Is Article 400 of NY State Statue being violated by the Police? You Decide.

[golocx4]

We all know and have known that the hoops we have to jump through in NY to simply own a handgun are at the least Arbitrary and Capricious (doing something according to one’s will or caprice and therefore conveying a notion of a tendency to abuse the possession of power.) But is it also a violation of our civil rights?

First Paragraph of Penal Law
ARTICLE 400 LICENSING AND OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO FIREARMS
THE STATUTE SAYS:
No license shall be issued or renewed pursuant to this section except by the licensing officer, and then only after investigation and finding that all statements in a proper application for a license are true.
Lets read that again.

Eligibility. No license shall be issued or renewed pursuant to this
section except by the licensing officer, and then only after
investigation and finding that all statements in a proper application
for a license are true.

The Statute says, all statements in a proper application for a license are true.

It nowhere gives any latitude to the investigating agency to add or subtract anything to the proper application.
In other words, by statute and as outlined in PENAL Law. The investigating officer’s job is to determine if all the statements made are true.
He is not to add anything or leave anything out. He is not being charged to make any kind of decision. His/her job is to sign off saying. I have checked out the applicant’s application and the applicant has been 100% truthful in his answers,

If the officer starts asking questions not on the application like I also need to speak to one of your neighbors (not on application) or all of your references must live in your hometown, or tell me something positive and negative about the applicant. The officer is overstepping his authority and is possibly breaking the law. (or because the right to bear arms in NY is a civil right, the officer is violating your civil rights)
I believe that when a State violates an individuals civil rights it must be investigated by the Federal Government.

OKAY all you lawyers out there,,,, I smell a Class Action Lawsuit against the some of the 60 counties and 1571 towns and villages that are violating the civil rights of New York citizens because for personal reasons they are overstepping their authority which is given them in New York State Penal Law ARTICLE 400 LICENSING AND OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO FIREARMS.

This should also be a campaign issue for all of our local Judge Elections and the Number One Issue for local Sheriff Elections.
The fact that they are doing this leaves the towns and villages open to civil penalties.
Got a guy running for Town Council ask him if he knows that his Police Capitan is leaving the town open to civil liability because of the way they are conducting background checks.

Lets discuss please.....

 

[cawpin]

It doesn't say they can't do other things. It says only that, for them to issue a license, everything on the application must be true. You seem to reading it as "they must issue a license if everything on the application is true."

That said, I believe it is a violation of rights for simply requiring a license to practice said right in the first place.

 

[golocx4]

I say that the limitations are in black and white.
"investigation and finding that all statements in a proper application for a license are true."
No more no less.
By what authority are they acting if they ask questions that are not on the application. At that point you are protected by the 5th amendment.
A Law Enforcement Officer is VERY limited on what they can or can not do.
I would be akin to telling you to sign a piece of paper for a property receipt that later turned out to be a confession. (what is the difference)
The statute is lying out what must be done.
Anything else is not part of the statute. That is why we have 60 counties and 1500 towns all doing it different ways.
Some do exactly what the statute says and other do what someone in that locale feels must be done.

 

[cawpin]

"investigation and finding that all statements in a proper application for a license are true."
No more no less.

Again, you are changing what the statue says. If it was "no more, no less" the statute would say that. It doesn't.

 

[nogods]

Even if your analysis was correct, all that needs to be done is ask the following question on the application:

"Are you responsible and mature enough to be allowed a concealed carry permit?"

Then the investigator finds that the answer is not true, and the permit is denied.

 

[golocx4]

Even if your analysis was correct, all that needs to be done is ask the following question on the application:

"Are you responsible and mature enough to be allowed a concealed carry permit?"

Then the investigator finds that the answer is not true, and the permit is denied.

then you would have to define responsible and mature enough in an objective manner and I would think that is covered in "finding that all statements in a proper application".
When I used to do "background" checks for employment, the only thing I was allowed to report was that the applicant did not falsify that application. If I found that the applicant did lie. I would simply say "application is not factual"
Am I really reaching here? The statute is quite specific.
Can we also agree that (not counting the 4 Boroughs) The statute is executed in 60 counties by this "No license shall be issued or renewed pursuant to this section except by the licensing officer". Who that is not really clear.
Now within the 60 Counties there 60 Sheriff Departments and 1500 Municipal Towns Villages and Cities that are responsible for "and then only after investigation and finding that all statements in a proper application for a license are true."

Just in Erie County alone it is hard to find 2 towns that follow the same procedure.
What is the ordinary citizen to think?
This alone makes the law "arbitrary and capricious" (doing something according to one’s will or caprice and therefore conveying a notion of a tendency to abuse the possession of power.)
Example: a patrol captain (A) in charge of the road division of County Sheriff patrol is very anti 2A. Puts the background checks for Pistol Permits on the bottom of the priority list. He also adds in several non statutory requirements to bog down the system they by making the process slow and cumbersome in the hope of discouraging applicants.
Patrol Captain (B) follows the letter of the law and is able to turn over applications in 2 weeks time.
Of course all Captain A has to do is twist the facts but the fact that one can do it in 2 weeks and the other 10 months should be able to show that someone is doing something according to one’s will or caprice and is therefore conveying a notion abuse the possession of his power.
If this is then occurring in many for the 60 counties and 1500 Municipalities then it has to be the fault of the original statute.