Unrestricted to Restricted!

[nortatoga]

I know this has come up in the passed, Someone moved to a new County and the Judge restricts there unrestricted license! Here is the Case Law you may need?

Sorry this case does not say what I was thinking it said!

IN THE MATTER OF JERALD O'BRIEN, RESPONDENT, v. THOMAS W. KEEGAN, AS JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLANT.

 

[Edwardteach72]

Ok so tried to read it and got confused. Is this saying that they can just put restrictions on whenever they want

Or

If once granted they can' just go around adding restrictions?

 

[nortatoga]

No they can not restrict a unrestricted license! Reread it!

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Do you think if I asked my judge for more restrictions I'd get denied or have my permit revoked?

 

[nortatoga]

Do you think if I asked my judge for more restrictions I'd get denied or have my permit revoked?

Now you are just being Silly!!

 

[freddy]

Do you think if I asked my judge for more restrictions I'd get denied or have my permit revoked?

With NYS logic that just might get you unrestricted!

 

[Deplorable Me]

No they can not restrict a unrestricted license! Reread it!

Give NY 5 minutes, they'll change that too. Nothing is as consistent as the inconsistent execution of the laws in NY.

"GOOD UNTIL REVOKED" is now on a 5 year rotating schedule.

NY laws are a circus freak show.

 

[hoodfu]

What matters the most is that all of this is before Heller. I know that SCOTUS isn't willing to enforce that ruling at this time, but if a case ever reaches them, they're going to spike this type of thing like a volleyball.

 

[Bob]

No they can not restrict a unrestricted license! Reread it!

I read it twice. It says exactly the opposite.

Relevant statements:
"Under the circumstances of this case, it was not unreasonable for respondent to restrict petitioner's license. "
"...the licensing officer's restriction of petitioner's license was neither arbitrary nor capricious, promoting both the regulatory and public safety aims of Penal Law § 400.00"

 

[Marine Cpl]

Another corrupt ruling against the 2A.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I read it twice. It says exactly the opposite.

Relevant statements:
"Under the circumstances of this case, it was not unreasonable for respondent to restrict petitioner's license. "
"...the licensing officer's restriction of petitioner's license was neither arbitrary nor capricious, promoting both the regulatory and public safety aims of Penal Law § 400.00"

You are correct.

 

[Edwardteach72]

I read it twice. It says exactly the opposite.

Relevant statements:
"Under the circumstances of this case, it was not unreasonable for respondent to restrict petitioner's license. "
"...the licensing officer's restriction of petitioner's license was neither arbitrary nor capricious, promoting both the regulatory and public safety aims of Penal Law § 400.00"

This is how i read it as well

 

[nortatoga]

My bad!! After re-reading it again! I will EDIT OP!! I know there is a case out there about someone moving to another County and fighting to have restrictions removed from new license!

 

[Cooolone]

We all know Restrictions in themselves are an administrative function and doesn't exist in the law as written in NY. I'd ignore any restrictions placed upon any so called "permit" to exercise your Right(s).

Let me ask in a different way... If the Judge placed "Residence Only" onto the permit... Would you honor it? Because what the hell, if the Judge is an Anti, he could do what he wants no?

Lol... Case law on prosecution/convictions for those miscreants who dared carry outside their restrictions? Can anyone find it...? Let me know! Again, not someone who got snatched with 10lbs of pot in their trunk and had a pistol on them. Just pure outside their restriction arrest and subsequent conviction?

 

[nortatoga]

We all know Restrictions in themselves are an administrative function and doesn't exist in the law as written in NY. I'd ignore any restrictions placed upon any so called "permit" to exercise your Right(s).

Let me ask in a different way... If the Judge placed "Residence Only" onto the permit... Would you honor it? Because what the hell, if the Judge is an Anti, he could do what he wants no?

Lol... Case law on prosecution/convictions for those miscreants who dared carry outside their restrictions? Can anyone find it...? Let me know! Again, not someone who got snatched with 10lbs of pot in their trunk and had a pistol on them. Just pure outside their restriction arrest and subsequent conviction?

No one has ever said anything of prosecution for carrying outside of restrictions!

 

[SomeSoldier]

@Darth How can the judge make a ruling on a law that didn't exist??

 

[Darth]

@Darth How can the judge make a ruling on a law that didn't exist??

Not sure. Find a case where that happened and ask again?

 

[SomeSoldier]

Not sure. Find a case where that happened and ask again?

Umm this case as they ruled a non law is allowed to be applied to a person that didn't have it before...

 

[Darth]

Umm this case as they ruled a non law is allowed to be applied to a person that didn't have it before...

...that's no different than was the ruling before about "allowing judges to write restrictions on permit." They have always been able to do that. They can write whatever they want on them.

They have not changed the legal standing of the permit in any way however, and the restrictions still have no force of law whatsoever.

So when there is a case where the legality of a law that does not exist comes up, we can take a look at that.

 

[nortatoga]

Umm this case as they ruled a non law is allowed to be applied to a person that didn't have it before...

May be if you read the Heller v DC ruling for what it says and not for what you want it to say! (And yes I know this case was before Heller!)

 

[Marine Cpl]

May be if you read the Heller v DC ruling for what it says and not for what you want it to say! (And yes I know this case was before Heller!)

Here we go again. Not everyone accepts corruption and bias from judges like you do.

 

[Darth]

Here we go again. Not everyone accepts corruption and bias from judges like you do.

I've still got some dead horse similes I can sell you on the cheap if you need them for this thread.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I've still got some dead horse similes I can sell you on the cheap if you need them for this thread.

Sure. How much? Would 5 likes be a good price?

 

[nortatoga]

Here we go again. Not everyone accepts corruption and bias from judges like you do.

Sorry but #4 says it all!!

The Second Amendment says that: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today's opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an "individual" right--i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting).

(2) As evidenced by its preamble, the Amendment was adopted "[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [militia] forces." United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 178 (1939); see ante, at 26 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting).

(3) The Amendment "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." Miller, supra, at 178.

(4) The right protected by the Second Amendment is not absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation. See Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281-282 (1897); ante, at 22, 54 (opinion of the Court).

 

[Darth]

Sure. How much? Would 5 likes be a good price?

Considering the obvious imminent need, I'll let you have them, you just pay me back later.

 

[Defilade]

Where in the Constitution does it say the 2nd is NOT absolute?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Sorry but #4 says it all!!

The Second Amendment says that: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today's opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an "individual" right--i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting).

(2) As evidenced by its preamble, the Amendment was adopted "[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [militia] forces." United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 178 (1939); see ante, at 26 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting).

(3) The Amendment "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." Miller, supra, at 178.

(4) The right protected by the Second Amendment is not absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation. See Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281-282 (1897); ante, at 22, 54 (opinion of the Court).

The core prohibitions by New York and Connecticut of assault weapons and large‐capacity magazines do not violate the Second Amendment. Judge Skretny

 

[nortatoga]

The core prohibitions by New York and Connecticut of assault weapons and large‐capacity magazines do not violate the Second Amendment. Judge Skretny

And what does that have to do with CCW?

 

[Marine Cpl]

And what does that have to do with CCW?

The same thing any ruling has to do with anything in regards to the 2A. Nothing.

The point is any ruling that does not say "shall not be infringed" isn't a just ruling at all.

So you can pick and choose your rulings for your arguments but they are all BS just like the one I quoted above.

 

[nortatoga]

The same thing any ruling has to do with anything in regards to the 2A. Nothing.

The point is any ruling that does not say "shall not be infringed" isn't a just ruling at all.

So you can pick and choose your rulings for your arguments but they are all BS just like the one I quoted above.

This is why you and others will never win in Court!