Planning challenge to licensing requirements

[TheRealJohnGalt]

Hey, attorney here, I am not fishing for clients. I already have what I need. I just wanted to post in this forum - and I will update the thread periodically - our plans for challenging the “requirements” that Hochul so very recently decreed. Follow if you would like.

We will be submitting our application in Suffolk County tomorrow. We will not be providing any references.

We will be attaching an addendum to the application packet explaining that we are declining to provide any references and furthermore declining to provide any social media account information, notwithstanding the fact that social media account information isn’t yet required.

Although the application to license process is considerably longer than the six months, we anticipate a denial/rejection based on an “incomplete” submission to be issued much faster.

Upon receipt of a formal denial/rejection, we will immediately file suit. We have some...novel...ideas for that suit, too...

Please do not contact me asking me to represent you on any matters whatsoever including those relevant to the forum, to join the lawsuit, for help with applications, or for any legal advice. I am posting here solely to keep members apprised of a legal challenge that we intend to bring.

I will post more information/updates when they are available/relevant.

Thanks.

 

[spat]

Hey, attorney here, I am not fishing for clients. I already have what I need. I just wanted to post in this forum - and I will update the thread periodically - our plans for challenging the “requirements” that Hochul so very recently decreed. Follow if you would like.

We will be submitting our application in Suffolk County tomorrow. We will not be providing any references.

We will be attaching an addendum to the application packet explaining that we are declining to provide any references and furthermore declining to provide any social media account information, notwithstanding the fact that social media account information isn’t yet required.

Although the application to license process is considerably longer than the six months, we anticipate a denial/rejection based on an “incomplete” submission to be issued much faster.

Upon receipt of a formal denial/rejection, we will immediately file suit. We have some...novel...ideas for that suit, too...

Please do not contact me asking me to represent you on any matters whatsoever including those relevant to the forum, to join the lawsuit, for help with applications, or for any legal advice. I am posting here solely to keep members apprised of a legal challenge that we intend to bring.

I will post more information/updates when they are available/relevant.

Thanks.

Great news, and love the username BTW.

 

[libertysnake]

Hey, attorney here, I am not fishing for clients. I already have what I need. I just wanted to post in this forum - and I will update the thread periodically - our plans for challenging the “requirements” that Hochul so very recently decreed. Follow if you would like.

We will be submitting our application in Suffolk County tomorrow. We will not be providing any references.

We will be attaching an addendum to the application packet explaining that we are declining to provide any references and furthermore declining to provide any social media account information, notwithstanding the fact that social media account information isn’t yet required.

Although the application to license process is considerably longer than the six months, we anticipate a denial/rejection based on an “incomplete” submission to be issued much faster.

Upon receipt of a formal denial/rejection, we will immediately file suit. We have some...novel...ideas for that suit, too...

Please do not contact me asking me to represent you on any matters whatsoever including those relevant to the forum, to join the lawsuit, for help with applications, or for any legal advice. I am posting here solely to keep members apprised of a legal challenge that we intend to bring.

I will post more information/updates when they are available/relevant.

Thanks.

Will you be challenging the body armor ban?

 

[TheRealJohnGalt]

Will you be challenging the body armor ban?

No. We are specifically going after the unconstitutional process NY puts you through to even become eligible to purchase a handgun. That’s the...scope...of our issue.

The body armor ban will likely have to be a separate challenge. I’m sure it can be done but I have not looked into it. Standing to bring suit is an issue. You may need someone who, otherwise lawfully acting, is convicted for that offense.

 

[libertysnake]

No. We are specifically going after the unconstitutional process NY puts you through to even become eligible to purchase a handgun. That’s the...scope...of our issue.

The body armor ban will likely have to be a separate challenge. I’m sure it can be done but I have not looked into it. Standing to bring suit is an issue. You may need someone who, otherwise lawfully acting, is convicted for that offense.

My understanding from reading it is it applies to the sale and purchase or transfer of body armor -- but I see no mention of the in between state of simply owning it before the ban. If you already have possession, you're not "taking possession" or buying something you already own. It's been a bit of a background debate here on the forum. If you have any thoughts on the topic, it would be good to hear.

Understandable you're focusing on the requirements for now, though.

 

[curated]

Sounds like you are challenging the fact that to purchase a handgun for home and target use requires a license. If so then bravo to you. A license to ccw is one thing (although it should be easy like say in FL), but no license should be required to purchase a handgun. It should be just like purchasing a rifle or shotgun is (at least at the moment)

 

[TheRealJohnGalt]

My understanding from reading it is it applies to the sale and purchase or transfer of body armor -- but I see no mention of the in between state of simply owning it before the ban. If you already have possession, you're not "taking possession" or buying something you already own. It's been a bit of a background debate here on the forum. If you have any thoughts on the topic, it would be good to hear.

Understandable you're focusing on the requirements for now, though.

I’ll take a look at exactly what it says and I will get back to you. I’d like to know myself.

 

[TheRealJohnGalt]

Sounds like you are challenging the fact that to purchase a handgun for home and target use requires a license. If so then bravo to you. A license to ccw is one thing (although it should be easy like say in FL), but no license should be required to purchase a handgun. It should be just like purchasing a rifle or shotgun is (at least at the moment)

Agreed. Alternatively, if a license was to be required (though many cringe reading those words), it should be issued contemporaneous with purchase. Nothing more than a receipt, more or less, with the same fed background check as if you’ve purchased a shotgun. Should take about 20 minutes to get your handgun.
The obvious issue, however, is that this is not the case. Not only do they require a license, the issuance of that license is apparently contingent on your proffering “acceptable” character references, dmv abstract, and social media account information. And this process takes over a year.
I can’t wait to hear them try and explain how any of that information is even remotely relevant to a person’s fitness to own a handgun, or any firearm for that matter. Should I have to provide my vaccination history as well? A list of media that I consume? What else might they ask for? Do I drive a truck that’s not Green enough for them?
Hochul has crafted a Bill that attempts to sneak in “may issue” requirements. The state’s subjective opinion about a person’s fitness to own a firearm, beyond prohibitions like OPs or felony convictions, is irrelevant, and is causing obvious delay in people exercising their second amendment right to even possess a pistol in their house.

 

[spat]

No. We are specifically going after the unconstitutional process NY puts you through to even become eligible to purchase a handgun. That’s the...scope...of our issue.

The body armor ban will likely have to be a separate challenge. I’m sure it can be done but I have not looked into it. Standing to bring suit is an issue. You may need someone who, otherwise lawfully acting, is convicted for that offense.

Safe bet NYS will go to great lengths to make sure that guy never exists.

I see a lot of charges getting dropped or pled out for anyone who looks like they might be able to really challenge it.

 

[spat]

Agreed. Alternatively, if a license was to be required (though many cringe reading those words), it should be issued contemporaneous with purchase. Nothing more than a receipt, more or less, with the same fed background check as if you’ve purchased a shotgun. Should take about 20 minutes to get your handgun.
The obvious issue, however, is that this is not the case. Not only do they require a license, the issuance of that license is apparently contingent on your proffering “acceptable” character references, dmv abstract, and social media account information. And this process takes over a year.
I can’t wait to hear them try and explain how any of that information is even remotely relevant to a person’s fitness to own a handgun, or any firearm for that matter. Should I have to provide my vaccination history as well? A list of media that I consume? What else might they ask for? Do I drive a truck that’s not Green enough for them?
Hochul has crafted a Bill that attempts to sneak in “may issue” requirements. The state’s subjective opinion about a person’s fitness to own a firearm, beyond prohibitions like OPs or felony convictions, is irrelevant, and is causing obvious delay in people exercising their second amendment right to even possess a pistol in their house.

I've said for a long time I'd like to see a red state require all that stuff for voter registration.

Make the left do all the heavy lifting to prove those sorts of requirements are ridiculous.

Then just bring suit here and reference the case that overturned that BS there.

 

[curated]

Agreed. Alternatively, if a license was to be required (though many cringe reading those words), it should be issued contemporaneous with purchase. Nothing more than a receipt, more or less, with the same fed background check as if you’ve purchased a shotgun. Should take about 20 minutes to get your handgun.
The obvious issue, however, is that this is not the case. Not only do they require a license, the issuance of that license is apparently contingent on your proffering “acceptable” character references, dmv abstract, and social media account information. And this process takes over a year.
I can’t wait to hear them try and explain how any of that information is even remotely relevant to a person’s fitness to own a handgun, or any firearm for that matter. Should I have to provide my vaccination history as well? A list of media that I consume? What else might they ask for? Do I drive a truck that’s not Green enough for them?
Hochul has crafted a Bill that attempts to sneak in “may issue” requirements. The state’s subjective opinion about a person’s fitness to own a firearm, beyond prohibitions like OPs or felony convictions, is irrelevant, and is causing obvious delay in people exercising their second amendment right to even possess a pistol in their house.

Thrilled to hear you are challenging the licensing requirement in general. As you said any license requirement to purchase and keep a handgun in a home is unconstitutional. Let’s hope you are the rainmaker that gets the whole licensing scheme in NY thrown out.

 

[TheRealJohnGalt]

Thrilled to hear you are challenging the licensing requirement in general. As you said any license requirement to purchase and keep a handgun in a home is unconstitutional. Let’s hope you are the rainmaker that gets the whole licensing scheme in NY thrown out.

It’s not just a licensing requirement though. That might be Constitutional.

It’s the fact that 1) the process to get the license required submission of irrelevant, private, and burdensome information that has no connection to a persons right to obtain a firearm / fitness to possess one, and 2) these onerous requirements are causing an enormous delay on issuing licenses/permits.

 

[spat]

It’s not just a licensing requirement though. That might be Constitutional.

It’s the fact that 1) the process to get the license required submission of irrelevant, private, and burdensome information that has no connection to a persons right to obtain a firearm / fitness to possess one, and 2) these onerous requirements are causing an enormous delay on issuing licenses/permits.

I'd love to see someone go after the ban on interstate sales. Let me go to any FFL in the country and buy anything that's legal in the state he operates in.

 

[curated]

It’s not just a licensing requirement though. That might be Constitutional.

It’s the fact that 1) the process to get the license required submission of irrelevant, private, and burdensome information that has no connection to a persons right to obtain a firearm / fitness to possess one, and 2) these onerous requirements are causing an enormous delay on issuing licenses/permits.

Interesting take about a license to only “posses” and not ccw maybe being Constitutional, while I a non lawyer would disagree.

That said I fully agree with you on your other points. I for instance could easily get a NYS license but the hassle of doing so along with the whole process of having to get permission to purchase new handguns once you have a license has alway prevented me from getting one. The whole thing feels like an infringement that I refuse to play along with and have thus just stuck with rifles and shotguns.

 

[TheRealJohnGalt]

The state has an interest in regulating firearms, just like they have an interest in regulating driving. They can likely have a license requirement. That interest ranges from nearly no interest (possessing at home) to great interest (possessing at a courthouse, polling place, etc.).

Because Heller and Bruen make it clear that NY must (shall) issue, the state has no basis to ask for irrelevant character-related information. A good question to ask, is, what information might they receive from those documents which would revoke a person’s right, consistent with Heller and Bruen, to possess a firearm? Can you think of anything?

There is no good response to that question, it is nothing more than a delay tactic and is either justification for or the cause of the lengthy delay a NYer undergoes just to take a firearm home. It is data collection on lawful firearm owners. It’s unconstitutional the way Hochul set it up.

 

[TheRealJohnGalt]

Interesting take about a license to only “posses” and not ccw maybe being Constitutional, while I a non lawyer would disagree.

That said I fully agree with you on your other points. I for instance could easily get a NYS license but the hassle of doing so along with the whole process of having to get permission to purchase new handguns once you have a license has alway prevented me from getting one. The whole thing feels like an infringement that I refuse to play along with and have thus just stuck with rifles and shotguns.

Don’t get me wrong, I think a license to merely possess is ridiculous.

But it is less ridiculous, maybe even constitutional, to require a license that they issue the same day. Intrusive and unnecessary? Yes. Does it really infringe on your ability to possess a firearm? Not really.

What does infringe, though, is hiding behind a “license” to delay your purchase for years, collecting non-public data about you, etc.

There is a difference in my opinion, and that’s what we’re challenging. It’s the process. And it’s exactly what Hochul said...they want to make it as difficult as possible.

 

[curated]

Don’t get me wrong, I think a license to merely possess is ridiculous.

But it is less ridiculous, maybe even constitutional, to require a license that they issue the same day. Intrusive and unnecessary? Yes. Does it really infringe on your ability to possess a firearm? Not really.

What does infringe, though, is hiding behind a “license” to delay your purchase for years, collecting non-public data about you, etc.

There is a difference in my opinion, and that’s what we’re challenging. It’s the process. And it’s exactly what Hochul said...they want to make it as difficult as possible.

Agree that a license issued at the same time you pass a background check while unnecessary would not be an infringement. The current setup is as much an infringement as can possibly be. I truly wish you the best of luck and hope you can bring down the states house of cards.

 

[spat]

Don’t get me wrong, I think a license to merely possess is ridiculous.

But it is less ridiculous, maybe even constitutional, to require a license that they issue the same day. Intrusive and unnecessary? Yes. Does it really infringe on your ability to possess a firearm? Not really.

What does infringe, though, is hiding behind a “license” to delay your purchase for years, collecting non-public data about you, etc.

There is a difference in my opinion, and that’s what we’re challenging. It’s the process. And it’s exactly what Hochul said...they want to make it as difficult as possible.

They can require a voter to register before voting.

I think that is the maximum extent the constitution permits for any enumerated right.

The simplest answer is make a single voter registration / gun permit. You *can't* get one without the other.

Then that document *is* your background check and all the documentation you need. They don't need a list of your guns any more than they need a list of who you voted for.


Let the left fight everything as "voter suppression" instead of us having to deal with it.

 

[Grimscale]

The state has an interest in regulating firearms, just like they have an interest in regulating driving.

Driving is not a Right. And the State's interest in regulating firearms is in direct opposition to the 2nd Amendment.
And I thought Heller specifically said it is our RIGHT to possess arms in the home for self defense. Wouldn't that hamper a State's ability to require their permissions to do so via permitting schemes?
As said before, CCW (for now) is something else. But since it has been affirmed that it is our Right to not only possess in the home, but also to carry, for personal defense, that pretty much throws out any permitting scheme that is more than "I'm asking", "we're giving".

Onerous requirements, constant financial drain for frequent "recertifications", etc., are in direct conflict with those rulings.

Does it really infringe on your ability to possess a firearm? Not really.

Yes, it does.
If I have to ask the government for permission it is not a Right. It is a privilege.
*edit: If I have to also PAY for that permission it is a poll tax.


I commend you on your attempt, and wish you the best of luck.
But I don't think you are going far enough.

 

[Egret-II]

Don’t get me wrong, I think a license to merely possess is ridiculous.

But it is less ridiculous, maybe even constitutional, to require a license that they issue the same day. Intrusive and unnecessary? Yes. Does it really infringe on your ability to possess a firearm? Not really.

What does infringe, though, is hiding behind a “license” to delay your purchase for years, collecting non-public data about you, etc.

There is a difference in my opinion, and that’s what we’re challenging. It’s the process. And it’s exactly what Hochul said...they want to make it as difficult as possible.

What I've always ask about the licensing scheme is (in Westchester at least): why do they need 4 character references? If your background check comes clean. That should be enough. And on top of that, those 4 people need to give their social security, personal number, home and work address, and notarize all that!! Not a lot of people are willing to do that. Especially, in NY where a lot of people are afraid of guns. It took me a while to get 4 people to do that.

 

[dsdmmat]

Good luck

 

[nonconformist]

Are you coordinating this suit with any 2A groups like NYSRPA, 2AF, or FPC? Or is this a lone wolf suit?

 

[TheRealJohnGalt]

Driving is not a Right. And the State's interest in regulating firearms is in direct opposition to the 2nd Amendment.
And I thought Heller specifically said it is our RIGHT to possess arms in the home for self defense. Wouldn't that hamper a State's ability to require their permissions to do so via permitting schemes?
As said before, CCW (for now) is something else. But since it has been affirmed that it is our Right to not only possess in the home, but also to carry, for personal defense, that pretty much throws out any permitting scheme that is more than "I'm asking", "we're giving".

Onerous requirements, constant financial drain for frequent "recertifications", etc., are in direct conflict with those rulings.

Yes, it does.
If I have to ask the government for permission it is not a Right. It is a privilege.
*edit: If I have to also PAY for that permission it is a poll tax.


I commend you on your attempt, and wish you the best of luck.
But I don't think you are going far enough.

I appreciate what you’re saying. I mean this in the least condescending way that an egotistical asshole lawyer like myself can possibly mean it, and I’m not suggesting you’re uneducated about firearms or the laws relating to them.

The state has a legal interest in regulating firearms to some extent. That’s not me talking, that’s actually scotus, when I get out of court later maybe I’ll send you verbatim what was said. The strength of the state’s interest in regulating firearm possession varies based on the type of firearm, the person, the location in which possession would occur, etc. And the state’s interest gets weighed against the right they’re infringing on by courts in determining whether or not the regulation is Constitutional. I’m sorry if this is pedantic.

Also not me talking, and I’ll pull the quotes, is either the majority opinion or a concurrence acknowledging that a licensing scheme is likely permissible, so long as that license SHALL be issued. It is likely that a court would uphold the concept of a license. What they would not uphold, or what they do not anticipate in agreeing a license requirement is permissible, is that getting that license involves an invasive background check with onerous and irrelevant requirements that take over a year to process.

So while I appreciate your sentiments about licensing generally, I hope you understand where this lawsuit is coming from. I think it has a much greater likelihood of success and is much narrower in scope than asking SCOTUS to broadly declare “all licensing schemes in any manner whatsoever implemented are unconstitutional.”

 

[TheRealJohnGalt]

Are you coordinating this suit with any 2A groups like NYSRPA, 2AF, or FPC? Or is this a lone wolf suit?

Lone wolf of course. Cmon man. Appreciate the NRA generally but I’m looking to make my arguments my way with my client, free from any other influence or party or media spectacle. Just your humble attorney representing his client’s interests...

 

[nonconformist]

Understood. Only ask cause while listening to GFH podcast where they were talking to a ANJRPC lawyer, they mentioned lone wolf suits in a very "bless their hearts " kind of way. Best of luck regardless.

 

[8w7]

Yep. You cannot just litigate against licensing requirements all together. The suit will go nowhere considering that Bruen said that licensing is constitutional. It may not be what we agree with but suits can only follow what’s contained in the decision itself.

 

[Loworange88]

Sorry if it was asked already…any sort of estimated timeline on getting a verdict? I understand it can take time.

 

[Steal2B]

What I've always ask about the licensing scheme is (in Westchester at least): why do they need 4 character references? If your background check comes clean. That should be enough. And on top of that, those 4 people need to give their social security, personal number, home and work address, and notarize all that!! Not a lot of people are willing to do that. Especially, in NY where a lot of people are afraid of guns. It took me a while to get 4 people to do that.

Dutchess also requires 4 references, notarized, long county residence, different households, no relations, some personal info, processed through USPS ... slows process down, dramatically sometimes. It was frustrating to have delays after death threats seeing how we already had security clearances (DOD, Department of Homeland Security, DOE, Department of State, and the FBI) and recent fingerprints / 5 year updates.

 

[Edwardteach72]

Following

 

[nortatoga]

I appreciate what you’re saying. I mean this in the least condescending way that an egotistical asshole lawyer like myself can possibly mean it, and I’m not suggesting you’re uneducated about firearms or the laws relating to them.

The state has a legal interest in regulating firearms to some extent. That’s not me talking, that’s actually scotus, when I get out of court later maybe I’ll send you verbatim what was said. The strength of the state’s interest in regulating firearm possession varies based on the type of firearm, the person, the location in which possession would occur, etc. And the state’s interest gets weighed against the right they’re infringing on by courts in determining whether or not the regulation is Constitutional. I’m sorry if this is pedantic.

Also not me talking, and I’ll pull the quotes, is either the majority opinion or a concurrence acknowledging that a licensing scheme is likely permissible, so long as that license SHALL be issued. It is likely that a court would uphold the concept of a license. What they would not uphold, or what they do not anticipate in agreeing a license requirement is permissible, is that getting that license involves an invasive background check with onerous and irrelevant requirements that take over a year to process.

So while I appreciate your sentiments about licensing generally, I hope you understand where this lawsuit is coming from. I think it has a much greater likelihood of success and is much narrower in scope than asking SCOTUS to broadly declare “all licensing schemes in any manner whatsoever implemented are unconstitutional.”

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of United States Supreme Court decisions since

caselaw.findlaw.com

But we are also of opinion that, even if the contract of a seaman could be considered within the letter of the thirteenth amendment, it is not, within its spirit, a case of involuntary servitude. The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the 'Bill of Rights,' were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions, arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press ( article 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people [165 U.S. 275, 282] to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (article 5) does not prevent a second trial, if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree, or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion (U. S. v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 627 , 16 S. Sup. Ct. 1192); nor does the provision of the same article that no one shall be a witness against himself impair his obligation to testify, if a prosecution against him be barred by the lapse of time, a pardon, or by statutory enactment (Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 , 16 Sup. Ct. 644, and cases cited). Nor does the provision that an accused person shall be confronted with the witnesses against him prevent the admission of dying declarations, or the depositions of witnesses who have died since the former trial.


I take this to mean State's then can require a license to conceal carry? But YES NYS is to excessive a process.