Denied concealed carry pistol permit in NYS

Kackerley

New member
I live in upstate NY and applied for my pistol permit. On the application I didn't put that I had ever been arrested. Judge denied my application because in 2000 my mother called the cops lied to them I was asked to go down to the trooper Barracks for finder prints. I went down a couple hours later they took my pic and finger prints was never read my rights or given a ticket or even questioned. Was just told a date and time to go to court. I went to court talked to the judge and was told the entire thing was being thrown out and it would be like it never happened so I had completely forgotten about it. The charge that the judge listed wasn't even what I thought the whole thing was for and I have no paperwork to go on because nothing was ever given to me.
So I called the pistol clerk told her what happen she told me to write the judge so I did. He responded saying he can't change his decision. My question is can I reapply and put this arrest down? Is there a certain amount of time I have to wait etc.?
 
Just an update. I contacted the pistol clerk again and she said I can reapply but get this I have to be finger printed all over again and pay the fee again that it's not the county but NYS won't accept using the finger prints from the first application. Another bs charge by the state. You would think you paid for it once they have them they don't change they should be able to use them again.


Sent from my iPhone using USA Carry
 
That's what happens when you turn a right into a privilege you must obtain government permission for. Just the way HKS likes it.
 
That's what happens when you turn a right into a privilege you must obtain government permission for. Just the way HKS likes it.

Just the way Mosad Ayoob likes it.

And just the way the US Constitution as interpreted by Scalia likes it too. Naturally he is/was a better judge than any of the rest of us (no pun intended).

For the record, this is all with reference to carrying a firearm in public. Nothing to do with owning one. Owning one is a separate issue.
 
And just the way the US Constitution as interpreted by Scalia likes it too. Naturally he is/was a better judge than any of the rest of us (no pun intended).

Which is a totally false assertion because the US Supreme Court has refused to hear any case brought before it regarding the right to carry firearms in public - therefore there has been no ruling on it.
 
Which is a totally false assertion because the US Supreme Court has refused to hear any case brought before it regarding the right to carry firearms in public - therefore there has been no ruling on it.

Your statement about the SCOTUS is correct.

But your thinking and conclusion are fractured.

Scalia discusses this issue in Heller.

You need to read Heller (again).
 
Your statement about the SCOTUS is correct.

But your thinking and conclusion are fractured.

Scalia discusses this issue in Heller.

You need to read Heller (again).

I beg to differ. You admit that there has never been a case before the US Supreme Court regarding the right to carry a firearm in public. A judge cannot rule on a case that never came in front of them. You keep saying Scalia made a ruling - post the quote.
 
I beg to differ. You admit that there has never been a case before the US Supreme Court regarding the right to carry a firearm in public. A judge cannot rule on a case that never came in front of them. You keep saying Scalia made a ruling - post the quote.

Unless you have crystal balls Sailor Sam, you cannot predict what the SCOTUS will do.

In the meantime Scalia's write-up of Heller is the best guidance we have that is current and on point.

Scalia does not "trump" (supersede) states' rights with the 2nd Amendment as far as public carry(ing) goes.

He only supersedes states' rights to the extent they violate the "keep" clause -- which he interprets and defines as "keep in your home" not "keep in your pocket."

You should know all that Sailor Sam, if you read Heller carefully.

You would not have made it to O-4 if you were not a college grad and/or if you could not read.
 
Unless you have crystal balls Sailor Sam, you cannot predict what the SCOTUS will do.

In the meantime Scalia's write-up of Heller is the best guidance we have that is current and on point.

Scalia does not "trump" (supersede) states' rights with the 2nd Amendment as far as public carry(ing) goes.

He only supersedes states' rights to the extent they violate the "keep" clause -- which he interprets and defines as "keep in your home" not "keep in your pocket."

You should know all that Sailor Sam, if you read Heller carefully.

You would not have made it to O-4 if you were not a college grad and/or if you could not read.

I asked you to quote Scalia and you have not. I cannot prove that someone did not day something - you have to prove that they did.

This is a quote:
"Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence."

You can provide no such quotes supporting your opinion of what Scalia said because, simply, Scalia stated no such thing. I welcome you to prove me wrong.
 
I'm not a judge and I don't even play one on TV. To me, "keep and bear arms" means to both possess (keep) and carry (bear) arms. Otherwise, the 2nd Amendment would say only "keep arms" without bearing (carrying) them from place to place. That would make no sense.

IMO
 
I'm not a judge and I don't even play one on TV. To me, "keep and bear arms" means to both possess (keep) and carry (bear) arms. Otherwise, the 2nd Amendment would say only "keep arms" without bearing (carrying) them from place to place. That would make no sense.

IMO

You have too much common sense to be a judge! :-)
 
I asked you to quote Scalia and you have not. I cannot prove that someone did not day something - you have to prove that they did.

This is a quote:
"Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence."

You can provide no such quotes supporting your opinion of what Scalia said because, simply, Scalia stated no such thing. I welcome you to prove me wrong.

I don't care about proving you anything -- right or wrong.

You made it to O-4 yet you sound like a juvenile child.

You can look through my posts on this website and find my citation to Scalia. It's there.

Or you can read the case again -- more carefully this time:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
 
I'm not a judge and I don't even play one on TV. To me, "keep and bear arms" means to both possess (keep) and carry (bear) arms. Otherwise, the 2nd Amendment would say only "keep arms" without bearing (carrying) them from place to place. That would make no sense.

IMO

You need to read Scalia's write up of Heller to find out what "keep" and what "bear" means.

He defines them nicely.

It's not what you think it is:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
 
You need to read Scalia's write up of Heller to find out what "keep" and what "bear" means.

He defines them nicely.

It's not what you think it is:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

LOL. He just cites the 64-page DC v. Heller decision and the 44-page dissenting opinion in one document, which mentions "keep" 178 times and "bear" 262 times. No direct quote of the specific text he refers to with page number and paragraph number. What a troll.
 
Scalia discusses the 2nd Amendment beautifully and he goes back several hundred years into English history pre-colonization of America.

Anyone who cannot follow his well organized and artful explanation is simply illiterate.

You don't need to be a genius, a judge, or even a lawyer.

Just take it one paragraph at a time and read slow.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
 
Thanks but no thanks.

I was merely stating my opinion, not anyone else's.

Heller has been discussed and rehashed in this forum plenty enough.

Well you are not going to learn anything unless you read more.

And the USMC D/I's in USN boot camp that you went to should have taught you that everyone has an opinion and they all .... something like that.

Whenever an opinion is based on no research at all then it truly ... you know what.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,521
Messages
610,659
Members
74,992
Latest member
RedDotArmsTraining
Back
Top