Well, New York has wasted no time whatsoever

[44 AMP]

This is our problem and it puts us all in terrible jeopardy.

When the state forbids us the means to defend ourselves, they take the moral responsibility for defending us. However, the state is only responsible for protecting the public at large, and NOT any individual.

So there we are stuck, between the state requiring we not be armed and criminals who don't care what the state says and are armed.

[Metal god]

When the state forbids us the means to defend ourselves, they take the moral responsibility for defending us. However, the state is only responsible for protecting the public at large, and NOT any individual.

This was what I've been thinking about when it comes to private businesses . If as a business if the state forbids me from carrying my legally owned and carried firearm into your business . The business then must have the burden to defend me in any way I might other wise been able to if I had my firearm on me .

It's one thing to not allow firearms in your business and asking someone to leave if you find out they do have a firearm on there person . It's a whole other thing when the state makes it illegal for your customers to carry in your business . The state has just created the very unsafe gun free zone of every business in the state . I would think that shifts the safety burden to the business owner to provide security for there customers .

[44 AMP]

I would think that shifts the safety burden to the business owner to provide security for there customers .

I disagree.

If the State prohibits your carry in a business location, the business has no obligation to provide for your protection. The State does.

IF the BUSINESS prohibits your carry, (where other wise legal) they have that right, but doing so places the moral burden of protection on the business. Not sure about the full legal aspects but I am sure of what I think is right, and the ethical, moral thing to do.

Just my personal opinion and worth what you paid for it, or possibly, less...

[Metal god]

Yeah but the the law gives the business owner an option to allow the action which resolves the state of the liability so if the business continues to not allow the action then the burdon shifts Y/N

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal God

This was what I've been thinking about when it comes to private businesses . If as a business if the state forbids me from carrying my legally owned and carried firearm into your business . The business then must have the burden to defend me in any way I might other wise been able to if I had my firearm on me .

It's one thing to not allow firearms in your business and asking someone to leave if you find out they do have a firearm on there person . It's a whole other thing when the state makes it illegal for your customers to carry in your business . The state has just created the very unsafe gun free zone of every business in the state . I would think that shifts the safety burden to the business owner to provide security for there customers .

Why would -- or should -- the burden of providing for customer safety shift to the business if it wasn't the business that chose to prohibit customers from carrying?

That makes no sense at all.

Originally Posted by Metal God

Yeah but the the law gives the business owner an option to allow the action which resolves the state of the liability so if the business continues to not allow the action then the burdon shifts Y/N

Now you're talking about the new New York law specifically, which I believe is unique among state anti-gun laws in this respect. But the NY law doesn't stipulate the a business that doesn't choose to post "Concealer Carry Allowed" must provide security for customers.

Then there's a more nuanced question. I understand your argument: "If I would normally carry in your establishment but you don't allow me to do so, then you assume the responsibility for keeping me as safe as I would have done for myself." But this is New York state, where only a tiny percentage of people have carry permits. How is a business owner supposed to know which of his/her customers are the people with carry permits and who do actually carry regularly? Because under your argument, those are the ONLY customers who should be eligible for any special protection. Should confirmed anti-gun customers, who never have and never will carry a firearm, receive the same level of protection as those customers who are deprived of their right to carry by this law and the business's failure to post a "Concealed Carry Allowed" sign?

[Metal god]

Yes I was speaking of NY and the specific law we have been discussing. I’d think your second question would be worked out in the lawsuit. When you show you do have a carry permit and was prohibited from carrying your self defense choice .

I just don’t see how a state and or a business can forbid a law abiding citizen from carrying there legal choice for self defense and not legally be obligated to provide for your security/safety . Keeping in mind this is not a Federal building or other traditional restricted area . We are now talking general public areas which I believe changes the dynamic of this law .

I understand this may be a novel argument but at the same time this is a brand new type of law/ordinance which will likely require a novel argument.

[44 AMP]

I understand this may be a novel argument but at the same time this is a brand new type of law/ordinance which will likely require a novel argument.

I don't think it actually is a new argument, just a new way of describing or looking at a long established situation.

First point, I make a distinction between what I consider the "moral" (or if you prefer "ethical") responsibility, and the legal responsibility. We generally feel they ought to be the same, but often, they are not.

I just don’t see how a state and or a business can forbid a law abiding citizen from carrying there legal choice for self defense and not legally be obligated to provide for your security/safety

The answer is simple, but you won't like it. If there is no law requiring them to provide for your security/safety, then they are simply not legally obligated to do so. Once again the difference between what we feel they ought to do and what the law actually requires.

"traditionally" there were two places where legal firearms carry was prohibited, bars and banks. Not sure about banks anymore, but I know that rule is still in place for bars /places serving alcohol. There are posted signs specifically stating that, and (in my state, at least) include language specifically stating they prohibit permit holders from carrying in that location.

What we are looking at here, with the new NYS law is an expansion of this, to a HUGE range of places they are identifying as "sensitive" (essentially any place people gather) and its being done in a very unilateral manner, with damn little (if any) discussion in the legislature and as far as I can tell, NO public input on the decision.

Historically, private property, even when open to the public, was still private property, and the state had limits on what it could impose without the owner's permission, AND the owner was free to impose their own restrictions on behavior if they chose to.

Leave aside, for a moment the specific quirks of NY state /NYC and look at it in general. If there is no blanket state law prohibition, the property owner could post a "no guns" sign, if they chose. And, if they did, and you broke their rule, they could require you to leave. You haven't broken any law but you did break their rules, and they are entirely within their rights to ask/order you to leave.

IF you don't comply, THEN you ARE breaking a law, and can be escorted off by the cops, and even arrested and charged with trespassing.

A property owner who allows private carry doesn't need to post a sign saying that, (though they could, if they wanted to) I don't know of anyplace that is required to post a sign saying "you can obey the law here...."

Except, possibly now, NY.
What the new NY law does is designate a new, broad range of places (no doubt with the ability to easily expand the list) as "gun free zones" and their list includes a lot of privately owned establishments (including places of religious worship) without any regard for the wishes of the people who own those properties.

That is the basis for some of the legal challenges, particularly from some religious groups. It's not just a matter of your right to carry, its also a matter of their right to make the call on their property. What the new NY law does with its list of sensitive places is REMOVE that RIGHT from the owners of the property. And, yes, that IS a big deal, and should be!

Then there's a more nuanced question. I understand your argument: "If I would normally carry in your establishment but you don't allow me to do so, then you assume the responsibility for keeping me as safe as I would have done for myself." But this is New York state, where only a tiny percentage of people have carry permits. How is a business owner supposed to know which of his/her customers are the people with carry permits and who do actually carry regularly? Because under your argument, those are the ONLY customers who should be eligible for any special protection. Should confirmed anti-gun customers, who never have and never will carry a firearm, receive the same level of protection as those customers who are deprived of their right to carry by this law and the business's failure to post a "Concealed Carry Allowed" sign?

AB, I think you're "off target" with this one.

The principle has nothing to do with NY, the percentage of people who have permits or actually do carry or what the business knows or doesn't about them. That's irrelevant. The business is either legally responsible for protecting everyone on their premises, or they are not. And this brings us right back to the difference between existing law and what we feel is "right".

Its a mess, for sure, and like all gun control, is based on the false assumption that a law about what you can have, where will prevent crime.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

AB, I think you're "off target" with this one.

The principle has nothing to do with NY, the percentage of people who have permits or actually do carry or what the business knows or doesn't about them. That's irrelevant. The business is either legally responsible for protecting everyone on their premises, or they are not. And this brings us right back to the difference between existing law and what we feel is "right".

In general, you are correct. But Metal god's question (paraphrased) was, "If the state makes it illegal for someone with a carry permit to carry in a business, doesn't that make it the business owner's responsibility to provide equivalent security for the permit holder?

That doesn't address the general public or the general principle you're talking about. The question, properly parsed, only applies to people who have carry permits and who carry regularly. If I have a carry permit "just because," but I never carry, then in reality this law would never affect me, because I'm no more disarmed by the law than I am by my choice to lave my gun at home in the safe.

[Metal god]

I’ll add and my point is yes there is no law stating the business shall provide security. How ever there is now a law forbidding me from providing my own security . Are you really saying you think it’s reasonable for a state to forbid you from providing your own security and when doing so also has zero responsibility in providing security for you and by extension the business as well . Again we are no longer talking about the traditional sensitive places where there is almost always additional security present . We/they are now at a place that just about every common area is a sensitive place . Also keeping in mind Heller , McDonald and now Bruan clearly stating the citizens have a right to keep and bear arms outside the home for self defense .

To be honest I’m not sure you are actually following my points . This is a new law that I don’t believe has been tried anywhere really . Forbidding carry by a licensed citizen in all business is a serious next level jump . I don’t see how current laws matter because this one pretty much stomps all over them . Again I don’t see it being reasonable to forbid carry in areas where there is no additional security.

Maybe you can point out historical gun free zones that don’t have any additional security private or otherwise. Maybe I simple need to understand this type of thing goes on all the time with examples.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal god

I’ll add and my point is yes there is no law stating the business shall provide security. How ever there is now a law forbidding me from providing my own security . Are you really saying you think it’s reasonable for a state to forbid you from providing your own security and when doing so also has zero responsibility in providing security for you and by extension the business as well .

I don't think anyone has said that it's reasonable when the state prohibits you from carrying your own means of self defense. But why do you think it's reasonable for the business to become responsible for the act of the state?

Originally Posted by Metal god

To be honest I’m not sure you are actually following my points . This is a new law that I don’t believe has been tried anywhere really . Forbidding carry by a licensed citizen in all business is a serious next level jump . I don’t see how current laws matter because this one pretty much stomps all over them . Again I don’t see it being reasonable to forbid carry in areas where there is no additional security.

Again, nobody has said they think this law is reasonable. That's not what your opening post was about.

Originally Posted by Metal god

Maybe you can point out historical gun free zones that don’t have any additional security private or otherwise. Maybe I simple need to understand this type of thing goes on all the time with examples.

Post offices.

All federal lands and facilities under the administration of the Army Corps of Engineers.

[Metal god]

Post office is a good one thanks , but don’t they have there own inspectors officers and investigative wing . Although they do not do a good job protecting each individual post office they do have independent security.

I believe BLM have there own leo and or security.

.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal god

Post office is a good one thanks , but don’t they have there own inspectors officers and investigative wing . Although they do not do a good job protecting each individual post office they do have independent security.

The Postal Service does have its own investigatory arm, and I believe they have powers of arrest and are considered to be LEOs. But we're not talking about investigating postal fraud. But that's not security. When have you EVER seen an armed guard in a local post office?

Originally Posted by Metal god

I believe BLM have there own leo and or security.

I didn't mention BLM, because I don't think the BLM still prohibits licensed carry. I know the National Park Service does not. But, as far as I know, the Corps of Engineers still does. The Corps of Engineers has some rangers or ranger-like personnel, but in all the times I have visited CE properties in my state I have never seen one.

[Metal god]

Never seeing them or they not protecting adequately is not the same as not having any at all like most private businesses will not have .

Let me ask it a different way , do you believe there is zero argument here ? State does what it wants , to bad so sad for you ? I’m not trying to win the case here just trying to put forth a novel argument.

I know if I were to be harmed in a place of business that forbid me from carrying my self-defense choice which has been confirmed by the United States Supreme Court and the state as well for giving me a permit as a lawful way of self defense . I would sue them for not having adequate security which resulted in harm to me . It’s not like this is s new concept, Businesses all the time are being sued for not providing adequate security in certain situations ,

[Aguila Blanca]

This discussion is rapidly going off the rails. Go back to the point you tried to make in post #102:

Originally Posted by Metal god

This was what I've been thinking about when it comes to private businesses . If as a business if the state forbids me from carrying my legally owned and carried firearm into your business . The business then must have the burden to defend me in any way I might other wise been able to if I had my firearm on me .

Although you somehow concluded that in individual business should be saddled with responsibility for your safety even though it was an act of the state government that disarmed you, you are still asking for defense equal to what you would otherwise have been able to provide for yourself. Now you're backing away from that. If I'm at a Corps of Engineers recreation area and the CE has an armed ranger watching YouTube in the park headquarters a mile away for the picnic area -- is that "protection" in any way equal to the protection afforded by carrying my own pistol in a holster on my belt with two spare magazines? You're moving the goalposts.

Originally Posted by Metal god

Never seeing them or they not protecting adequately is not the same as not having any at all like most private businesses will not have .

After a pair of robberies, my bank branch installed an UNarmed "security officer" -- in the parking lot. For insurance liability reasons, they didn't want an armed guard, they only wanted someone to be an official observer. Once you prohibit people who can and would carry from carrying, where do you draw the line to establish what would be deemed to be security "equivalent" to their own sidearm?

Originally Posted by Metal god

Let me ask it a different way , do you believe there is zero argument here ? State does what it wants , to bad so sad for you ? I’m not trying to win the case here just trying to put forth a novel argument.

This is not a novel argument. Our side has been making this argument for years.

Originally Posted by Metal god

I know if I were to be harmed in a place of business that forbid me from carrying my self-defense choice which has been confirmed by the United States Supreme Court and the state as well for giving me a permit as a lawful way of self defense . I would sue them for not having adequate security which resulted in harm to me . It’s not like this is s new concept, Businesses all the time are being sued for not providing adequate security in certain situations ,

Once again, in the case of the new New York law it is not the business that is prohibiting the individual from carrying, it's the state. You can certainly sue the business -- but that's not a guarantee that you would win. Plaintiff's lose lawsuits every day, all over the country and all over the world.

Respectfully, you need to step back for a bit and organize your argument. We are all pretty much in agreement, but your approach in this discussion has been all over the map, and I respectfully submit that you are creating confusion rather than clarity.

[Metal god]

Yes it is the businesses burden because the state added in the law unless the business says its ok . That returns the burden back to the business by giving them the choice Y/N ?

Why is this thread off the rails , we are just talking here of what I think is a very real Consequence of this law . If you’d like me to stop the discussion, no problem :-)

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal god

Yes it is the businesses burden because the state added in the law unless the business says its ok . That returns the burden back to the business by giving them the choice Y/N ?

I think that's a much more nuanced question that you apparently think it is. It is also a factor that, until now, you have not mentioned.

The traditional argument over shifting of the burden is what happens in "free" states when businesses choose to prohibit firearms. There, the moral argument is clear, although I am not aware of any court cases that have resulted in a finding that a business or venue that had prohibited guns was legally responsible for providing "equivalent" protection for people who would have carried in the business except for the ban. But it has long been argued that such businesses should have that responsibility.

With the new New York law we have pretty much a polar opposite situation. Here we have the state government, not any individual business, prohibiting carry. And until post #115, your argument has been that because the state enacted the law, the individual businesses should bear the responsibility for providing equivalent protection.

And now you're saying, "Wait, that's not what I meant." Now you raise the point that businesses **may** (not must) affirmatively post signs saying that carry is allowed. So this is -- for this discussion -- another time you have moved the goalposts. This new question has both legal and moral implications. IMHO there is no simple answer. You can bet that insurance companies are looking hard at this. Suppose you own a business in New York. You decide you're one of the good guys so you want to post your business to allow concealed carry. You call your insurance company or broker to ask if you will be covered. What do you suppose their answer is going to be?

But, ignoring that dash of practicality, lets look at the underlying situation. The state of New York has been put on notice by the SCOTUS that it now has to start issuing carry permits. It responds by saying, "Okay, we'll issue permits to carry, but here's the list of places where you can't use your shiny new permit and, oh by the way, it's basically everywhere." So, at the foundation, it is the state that has curtailed the right to carry in businesses, not the business owners. The additional question of whether a business owner should post a "Guns are okay here" sign is, IMHO, not very different from asking whether he should just provide an armed guard. The state has curtailed a fundamental right -- does a business owner then have either a legal or moral duty to do something to correct that?

That's your question. I don't think there's an easy answer.

Originally Posted by Metal god

Why is this thread off the rails , we are just talking here of what I think is a very real Consequence of this law . If you’d like me to stop the discussion, no problem :-)

The tread is off the rails because each time you post, you change the parameters. The discussion hasn't violated any rules, but I just wish you would be more clear in what you are saying or asking. What consequence are you talking about? The only consequence I see to this law is that people in New York won't be able to carry in very many places unless a court strikes down the new "sensitive places" mega-list. But, until Bruen, they couldn't carry anywhere anyway, so ... what's changed?

[Metal god]

I haven’t changed anything , maybe I could have been more clear but these have always been my points . The issue is that you have let things in that don’t belong like other states laws and old laws . This thread is about one state and it’s new law . I’ve always been speaking only in that respect sorry if it seemed I was speaking of other laws or states that was not my intention.

I’ll also add as it relates to the above . I’ve been bring up new arguments or get more nuanced as others challenge my original arguments . Thats not changing my argument , its getting more detailed in what I’m trying to say as I understand the arguments more as a whole .

FWIW I’m working out my argument in real time here . I did not have a complete deep dive opinion when I first asked the question . I threw it out here to get feed back to help me from others understand my whole hypothesis . Put another , we’re just talking here amongst friends .

[44 AMP]

The state of New York has been put on notice by the SCOTUS that it now has to start issuing carry permits.

Not exactly.

What SCOTUS did was to look at the requirements NY had for a concealed carry permit, and determine some of those (specifically the requirement to "have a good reason" such as a valid threat or carrying large amounts of cash or valuables) in order for them to approve the application, were an unconstitutional burden on the applicant and struck them down.

The rest of NY's requirements are still in place.
And their new law added more.

To further complicate the matter, NY issues permits for various reasons, and "self defense" might not be one of them. It might be, but it might not be. This is a separate matter than what SCOTUS looked at and ruled on. (or possibly, they looked at it and had no problem with it, so no ruling on it was needed or done)

So, to get back to the question of is the business responsible for your protection, the simple answer is always "no".

And the real reason is not one which has been previously mentioned in this thread. The reason a business is not responsible for protecting you is simply because you don't have to be there. You CHOOSE to be there, and in so doing are agreeing to their conditions and rules. You are voluntarily giving up your right to carry in order to enter any/ever business which forbids carry.

You don't HAVE to do that, you CAN go somewhere else.

[Metal god]

No I can’t simply go somewhere else because the state said all businesses. The only ones I can go in are the ones the owner allows me to . I’d think if it were as simple as just go somewhere else the law would require business to have signage or the like stating there gun policy so I know which ones I’m “aloud” in .

I’m pretty much done with this debate though thanks for playing :-) . I feel there’s an argument to be made and I’m not smart enough to do it but believe a lawyer making an honest effort could make a good one .

On a side note , I’m actually surprised the court didn’t rule on the motion today . Maybe the whole court is looking at this and theres going to be a larger then normal opinion.

[natman]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Not exactly.

What SCOTUS did was to look at the requirements NY had for a concealed carry permit, and determine some of those (specifically the requirement to "have a good reason" such as a valid threat or carrying large amounts of cash or valuables) in order for them to approve the application, were an unconstitutional burden on the applicant and struck them down......

To further complicate the matter, NY issues permits for various reasons, and "self defense" might not be one of them.

These two paragraphs seem to contradict one another. Please clarify. Thanks.

[Metal god]

I believe he means self defense as the only reason , that’s how I took it anyways because you’re right . How is issuing a permit because you carry large amounts of cash NOT issuing the permit for self defense.

[44 AMP]

These two paragraphs seem to contradict one another. Please clarify. Thanks.

I'll try. What we really need is someone in NY who is well versed in all the current requirements. My knowledge is detailed, but dated to the 1970s when I had a NY pistol permit. I know a few things have changed since then, additional requirements have been added, though I strongly doubt any of the requirements that existed when I got my permit have been reduced until the recent SCOTUS ruling.

Back then (and still today) NY state required a permit to possess a handgun. And the gun was listed on the permit by make, caliber, barrel length, and serial number. Only the gun(s) listed on the permit were legal to own and the permit allowed legal (open) carry of the listed gun(s). The regular permit did not allow concealed carry.

The permit application had a space for "reason for permit". Now, here's where it gets a little sticky. NY permits are issued by county judges. Approval of the permit was entirely up to the local judge.

In 1975 the application required 5 sets of fingerprints, 4 photographs (passport type) and 3 "character references (who were not family members), investigation by several different LEO groups and then, after all that, the judge could approve or deny the application for any reason they chose.

And this was JUST for ownership with open carry (such as for hunting).

You had to do a little "judge shopping" where you lived, to find out what kind of reason to put on the paperwork so the judge would approve it.

For example, in Saratoga County, the judge would not approve any application if the reason given was "self defense/self protection". But he would approve applications for "hunting and sporting use".

The Judge in Albany county would not approve any application if the reason listed on the paperwork was anything other than "self defense".

This was NOT the concealed carry permit, this was just the basic permit to possess. Getting a concealed carry permit was another step beyond that, requiring every thing the regular permit did, and also requiring a specific reason why you needed a concealed carry permit. Acceptable reasons included a "valid" threat (verified by the state) or something like carrying large amounts of cash/jewels (like making an after hours deposit, or things like that).

This additional requirement, needing a state approved specific reason for concealed carry is what the recent SCOTUS ruling shot down. It had been in place for generations, before that.

So, thanks to the can of worms that is NY law, it was possible for someone to have a pistol permit allowing (open) carry issued for "hunting and sporting purposes" OR it was possible to have the same permit issued for "self defense". Its possible there was a judge somewhere in NY that would approve a permit for both, or either, its entirely up to them.

Also, it was entirely legal to use a pistol for self defense if necessary no matter what the permit application said was the reason for wanting the permit. People could also carry or even use their handgun while hunting, if the permit application only said self defense. That might have been an technical violation, but nobody seemed to care....

Also, FYI, ONLY permits issued by NYC were valid in NYC. An NYC permit was valid in the rest of the state, but a state issued permit was not valid in NYC.

These were the rules in the 70s (and earlier) I know that since then, the state changed the lifetime permit to one that expires every few years, increased the cost (hugely) added training requirements (beginning in the very late 70s) which the new law expands tremendously, and probably some other things I'm not aware of at this time.

Some additional information (for background) about how obsessive NY is about handguns and their permits....

I moved out of NY permanently in 1979. In 2001, NY (Saratoga county) apparently "found me" and sent me a letter, informing me that since I was no longer an NY resident, my NY permit was no longer valid. And, they wanted it back!!! (wallet sized (when folded) non laminated piece of paper (not even cardstock) issued in 1975 and they wanted it back!! Also, they wanted to know where the guns listed on that permit were.

The guns I had listed on that permit were my Dad's pistols. Which I had not even seen in over a decade, so I could hardly tell NY where they were, even if I wanted to. (and, I didn't want to )

Due to an auto accident in the later 60s we learned that if my Dad had died, and no one else in the household had a permit for his pistols, they would have to be surrendered. If you turned them in to the county Sherriff, and applied for a permit, they would hold them until the permit was approved or denied. If you turned them in to the State Police (or local police) they would be held X number of days ( I think 90 days but no longer remember exactly) and if you didn't come up with a permit by then, they would be destroyed.

So, as a result, Mom applied right away, and both my brother and I applied when we came of age to do so. (another NY quirk, you could apply for a permit at any age the judge would accept. If the judge would accept it, you didn't have to be 21 or older. You couldn't buy a pistol unless you were 21 but if the judge approved, you could get a permit to possess one at a younger age. My brother and I both got ours at age 18. And we all had all the pistols in the house (Dad's and Mom's) listed on all our permits.

When Dad passed in 2003, I went back home for the funeral and to take care of all the "loose ends". My NY permit was no good, but my brother still had his, with Dad's pistols listed on it, so the state could not take them.

He had to be the one to take the 3 of them I was getting to an FFL dealer for shipment to my out of state FFL. I could not legally do it, as I could not legally possess those guns in NY state. (I did go with him, to arrange the details, and pay for the shipment).

Hope this gives you some background on how NY is about handguns, and clarifies what I said earlier.

[natman]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Back then (and still today) NY state required a permit to possess a handgun. And the gun was listed on the permit by make, caliber, barrel length, and serial number. Only the gun(s) listed on the permit were legal to own and the permit allowed legal (open) carry of the listed gun(s). The regular permit did not allow concealed carry.

The permit application had a space for "reason for permit". Now, here's where it gets a little sticky. NY permits are issued by county judges. Approval of the permit was entirely up to the local judge.

Excellent post and it clearly illustrates what is wrong with the idea of permits for ownership.

Constitutional rights are limits on the government. A constitutional right that requires approval from the government to exercise is no constitutional right at all. This is especially true when the criteria used by the government are subjective and arbitrary.

The same people who advocate restrictions on gun ownership would never tolerate requiring "5 sets of fingerprints, 4 photographs (passport type) and 3 character references (who were not family members), investigation by several different LEO groups and then, after all that, the judge could approve or deny the application for any reason they chose." before people were allowed to vote.

[mikejonestkd]

44 AMPS post is almost spot on as far as the process in NYS.

One clarification - all NYS carry permits are concealed only. Openly carrying a handgun, even with a permit, is brandishing and could lead to charges.
There are very few exceptions - for example a person can open carry when hunting, or at a range/ competition.

Bruen was supposed to be a big win for NYS firearm owners, but it certainly does not feel like it to everyone i talk to. The CCIA certainly does not improve on the process.....

[44 AMP]

Good to hear from someone who is there and knows what is currently going on. Thank you Mike.

I have a couple of questions, the main one is, does the current permit system include concealed carry as part of the "basic" possession permit?

Back when I had my permit, it did not allow concealed carry. A concealed carry permit was another step that had to be applied for, and required the "special reason" that the SCOTUS recently struck down.

Legal carry (such as for hunting) was covered by my permit, and back in thiose days, it was a common thing to see people with holstered pistols having an early AM breakfast or a late lunch in Adirondack diners during hunting season.

Walking down the street in Albany with your pistol on your hip in technically legal carry wasn't done, even back then, before people got so paranoid about it. It wouldn't have been considered "brandishing" back then, but it was a "public nuisance", depending on where you were. Small town, "upstate" not a problem, downtown in a major city? Usually a problem.

So, is the permit now an "all in one" thing?? Permitting possession, legal open carry (where applicable) AND concealed carry? or is it something else??