NY State firearms law history

I believe you are reading it wrong. The original bill refers only to licensed concealed carry. Because licensed open carry is not mentioned, it was assumed to be illegal. This is how the state declines to issue licenses to non-residents. Because they are not mentioned, they cannot be issued.

The original Sullivan Act only restricted carry, not possession or ownership. What was passed restricted carry and possession. This situation was almost changed to not restrict possession when FDR was gov. FDR *almost* signed passing this change.

BTW, Big Tim O'Sullivan was a gangster. He ran the Five Points Gang.

And: Handgun ownership is not restricted in NY, only possession.

Clue me in, please.

"Handgun ownership is not restricted"? "Only possession"?

How can you own but not possess?

And how could any court in its' right mind, or whose bank accounts are not stuffed with :lobbyists" money fail to see that either restriction is blatantly unconstitutional? Nowhere in the Law Of The Land is any authority granted to the government, federal or state, to tell a free citizen what he or she may or may not own.

@Jacob - I am confused. You say "I believe you are reading it wrong. .... Because licensed open carry is not mentioned, it was assumed to be illegal. This is how the state declines to issue licenses to non-residents. Because they are not mentioned, they cannot be issued."

I have been laboring under the impression that if the law did not mention something it was "not illegal" and therefore legal. Have I been wrong all these years?

Or are we dealing with a law that totally outlaws a thing and then carves out specific exemptions?

For reference, Virginia law (18.2-308 of the Code of Virginia http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308 ) prohibits concealed carry, and then carves out 18 exemptions. Nowhere in the Code (18.2-308 or elsewhere) is the open carrying of a handgun mentioned and thus is considered legal.

stay safe.

shovelDriver: Well, you can possess without having actual ownership, e.g. someone lent you a handgun.

I remember an bit from an old B&W movie where a cop found a handgun in someone's ... apartment? and that was trouble due to the law as it then stood, mere possession was the issue, not carry.

@ShovelDriver,

Welcome to NY!!!! This, and other issues are questions for the Wise.

Sullivan Act was really a way to control minorities and the labor movement at a very ruthless time.

Irish had all the guns. They didn't want Jews, Russians, Italians, Slavs to have them.

Shoveldriver: There are 2 types of license: premises and carry. You need one of these to possess a handgun.

Anon: For issuing licenses, it was interpreted that since non-residents are not mentioned in the law, there is no legal authority for them to be issued a license in NY. That may have been the case here for carry. Since open carry was not mentioned, only concealed carry is legal. If the legislature wanted open carry they would have said so.

it was assumed to be illegal

Assumed by whom? What court case?

There was an opinion issued by the state AG around '95 in response to a reciprocity request from one of the southern states.

There is no way to verify the exact intent of the Sullivan Act because legislative records from that time don't exist anymore.

NYS Handgun laws and regs are excellent example why the federal gov't needs to be the solo regulating firearm authority.

In addition to 50 different state regulations and laws pertaining to firearms, in NYS there are 62 different counties and a city all putting their own spin on the Sullivan Act. These spins change when a new/different licensing officer [county judge] is voted to office.

Can't wait for the Games to begin with latest SCOUS Decisions.

How do you rationalize restricting and licensing civil and constitutional rights?

It seems to me that the law is ripe for a challenge based on it being void for vagueness.

For those who are confused about ownership without possession, this is indeed possible. You can live in New York and own a gun that you keep at your vacation home in New Hampshire. You would still "own" the gun while in New York, but you would never possess it there. You could also own a gun that is held in a museum collection, without ever possessing it. This scenario doesn't come up often, but it does come up. I had a client who was a convicted felon, but he "owned" a very nice S&W revolver that had belonged to Elvis Presley. But "possession" of the gun remained with his son.