New York files its brief in NYSRPA

First, I hope Plaintiffs’ or Amici somewhere have discussed the arbitrary, inconsistent, unequal treatment that results from having 57 different licensing officers (and then reviewing courts) deciding if applicants are “responsible”.

That is the licensing officer in one county may accept “for all lawful purposes” as “proper cause” for issuing an “unrestricted license”, and then that licensee lawfully carries in every county in the state (except NYC) including counties where the licensing officer only (unless you are politically connected, i.e., “(d)istinguishing oneself from the general community…”) issue “restricted licenses”, e.g., Nassau and Suffolk.

Note, Sect. 400.00(2)(f) of NYS Code speaks only to “unrestricted licenses”; it is NY Courts which have added “proper cause” which then becomes what NYS and here the AG argue is “Law”.

Of course, in a County such as Nassau, one is not given the option of applying for an “unrestricted license” it is made clear on the application: “You cannot apply for that, but pick the ‘specific purpose’ you may qualify for”.

The AG’s Brief addresses this by noting: “Where an applicant demonstrates proper cause to obtain a license for specific purposes, the licensing officer may restrict the license to those purposes.”

Regardless, the AG’s Brief opens the possibility of actually performing an investigation into practices of each licensing officer over years.

This would likely demonstrate that there are many hundreds of thousands of (million(s)?) licensed firearm carriers, mostly special interest group members (including non-LE state & local agency workers) in addition to the ordinary subjects (like the plaintiffs) controlled under Sect. 400.00(2)(f).

* * * * *

NYS AG’s argument is basic “child logic”: They all did and are doing it, so why should we be different ? It’s “like everyone’s been doing it forever.”

Then she argues “parental privilege”:

“If the applicant subject is denied what they want by the Licensing Officer (parent no.1), then they can plea to the State Court (parent no. 2) who will not just listen to and follow the Licensing Officer’s (parent no. 1) judgment but will give applicant subject the time to hopefully realize how wrong they are to question parent no.1’s (Licensing Officer) judgment, and “isn’t this just a big waste of time ?”

Parents certainly do not need ‘social services’ (SCOTUS) questioning our judgment and authority as parents to know what is best for our subjects.

But if we must have this discussion, please SCOTUS stay focused: do not allow yourselves to be distracted by implicit, covert arguments like the United States federal government is “of, by and for the People”, or that “mens rea” is not applicable to all subjects, and do not speculate about “unknown, unknowns” constantly present in daily lives of individual subjects.”

She continues: “SCOTUS you cannot deny that ever since there have been lords and kings, and professional police forces everyone is always protected – today throughout New York State and across the country, police will respond to any threat within moments of receiving a call for assistance. But, the lack of a duty to protect – we are not going to discuss.

Nor will we speak to why we believe it is important for “bank messengers” to protect cash and why ordinary subjects and their family are not nearly as valuable.”

She follows with: “It is clear to all really smart people that individuals who think they need to carry a firearm deserve to be anticipated to be criminals – innocent until proven guilty does not apply. …

And, when you get into Heller, it does not make logical sense, it created a new way of looking at “balancing interests” … Please – what does that mean ?

Just think ‘England, England, England’. Do the ‘Right Thing’ for the Queen (Letitia).”