Amendment.
Permitting schemes, especially those of tyrannical States like NY and CA, are completely unConstitutional in multiple ways. Not just for their infringement of the 2nd, but the "poll tax" that is applied to a Right, and "requirements" to exercise a Right.
What other Right REQUIRES that you get training before you can exercise it?
"I'm sorry, Mr Smith, but to plead the 5th you are required to undergo at least one year of mandatory law training."
It's all horseshit.