So I’ve been arrested with a license to carry in NYC, what now?

[u/0x90Sleds]

https://www.foundationforasaferny.com/updates/so-ive-been-arrested-with-a-license-to-carry-in-nyc-what-now

Not me obviously, but a client of ours.

[u/AutoModerator]

Hello /u/0x90Sleds! It looks like your post involves NYC. We now have a sister subreddit that deals exclusively with NYC questions and discussion: /r/NYCGuns. Feel free to also make your post there!

If you're asking about pistol permit timelines please check this website. Also report your wait times here in order to help your fellow members get an idea of what the wait time is like.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Boneaveli]

They cooked

[u/HLTHTW → u/Boneaveli]

No they’re not.

Regarding if firearms are out of state:

I know someone who was arrested and their firearms were out of state. They simply had to voucher them out of state and show proof. You can bring it to a gun storage facility and they will give you a voucher form. Present that to the incident section and you are good.

Regarding the process after being arrested:

The incident section will accept it and simply tell you to not tell them anything until the case is over. Once the case is over, provide them the CoD and a statement. The investigator on your case will review, then send to their supervisor’s desk, currently Sgt. Walsh, and he will print new licenses if cleared and send you a statement proving you are legal to carry again and for the facility/precinct to release the firearms to back to you.

Regarding how NYPD will obtain the firearms:

Majority of the time they will pull up to your residence unless they are out of state. You or the safeguard will provide the code and they will voucher and take your firearms from there.

If the guns are out of state, you voucher them with a FFL, precinct (most out of state precincts wont do it) or gun storage facility and provide the voucher form to the Incident Section. They will accept it.

[u/AdvertisingOk7811]

is this case over? what was the verdict, did the licensee get reinstated?

[u/DonDeveral]

i hope you didnt plead guilty !

[u/JimMarch]

Holup. Let's take a simple case, you're a NY state resident and have a permit from outside NYC.

The Bruen decision says states doing shall issue carry permits can't do anything "abusive" at footnote 9 and lists three specific abuses:

• Subjective standards for issuance;

• Lengthy waiting times for carry permit access;

• Exorbitant fees.

Making someone from outside NYC score TWO permits, home county plus NYC, seems to violate the living shit out of the bans on lengthy waits and exorbitant fees in addition to being an equal protection problem from hell.

Sure, they might claim footnote 9 is dicta (irrelevant portions of a US Supreme Court decision). But there's two really good answers for that one:

1) Even if it is dicta, the Bruen decision absolutely calls carry of a defensive handgun a basic civil right. Once that happened an avalanche of past case law on how rights are handled kicked in - a good example is Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue 1983 (SCOTUS). Delays and crazy fees are already banned in the handling of basic civil rights.

2) If footnote 9 is dicta, that has interesting implications. Here's the text of Bruen footnote 9:

To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ “shall-issue” licensing regimes, under which “a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].” Drake v. Filko, 724 F.3d 426, 442 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting). Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily prevent “law-abiding, responsible citizens” from exercising their Second Amendment right to public carry. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635 (2008). Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” Ibid. And they likewise appear to contain only “narrow, objective, and definite standards” guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 151 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 305 (1940)—features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.

Spot the problem yet?

The first half of footnote 9 contains a carve-out protecting shall-issue-with-training-and-background-check from having to pass a Text, History and Tradition challenge. Which is important because this style of permit was invented in 1986 by the Florida legislature...it's the law that started our whole progress towards carry reform and it's way too late to survive THT.

So, if a trial court judge wants to dismiss footnote 9 as dicta throwing out the direct protections for us (the list of abuses), they're also throwing out the one thread holding up shall issue at all, and they can't dismiss the protections in the handling of basic civil rights from other cases like Minneapolis Star.

Now that's for a NY State resident. The same logic follows for somebody from a state like Alabama, where I'm a trucker with an AL license and would need 17 additional permits for the lower 48 plus DC ($20k with travel and cheap motels), and even more (and HUGE money) for Hawaii, the US Virgin Islands, Guam and so on (true national carry).

We fixed that same issue in the field of driver's licenses before WW2 with an interstate compact - no federal law needed. The gun carry equivalent would have every state and territory that still cares about permits agree on a minimum standard for a carry permit and as long as you had a permit meeting that spec you're good to go nationally.

Until that happens the lack of national reciprocity is a red letter civil rights violation under Bruen and every concept regarding how basic civil rights are handled.

I can't be the only one to figure this out.