NYC sued over "Good Reason" LTC requirement, denied FOIA request

DispositionMatrix

NES Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
4,336
Likes
1,885
Location
SoNH
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
Corbett v. City of New York
https://tsaoutofourpants.files.word...ty-of-new-york-iv-complaint-with-exhibits.pdf
2. Notwithstanding, the “worst-kept open-secret” in New York City is that to lawfully carry
a handgun, one must be connected with the government or willing to pay a bribe; the de
facto policy is that ordinary citizens may not bear arms in public. This is not mere
hyperbole – the officer who denied Corbett’s gun license was removed from his post not
2 weeks later as a result of a federal corruption investigation whereby cash was accepted
in exchange for approval of pistol permits. At least 2 officers so far were arrested and
one has pled guilty.

3. It is of no surprise that a system in which a citizen must convince the government that he
has a “good reason” to exercise a right results in unfair results at best, and pay-for-play at
worst. In any other context, courts would never require “a good reason” to exercise a
right – e.g., the right to speak freely, to be entitled to counsel, to refuse to consent to a
search, etc., even when public safety may arguably be enhanced by doing so. While the
state may place public safety restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, a
requirement of having “a good reason” to exercise one’s rights cannot stand.

4. As a result of McDonald, the previously oft-quoted saying that gun ownership in New
York is a “privilege and not a right” can no longer be said to be true. It is now clearly a
right and not a privilege, and it follows that judicial review of denials of license
applications can no longer be subject to a mere “arbitrary and capricious” standard,
especially when the policy itself, rather than the application of the policy, is challenged,
and especially when the group to which the Court would otherwise give deference has
shown itself to be unworthy of that trust.
https://professional-troublemaker.c...t-that-license-applications-give-good-reason/
Over the last year I’ve documented the process of applying for a license to carry a handgun in New York City. Part I described the initial application process, requiring an incredible amount of paperwork, money, and time, and the scheduling of an in-person interview. Part II described the interview, as well as the eventual “NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL” that ended up at my door, letting me know that there was no problem with my background, but I simply did not give a good enough “reason” for them to allow me to exercise my Second Amendment rights.
Beginning where we left off in Part II, after receiving the rejection letter, I filed an appeal with the NYPD itself, asking them to reconsider the decision of the commanding officer of the licensing division, Deputy Inspector Michael Endall, to deny my license. I should really say the former commanding officer of the licensing division — about 2 weeks after he signed my rejection letter, he was removed from his post after a federal investigation uncovered that his subordinates were accepting bribes in exchange for approving gun license applications. At least one officer under D.I. Endall’s command has so far pled guilty to corruption charges, and another will face trial shortly.

Departmental drama aside, as you can guess, I received a reply to my administrative appeal by Director of Licensing Division Thomas M. Prasso telling me to pound sand. As best I can gather, the division has an officer head and a civilian head, and D.I. Endall was the former while Mr. Prasso was the latter. This letter sets the clock ticking for a state court challenge, giving me 4 months to file what New York calls an “Article 78 Petition,” so named after the section of the law that allows people to challenge the final decisions of administrative agencies, so long as they do so within 4 months. (Note that I could file in federal court directly, since my federal constitutional rights are in play, but let’s give the state a chance to correct itself first.)
 
Back
Top Bottom