Graystar
Member
This thread was spawned from this thread on “NYC/non-resident alien gun ownershipâ€
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=105162
From that discussion came two questions that are the subject of this thread:
1. Can a criminal liability be placed on a premise licensee for carrying his handgun?
2. Is the authorization, given to premise licensees by the issuing authority, to transport a handgun legally within the power of said authority?
My answers to these questions are no, and yes.
mjustice believes the answers are yes, and no.
Getting up to speed...
For those new to the thread, here’s where things stand:
mjustice’s points:
That a court ruling expressing that only administrative remedies can be taken against license violations was in reference to a carry license and not a premise license.
That Penal §400.00(15) creates the criminal liability for violations by premise licensees.
That authorization to transport a firearm, given by the issuing authority, constitutes an enhancement to a premise license, and is outside the power authorized by Penal §400.00.
My points:
That a court ruling expressing that only administrative remedies can be taken against license violations was actually in reference to a New York City Target license.
That mjustice’s interpretation of Penal §400.00(15) creating a criminal liability for violations by premise licensees is incorrect.
That authorization to transport a firearm, given by the issuing authority actually constitutes a restriction to a premise license, not an enhancement, and is, as courts have ruled, within the power of the issuing authority.
And so the discussion continues...
On Criminal Liability
In the past I’ve see others misinterpreted 400.00(2) and claim that New York is a “shall issue†state because 400.00(2) states “A license for a pistol or revolver, other than an assault weapon or a disguised gun, shall be issued to...†But that only means that the *type* of license shall be issued...not that the license itself shall be issued. You cannot take law outside of the context under which it has been placed. A statute that simply describes the types of licenses available cannot, by implication, create a criminal liability for violating the descriptions of those types. The liability is limited to the creation of types not listed. I believe this was the reason why NYC had to get rid of its Target License.
I can’t explain it any better except to offer the words from the Frank Thompson ruling:
On Authorization to Transport
The ruling in the Frank Thompson case, is crystal clear:
I could not find the parker case you mentioned. I'd be grateful if you could provide a link.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=105162
From that discussion came two questions that are the subject of this thread:
1. Can a criminal liability be placed on a premise licensee for carrying his handgun?
2. Is the authorization, given to premise licensees by the issuing authority, to transport a handgun legally within the power of said authority?
My answers to these questions are no, and yes.
mjustice believes the answers are yes, and no.
Getting up to speed...
For those new to the thread, here’s where things stand:
mjustice’s points:
That a court ruling expressing that only administrative remedies can be taken against license violations was in reference to a carry license and not a premise license.
That Penal §400.00(15) creates the criminal liability for violations by premise licensees.
That authorization to transport a firearm, given by the issuing authority, constitutes an enhancement to a premise license, and is outside the power authorized by Penal §400.00.
My points:
That a court ruling expressing that only administrative remedies can be taken against license violations was actually in reference to a New York City Target license.
That mjustice’s interpretation of Penal §400.00(15) creating a criminal liability for violations by premise licensees is incorrect.
That authorization to transport a firearm, given by the issuing authority actually constitutes a restriction to a premise license, not an enhancement, and is, as courts have ruled, within the power of the issuing authority.
And so the discussion continues...
On Criminal Liability
No it did not. Read the link I provided to the court’s decision. The license in question was a New York City Target license, which at the time of its existence was even more restrictive than a premise license. The court’s ruling contains a description of the restrictions on Frank Thompson’s license.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I98_0139.htm
You are misinterpreting 15 by creating a relationship that doesn’t exist. 400.00(15) simply says:
The only place the premise license is mentioned is under 400.00(2)(a)...â€Types of licenses.†This sub simply describes the types of licenses that can be issued. To violate 400.00(2) you’d have to issue a different type of license.
In the past I’ve see others misinterpreted 400.00(2) and claim that New York is a “shall issue†state because 400.00(2) states “A license for a pistol or revolver, other than an assault weapon or a disguised gun, shall be issued to...†But that only means that the *type* of license shall be issued...not that the license itself shall be issued. You cannot take law outside of the context under which it has been placed. A statute that simply describes the types of licenses available cannot, by implication, create a criminal liability for violating the descriptions of those types. The liability is limited to the creation of types not listed. I believe this was the reason why NYC had to get rid of its Target License.
I can’t explain it any better except to offer the words from the Frank Thompson ruling:
On Authorization to Transport
The ruling in the Frank Thompson case, is crystal clear:
The court views transport conditions as restrictions, not enhancement.
I could not find the parker case you mentioned. I'd be grateful if you could provide a link.
