The court is the law. And I sleep fine. The ruling doesn't apply to me.
Appellate Court and Restricted Permits = BE CAREFUL
- Thread starter Chevusa
- Start date
Saltwater60
20×102mm Vulcan
Problem is At this point every appellate judge has been appointed by the king and will do his bidding.
Nor does it apply to administrative restrictions on licenses. And in fact, it mentions that multiple times in that link. But you do you.
There is no debate. It is clear as day.
"Although it is my view that in this case defendant cannot be prosecuted for a violation of section 265.03, there are indeed remedies available for the improper use of the weapon or violation of the license, i.e., the administrative procedure of license revocation, or criminal prosecution for ... the violation under subdivision 15 of section 400.00."
Is this clear as day:
" This allegation, when added to the failure to possess a license to "have and carry concealed, without regard *391 to employment or place of possession" (Penal Law, § 400.00, subd 2, par [e]) is sufficient to subject the defendant to prosecution for the crime here charged."
The guy had a premise premit.
Case dismissed.
Even if criminal charges weren't possible, which is the opposite of this court ruling, they can just take the license and all your guns which would be the equivalent of what, a 5, 10, 25K fine? That;'s probably even worse than a criminal conviction. Lose all guns and never be allowed to have them again. Wow what a win!! You showed them!!!
Just trying to show people whats possible. If you want to ignore it then so be it. It's at your own peril. Nobody else will be affected.
Just trying to show people whats possible. If you want to ignore it then so be it. It's at your own peril. Nobody else will be affected.
Keep reading. Also had a target permit.
"however, defendant's attorney qualifies this statement by saying that defendant possessed an on-premises license and a target license."
Please quote it. I have quoted the lawyer saying he had a permit limited to target shooting. That is a CCW with target restriction. Keep reading. All of it. It will become very clear. The prosecutor said carrying against restrictions means his license is totally invalid. The court ruled that is not so however he may be charged for misdemeanor violating restrictions. Seems like you only read a few bits and pieces. Please read it all.
I quoted the exact bit needed. You are very unsuccessfully and incorrectly glossing over that, but it's as clear as day. He did not have a type F license.
He had a target permit. That is a carry license limited to target shooting. You are confused or purposely being misleading. There were 2 things argued in this case. You are only focusing on one. See my exact quotes or read the entire cited case. It's pretty simple and straightforward. There is no room for debate. If it is throughly read you will understand. Your comments prove to me you didn't even read it all.
Its irrelevant if 8 things are being argued.
The guy in question did not possess a type F permit.
This has no relevance to nearly anyone on here.
Maybe not. You clearly didn't read it. Do as you wish. I am not effected.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
He was also explicitly overruled by a superior court making his decision moot.
That's the part you missed.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Quoting anything from that document besides the dissent is meaningless.
Could be so. Havemt gotten that far. Just sharing the court decision that I came across. If anything can be learned it is the lengths that a prosecutor can go to to get you for violating terms and restrictions on your permit if they want to. Look at how high up this case went. Talk about sending an absolute fortune to get out of the charge!! WOW!!!
Just quoted the lawyer saying his client had a target permit which a user here said he did not. I think his own lawyer would know more than a user here.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
And then please read the case that overturned it and curse the guy who had you wasting your time reading documents that no longer apply.
If you like that, you can pour over the 18th amendment and fret about all that beer in the fridge.
Ill get to it when I have time. The main point is WOW they can really run you through the ringer for violating restrictions. This guy must have been very wealthy to run this up to the highest courts. Any average Joe would have to have plead to the charges. Be very careful. Just showing people whats possible. They can do as they wish though.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
If you think that's limited to gun stuff you're hopelessly naive.
If they want to run you through the wringer they can.
No matter how careful and law abiding you think you are.
Point is they can just pull the license then all guns automatically go with it. Amounts to a huge "fine" automatically. All guns lost. The money you spent ...gone.
For not having any time to read the 2nd case that over turned the one he is clinging on to so hard to,, he sure does have a lot of time going back and forth on here..
But doesn't have time ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But doesn't have time ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Oh and once he was proven wrong he trys and divert it over to omg wow look how expensive this was for this person thats all I was trying to do show how expensive fighting a case and winning will be that was my only intent
Oh and does anyone have any evidence to support his claim that if your issuing judge pulls your handgun license you lose your rifles and shotguns and can never own a gun again like he claims multiple times in here and has countless times in the past??