No Cause, No Gun, Judge Tells Gun Lovers

**wa3ra** · October 9th, 2011, 04:33 PM

"227 guns were seized"...kinda provides a needs justification right there...

What we have here is a chair-to-gavel interface problem.

**Connal** · October 9th, 2011, 05:18 PM

If only we had rights, and were citizens. But lets face it, that is just a pipe dream.

**bigandy1966** · October 9th, 2011, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by wa3ra

"227 guns were seized"...kinda provides a needs justification right there...

What we have here is a chair-to-gavel interface problem.

I would say this proves a need to BE armed, obviously the criminals are getting theirs without the hassle of actually applying for a LTCF

You know this really makes me sick that this "Judge" thinks the 2nd A is arbitrary

**Brick** · October 9th, 2011, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by mauser

In other words you have to survive a brutal attack before they'll even consider granting you the privilege of self defense?

I know this was a federal judge and we can all spot the fallacies in the arguments presented by the state's attys.

But, all that being said NYS has always required a "reason" for issuing a pistol license. Part of the "adopted" procedure is to issue a "restricted" license. That is one that allows for only certain activities i.e. hunting & target shooting or to and from ... . But, it varies from county to county and sometimes even from judge to judge. In some areas they issue only a "full carry" license for any application. But in many areas full carry is only issued for cause and you should note a death threat is not cause! But, if you are a jewel merchant and carry gems and cash too and from the diamond market (so watch out for those Hassidic guys) or a grocer who must make night deposits of the store's receipts you might get one, depending on what county you're in. In Westchester County, I know police officers who are granted only restricted license.

NYSRPA and SCOPE tried to sue to end this practice statewide 20 or so years ago and lost in NYS courts.

Sorry Mauser, I should have been more careful in answering your statement. Survival of an attack is not cause. The attack has ended and you lived through it. It is now up to the police to find the perpatrator of the attack. Death threat is similar. If the miscreant makes good on the theat ans kills you the police will investigate the homicide. And just being a member of the general public and subject to a "random" attack isn't good enough either. You must be one with a need to protect highly valuable property or large amounts of cash.

**mp517prct** · October 9th, 2011, 07:51 PM

And remember the permit is to protect the valuables, not you! Before you can shoot the criminal, you must ascertain whether they are after you or your valuables. If they are after your valuables, shoot them, if they are after you, you must in no way impede their attack.

I disagree with those who say life is valuable. Life is one of the cheapest commodities on earth. This law proves my point.

**donm** · October 9th, 2011, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by bigandy1966

You know this really makes me sick that this "Judge" thinks the 2nd A is arbitrary

And at least 4/9 of the US Supreme Court agrees. We don't know what those "reasonable restrictions" mentioned in Heller and McDonald are yet. And if Obama appoints one more, it will be 5/9 and the whole point will be moot.