Just when you thought New York’s firearms law couldn’t get more imbecilic, a Manhattan Judge recently affirmed the denial of a concealed carry license application by a salesperson who lives in the Big Apple and sells security equipment, reports the New York Law Journal. The salesman, Cavalier Knight, is a resident of New York City and holds a Federal Firearms License, as well as being employed as a salesperson by Armored Mobility, a company that sells ballistic armor and related equipment. Knight “requested a license to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense and to protect his wares from theft.” . . .
The New York Police Department denied the request. Knight failed
the New York political connections and wealth test for the exercise of constitutionally-protected rights “to show a special need for self-protection that was distinguishable from that of the general public or others in his profession and failed to produce required records relating to his business.” On a later administrative appeal, the NYPD went even further. New York Daily News quotes the NYPD ruling as stating:
“That claim is based upon pure speculation which is unsupported by any evidence,” the NYPD ruled last summer….
Police said Knight had worked for the company for four years without incident and failed to show how he’s in more danger than others selling things like handcuffs, batons and police uniforms.
Knight then took the matter to the court system, before Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Michael Stallman. (Note: using a nomenclature logic that rivals the self-proclaimed NY “SAFE” Act, the New York “Supreme Courts” are actually the trial-level general jurisdiction courts. The court of final appeal is called the “New York Court of Appeals“.) Justice Stallman, a Democrat, affirmed the NYPD’s earlier decision, leaving Cavalier Knight to languish in legally-enforced disarmament.
I hope the NYPD are correct in assuming that just because he hasn’t been attacked yet he’ll never be put in a situation where he’ll face the threat of death or grievous bodily injury. Maybe they figure he can just wear the ballistic armor he has in his inventory. Protection that some politicians would also restrict to law enforcement.
In other related news, Alternet.org reports that New York Police Commissioner Bill Bratton recently requested hiring an additional 450 police officers last Sunday to combat ISIS terrorists.
Bratton explained that there is an “increased threat from ISIS using social media to recruit people not only to go to Syria to fight, but encouraging people … to attack police, to attack government officials, to basically brainwash them under their screwed-up ideology. That threat has expanded significantly in the now 16 months I’ve been police commissioner.”
Bratton continued, “We’re treating that threat so seriously, I’m going to put another 450 police officers – if we get the approval to increase the size of the police force – and I need to do it very very quickly – into our counterterrorism operations to increase the ability of our officers to protect critical sites around the city.” Bratton then blamed the threat on, “This crazy hijacking of the Muslim religion by these fanatics, twisting it into an ideology that’s all about hate and murder and killing.”
The Daily News also reported that a “the 450 figure was just what Bratton wanted for counterrorism, leaving the door open for a larger request during negotiations between the City Council and the Mayor’s Office.”
Right. NYPD needs 450 more officers because ISIS. But those of us with hundreds of hours of firearms training under our belt need not apply to carry a NAA .22 Short while in Gotham and, FOPA notwithstanding, will get to spend time in the lockup if we attract the attention of the local gendarmes while passing through the city on our way someplace else.
In the Big Apple as elsewhere, common sense is not so common.
“That claim is based upon pure speculation which is unsupported by any evidence,” the NYPD ruled last summer….”
Just like everything they claimed the SAFE Act would do to make NY safer.
Hah! Excellent point!!!
Ahaha well played sir! I really do want to use this if I ever get the chance to argue the SAFE Act with some politician in this miserable state.
“That claim is based upon pure speculation which is unsupported by any evidence,” Wouldn’t this also apply to ISIS? So NYC really doesn’t need anything extra since in the history of NYC, ISIS has never attacked it.
That is a highly logical train of thought my exact sentiments. I quoted them and they responded by saying that they disagree with what they actually stated to begin with.
So I had to reload this page about 20 times before I got one I could actually read because there was some ad or ads that crashed IE repeatedly.
Also I’d like a list of politically connected NewYawkers who have never been attacked but were approved for concealed licenses because this is BS.
Wow, adblockplus does more for me than I realize, because I never see the stuff that is blocked.
Well, I have Adblock plus, and about half the posts lock up my computer as soon as I hit “read more”. Sometimes I can get around it by clicking the reply button instead, sometimes not. Been going on around a week. Strange.
I also use adblock plus and have no issues. Prior to that my computer acted like yours.
You still use Internet Explorer!?
Might be time to upgrade from Win 98…
LOL! Seriously though, Chrome or Firefox and uBlock Origin (much lower memory footprint than other adblockers) solves all your problems. There is also ad block plus for IE:
I loaded up Chrome for about a week and pitched it, which is really hard in itself. I don’t really recall what I didn’t like.
Some of us get on TTAG during our breaks at work, and some of these PCs are so locked down we can’t install alternative browsers or addons.
I need to look into self-contained USB stick browser shenanigans. Yep.
But also this is the one and only website that gives problems like this.
Used to have the same issue until someone here pointed me towards adblock. Now it is on all my computers.
/end informercial 😉
Giuliani, Donald Trump, Don Imus, Robert DeNiro, Howard Stern etc etc
I wish I didn’t have to use Adblock, because I would like to support TTAG with ad dollars. But until/unless TTAG switches to less intrusive ads, I will continue to leave it enabled.
Not to worry. Any minute now Al Sharpton will be marching in the streets in opposition to this clearly racist decision.
These aren’t the blacks you’re looking for.
No he won’t, the person pictured is clearly a white African-American, just like Zimmerman was a white Hispanic. He’d be lucky if he wasn’t called an Uncle Tom for daring to be successful and law abiding.
NYC will come up with a fair solution. Outlaw possession of Mr Knights wares.
It’s a separate country NYC is. I don’t recognize the place.
Last time I had to go back, I could feel the oppression on final approach into JFK.
Did the oxygen masks drop from the overhead panels?
Wouldn’t this be able to be used as a test case to push towards the supremes based on unconstitutionality?
Excellent point. What ever happened to “equal protection under the law?”
They can try. But the Drake case in New Jersey involved people who WERE previously attacked/kidnapped/robbed/etc and that was not only shot down at the circuit level, it wasn’t granted cert by the Supremes despite the circuit level split. Hard to picture this going in a different direction being in the same circuit and all…
If that is the case I am thinking of it was absurd. FBI employee who was stalked and then kidnapped even got denied a carry permit in NJ…WTF WTF?! WTF! SCOTUS takes their sweet time, I won’t pretend they are even close to perfect but they generally like to wait until the issue is literally one giant cluster of circuit splits and one case shines above others so they can rule on a case that does the least disruption. Wrenn v. DC appealed to SCOTUS could be our best bet depending on how Peruta v. San Diego en banc goes with the 9th circuit….ugh.
Oh yes, work won’t even ask if I’ll travel there. Nope, nope, nope!
But forsooth! Surely Cavalier Knight has a permit for his rapier!
Soon, you’ll be able to carry revolvers concealed after a long and arduous permit process. There will be a TON of off limits places. This will come through the kourt system or national reciprocity. Many will be happy with this. Personally, until I can open carry my 19+1 XDm in central park via the subway, I won’t be satisfied. I wonder if it will ever happen. Probably not.
Can anyone explain what the obstacle is when attacking a Won’t-Issue scheme on the basis of unequally dispensing political favors? E.g., why is it that Donald Trump is entitled to a carry permit while Donna Doe is not so entitled? Donald Trump does not carry large amounts of cash, jewels, etc. So, he doesn’t have the excuse provided by an armored car driver.
Well, some people have actually challenged the “just cause” provision of may-issue concealed carry statutes and they lost in the United States 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Circuit Courts of Appeal. (And they will probably lose in the 9th Circuit as well.) Thus challengers have exhausted all of the courts unless the U.S. Supreme Court finally decides to weigh in — which will probably not happen since the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear appeals of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Circuit Courts.
Honestly, it appears that we have exhausted the courts for remedy.
Like I’ve posted before I really think SCOTUS is waiting for the issue to become a powder keg and just blow up. There are examples of issues where they waited until there were massive circuit splits to rule. I do not think they (or at least 5/9 justices) are ignoring this issue. Regardless of how horrible or good Peruta en banc goes over in the 9th circuit its going to be appealed to the Supreme Court and I’m convinced they will grant cert.
If Peruta is reversed en banc, there will be no circuit split on which to base cert. Or, as SCOTUS Blog believes, SCOTUS will not grant cert unless it is a governmental entity appealing (which would require that Peruta be affirmed and the circuit split confirmed). In many ways, Peruta and Wren are the last two cases that will be able to raise the issue of carry outside the home, because if they are reversed, there are no other circuits in which the issue can arise. Unless state laws change, none of the other circuits have “no issue” or “may issue” states.
Requesting 450 more officers to fight ISIS. Perhaps once hired, he could loan them to Iraq.
Shameful and shows how government castles only serve them selfs and protect their pensions.
Neither ISIS nor salesman wares is mentioned in the constitution. …shall not be infringed, on the other hand, is mentioned.
I would just like to applaud Mr. Knight’s parents for their excellent child naming skills. That is all.
RACISM – just call out NYC for what it is. . . . of course, if he was part of DeBlasio’s privileged class. . . . well,
450 more police, for the threat of workplace violence?
I grew up in Chicago, lived in Los Angeles, have been to Paris, Rome, London, Israel, etc. But never in my life did I feel more physically threatened, more often, than the five years I spent living in New York City. To the so-called “authorities” who would deny a law-abiding citizen of this country the right to defend himself under such conditions, I have only this to say: You are traitors to your country and your Constitution, and deserve the punishment (after due process) traditionally reserved for traitors.
I practiced engaging multiple targets this weekend. I spread out four sheets of notebook paper about 12 feet away from me. I then proceeded to shoot the paper targets as fast as I could while moving laterally as fast as practical. On every run I was able to put at least 13 out of 15 shots into the intended pieces of paper … and my misses didn’t miss by much more than an inch or two. Can someone please explain how armed good people such as myself would be a liability rather than an asset in a place like New York City during a terrorist attack?
the lawyers who defend the city from police mis-shots/hits on innocents caused when they shot at criminals would be pissed and out of work if real CCW’ers were allowed. It is an employment thing
Why does he have to show a “special need for self-protection that is distinguishable from that of the general public or others in his profession”?
That’s illogical on its face. I think he’s making the case that his profession, in and of itself, places him at a distinguishably greater risk than the general public. But NYPD wants him to demonstrate that he’s not only in a special profession, but a special segment of it? Isn’t that the entire reason for arming the police—that their profession necessitates a special need for self-protection?
NYPD does not have to demonstrate that each officer has a special need for self-protection that is distinguishable from other officers. Duh.
And exactly how does one provide evidence of risk, anyway?
Pretty much you have to already have been attacked or have evidence of criminal threats or ongoing behavior. So you can’t protect yourself until you don’t need to protect yourself anymore because you’ve already been robbed/assaulted/raped/murdered. Completely logical right?
The “special need” requirement is basically an admission that there are certain classes of people and only those of the government-approved class get to lawfully arm themselves in defense. The “more equal than others” clause and a liberals wet dream.
Used to be that the term ” special need” meant you rode on the short School bus…
Donald Trump and two of his three sons; Robert De Niro; Harvey Keitel; Martha Stewart’s daughter, Alexis; Sean Hannity; Don Imus; Anthony Cumia; Roger Ailes; Howard Stern; John Mack (former Morgan Stanley CEO).
These are lust some of the little people who have been graced with handgun licenses in NYC. About 14,000 retired LEOs are licensed. Also, a bunch of minor (for NYC) millionaires with political connections seem to have no problems getting carry permits.
NYC is a place where you can get anything that you’re willing and able to pay for.
Well put Ralph. Elites and their guards.
The late Joan Rivers as well Ralph. I wonder if they have confiscated her hardware as they have been doing upstate when the permit holder is deceased?
“… to attack government officials, to basically brainwash them under their screwed-up ideology.” How could anyone tell if they were brainwashed, again, still?
If his middle name isn’t Lance…
…failed “to show a special need for self-protection that was distinguishable from that of the general public…”
This right here is why I will never live in New York City. Last time I checked, the US Constitution protects the need of the general public for self protection. In fact, it defines it as an inalienable right. But in the good city of New York, you have to be better than a member of the general public to exercise your rights. Crap like this is why I’m glad that the NYC liberals refer to my state as a “flyover state.” So far as I’m concerned, they are welcome to keep flying over and never land here.
Holy smokes Batman! You do know that New York is Metropolis and that Chicago is Gotham. What you said was the equivalent of Han Solo was Captain of the Starship Enterprise. Wars have been started for less.
If you follow the new batman cannon, Gotham is New York AND Chicago, with a little LA thrown in for good measure.
In DC comics historically, Gotham City was New York and Metropolis was Chicago. I don’t understand why so many people think it was the opposite.
But mere civilians are not qualified to have a firearm, only militarized police are capable of such awesome responsibility of handling a gun with a 12 pound trigger.
By now there is no excuse for anyone to be surprised that there is yet another court decision against concealed carry. Perhaps the plaintiff might have had better luck challenging New York’s ban on openly carrying handguns? We’ll likely never know.
Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don’t carry a purse. Besides, Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution, concealed carry can be banned.
“[A] right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2809
“[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons…” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 – Supreme Court (1897) at 282.
“In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right…Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2809
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251…” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2816
What I don’t get, is how “good cause” statements hold up to the 14th Amendment. How is “to show a special need for self-protection that was distinguishable from that of the general public” not a direct contrast to “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” We can’t deny a person equal protection, so show me why you deserve a special set of laws….
Because the courts have held that unless a fundamental right is implicated or involves a suspect classification the standard of review is “rational basis.” Although not impossible, rational basis challenges rarely win.
Why would ISIS attack NYC? Never have their been two populations so closely knit in their core beliefs.