NYC permits for celebrities
From time to time reports come out on how, although handgun permits are rarely granted in New York City, celebrities seem to have little trouble getting them.
According to Reuters, NYC police arrested "DJ Star," a radio disk jockey, for threatening a rival over the air. "He was also ordered to surrender his gun license and a handgun."
Here's an article on the NYC permit system. Of the approximately 50,000 permits, 9,000 have been snatched up by non-police city employees. Other permittees include the publisher of the NY Times, Donald Trump, and Laurence Rockefeller, none of whom are especially likely to hang out in high crime areas. Here's another report -- the NY Time editor got his permit with the statement that he has special needs since he carries lots of cash. (One of the many paradoxes of the law is that wanting to protect yourself isn't sufficient grounds, but wanted to protect money and other valuables is).
Has there been any outrage from the Brady's, VPC or any of these other groups who proportedly think New York's gun laws are a model for the rest of the nation?
Posted by: Sebastian at May 13, 2006 03:14 PM
I saw the report on TV and he had what is called in NYC a "PREMISES LICENSE". NY City does not issue what most of the rest of the county consider a "Concealed Carry License". The Premise License is only good for your home and you can take it to the range for but you can not take it outside of NYC because in the rest of NY State, a premise license is only good on the premise that is on the license. NY City just gets to read the law any way they want.
http://www.ocshooters.com/newsletters/02/12.htm#nyc is a link to a letter from the NYC police department and http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/nypd/html/dclm/ldinfo.html is the official NYC pistol web page. It cost $344 for a 3 year license.
Posted by: George at May 13, 2006 09:27 PM
One of the many paradoxes of the law is that wanting to protect yourself isn't sufficient grounds, but wanted to protect money and other valuables is.
I think you might be on to something.
This exact issue was raised during oral arguments in State v Fisher (WI Sup Crt) over a guy who was carrying large amounts of cash and a gun without a CCW. One of the judges asked if carrying large amounts of cash would be a predicate for allowing someone to carry. His lawyer responded that he cant use lethal force to protect the cash, only himself. The judges seemed to agree.
Now, WI has RKBA in their constitution, including an explicit "for personal security" clause which was coming into play here. However, I think this argument is a great way of putting the may-issuers in a bind of having to choose between allowing "self defense" as a justification for requesting the license or simply admitting that it is a system to allow only the extremely rich to carry.
Posted by: beerslurpy at May 13, 2006 11:48 PM