Category: NYPD

Is It *Really* Impossible To Get A Gun License in NYC? (Part XI — Federal Court Refuses Challenge)

This is the eleventh installment of a series documenting an ordinary New Yorker attempting to exercise his Second Amendment rights: Part I (license application), Part II (application rejected), Part III (the lawsuit), Part IV (appeal filed), Part V (appellate briefing complete), Part VI (N.Y. Appeals Court Not Interested in Ending NYPD Corruption), Part VII (Corruption? You Can’t Prove It!), Part VIII (appeal to N.Y. high court), Part IX (N.Y. Court of Appeals won’t hear), Part X (Federal Lawsuit Filed). 

After half a year of deliberation, United States District Judge Katherine Polk Failla has dismissed the first installment of my federal court case challenging New York City’s law allowing the NYPD to determine whether or not the citizens may exercise their Second Amendment rights (spoiler: they say no unless you bribe them or you’re connected with the department).

I like Judge Failla.  She seemed to be a thoughtful jurist, but my argument was for a change in the law that needs to be addressed by a federal appeals court.  Presiding over a federal trial court, she was bound by appellate precedent, and dismissal by her was a required step to getting to the proper federal appeals court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which serves New York, Connecticut, and Vermont, to consider the case.

For those interested in the legal nuances, as a preliminary matter, the dismissal was predicated on a procedural issue: that my complaint framed the issues as a challenge to my denial (how the laws were “applied”), and not a challenge to the way the laws are written (a “facial” challenge).  Since my case was already decided by a state court, Judge Failla wrote that I may not have it re-heard by a federal court, an issue that only affects as-applied challenges.

Normally, this would just result in me filing an amended complaint re-framing the case as a facial challenge instead of an as-applied challenge.  Knowing this, Judge Failla saved us the time required to file the amended complaint and deal with a new motion to dismiss by giving us an “even if this were a facial challenge” version, citing the Second Circuit:

In support of his argument, Plaintiff directs the Court’s attention to case law from the Ninth, Seventh, and D.C. Circuits. (Pl. Opp. 9-10). Those circuits, Plaintiff claims, have “[struck] down nearly identical ‘proper cause’ requirements.” (Id. at 9). However, this Court is bound by Kachalsky, which is still good law in this Circuit.

Kachalsky v. Cnty. of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2nd Cir. 2012), is a case out of the Second Circuit and exactly what I intend to ask that appeals court to reconsider.  In brief, Kachalsky stands for the proposition that the government may require you to give it a “good reason” to issue a gun license before doing so, even if the result is that ordinary citizens can’t exercise their gun rights. In light of the more recent precedent from other federal appeals courts, the Ninth, Seventh, and D.C. Circuits, where good reason laws were rejected, the Second Circuit will now get yet another chance to check itself when I file there shortly.

The U.S. Supreme Court prefers to hear cases whenever the federal appellate courts disagree with each other, and at this time, there is a substantial split among the circuits as to whether good reason laws are constitutional.  Given that the Supreme Court is poised to strike down another New York City gun law, preventing home licensees from transporting their guns outside of the city to go to ranges under any circumstances, perhaps now they will also be ready to take up the “good reason” issue.

Corbett v. City of New York – Dismissal Order (.pdf)

11

Justice is Slow: TSA Case Waiting 2 Years, Gun Rights Case Now 5 Months

Fully Briefed in 2017

I have two significant cases pending at the moment:

My readers regularly ask me (in comments, on Twitter, by e-mail, etc.) for updates, and my answer is always the same: I’ll post them as soon as I have them.  The gun rights case above has had the government’s motion to dismiss pending before the court, fully briefed (that is, all parties have been completely heard and we are just waiting on a ruling), for 5 months.  Especially considering the government shutdown earlier this year, that’s not abnormal.

However, yesterday marked the 2 year anniversary of the TSA case being fully briefed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which has neglected the case for that amount of time.  This is not the usual amount of time to wait on an appeal, so I sent that court an anniversary card this afternoon.  I wouldn’t exactly say that courts “appreciate” reminders that they are taking too long, but at some point, the prejudice to my case and our rights outweighs the risk of offending a judge’s feelings.

There is no statutory limit to how long a court can take, although courts often rule within 6 months because they have to report to Congress when cases take longer.  Be patient with me — and I promise I’ll post updates as they come.

 

8

Is Pushing Someone on Train Tracks “Attempted Murder?”

I have to admit: when real life presents hypotheticals that are academically interesting for lawyers, I get a little bit excited.  Last year, a man named Kimani Stephenson made one for the law books when he pushed a woman onto New York City subway tracks.  The victim described it as follows:

“This guy, he came up behind me and he grabbed one of my boobs with one hand, and he grabbed my vagina. I told him to fuck off, and he pushed me onto the train tracks,” she recalled.

…

“There was no train coming, thank God,” Currie said. “I keep playing the scenario over in my head. There weren’t any MTA police on that particular track, so I don’t know what I would have done if there hadn’t been bystanders.”

Clearly, the defendant is guilty of assault and other crimes, but is he guilty of attempted murder?

At common law (the law we inherited from the British), attempted murder requires 2 things: 1) taking an action towards the death of someone (a “substantial step”), and 2) the intent that your actions result in the death of that person.  That second part is called a “specific intent” requirement.  That is, it’s not enough that you did what you did on purpose, but rather that you must, in your own mind, intend a specific result.  Modern New York law on the matter doesn’t substantially deviate from the common-law view.

The first element is not very interesting: pushing someone on a train track is undoubtedly a substantial step towards murder.  The second element is where the fun is.  Like any good law school essay question, you can argue that specific intent both ways.  You can argue that one doesn’t push someone onto train tracks unless they want them to die.  However, if your law school essay doesn’t also pick out the words, “There was no train coming,” you lost major points on this question.  The defense will argue that pushing someone onto an empty train track is unlikely to cause death and shows that the defendant didn’t actually intend that the victim die from the actions.

But New Yorkers love throwing the book at the bad guy, and so when Manhattan ADA Maxine Rosenthal decided to press attempted murder charges, the local Reddit community cheered:

Reddit Does Not Like Kimani

…and I was mocked for being a soft on crime or ignorant on the law, including by several “Internet lawyers,” for trying to explain the above…

too_soft

Unfortunately, no charity will be getting a $500 donation, as a Manhattan jury acquitted Mr. Stephenson of attempted murder last week:

“We felt he acted in a fit of rage and he wasn’t thinking enough to have premeditated anything,” said juror Catherine Wald, 64.

“There was no argument, proof or any evidence he had intent in the moment to kill her even though we all got convinced he was the perpetrator,” added foreman Dmytro Zhuravtsky, 44, who works in quantitative research at a large financial institution.

Fear not: the perpetrator still faces 25 years in prison on the first degree assault charge (which, if I’m reading correctly, comes with a 5 year mandatory minimum).  But, say it with me: it’s not attempted murder unless the defendant actually intended that the victim die.  On the situation presented here, I don’t know how the ADA intended to prove the specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt.  The charge should not have been brought.

The ADA and defense counsel were contacted for comment but have not replied as of the publication of this story.

11

NYPD Union: City Complaint Agency “A Disgrace” for Fourth Amendment Tweet

In New York City, garden-variety complaints of police officer misconduct can be filed with the Civilian Complaint Review Board, a city-run agency with the power to investigate complaints and recommend sanctions to the police commissioner when warranted.  The existence of the CCRB provides an avenue for the public to report problems other than to the courts — probably saving the city a fortune every year in judgments, settlements, and legal fees.

On May 4th, the CCRB tweeted about the Fourth Amendment, with a link to report to them police violations of the same.  This was apparently too much for the NYPD’s Sergeants Benevolent Association, who responded on Twitter with this gem:

 

And cops wonder why the NYPD is, er, unpopular, with the people: they think they are above the law because they have a difficult job.  Accountability and respect are not mutually exclusive, and the NYPD must stop this childish us-vs-them mentality with those who demand the former as a prerequisite to the latter.

It’s not a surprise that this is the #1 most liked reply on the SBA’s tweet:

  

1

Is It *Really* Impossible To Get A Gun License in NYC? (Part VIII — Appeal to N.Y. High Court)

This is the eighth installment of a series documenting an ordinary New Yorker attempting to exercise his Second Amendment rights: Part I (license application), Part II (application rejected),Part III (the lawsuit), Part IV (appeal filed), Part V (appellate briefing complete), Part VI (N.Y. Appeals Court Not Interested in Ending NYPD Corruption), Part VII (Corruption? You Can’t Prove It!).

 

Motion for Leave to Appeal to N.Y. Court of AppealsThe U.S. Supreme Court has made pretty clear that a “total ban” on any particular gun right is unconstitutional.  They seem to be pretty clear that it doesn’t matter whether the total ban is only on the carrying of weapons, or on all ownership, or even on certain classes of weapons.  No total bans.

But, what is a “total ban?”  According to the appellate court that denied my appeal last month, “New York’s handgun licensing scheme does not impose any blanket or near-total ban on gun ownership and possession.”  But if an ordinary citizen with no criminal record is denied a license, denied an administrative appeal, denied a court petition, and denied an appeal of that denial, how does that not amount to a total ban for me and for every other ordinary citizen with no criminal record?  What, exactly, would the state have to do to have a “total ban” in the eyes of N.Y. Supreme Court, Appellate Division?

Yesterday I asked the highest court in the state, the N.Y. Court of Appeals, to settle the matter.  The court appears to have passed on pretty much every gun licensing case sent its way since the U.S. Supreme Court declared in 2008 that gun ownership is an individual right that requires no militia membership, and clarified in 2010 that the Second Amendment applies to the states.  The Court of Appeals’ failure to consider the issue in about a decade, after important changes in constitutional law at the federal level, have resulted in a patchwork of decisions from the trial and appellate courts, all of which have invented their own rules.

Appealing to the high court of New York is actually a pleasant experience compared to New York’s intermediate appellate court, which requires 8 copies of every document with special tape binding, a PDF version with digital bookmarks, and a $315 fee, among other weird requirements.  And it’s a daydream compared to the U.S. Supreme Court, which requires 40 copies (!!) of everything, a $300 filing fee, and a garbage bag (really).  The Court of Appeals requires only 7 copies (double-sided ok), a $45 filing fee, and no choice of drawstring or twist-tie.

In the meantime, the federal criminal trials of several officers in the NYPD’s Licensing Division for taking bribes in exchange for gun licenses continues.  One officer has pled guilty and is testifying on behalf of the feds:

David Villanueva, an ex-supervisor in the NYPD’s License Division, said he and other cops — including officers Richard Ochetel and Robert Espinel and Lt. Paul Dean — were on the take for years from so-called gun expeditors.

In exchange, the officers doled out pistol permits like candy — even to people who should not have had them, Villanueva said.

One expeditor, he said, may have had ties to organized crime. Another got help with 100 gun permits over the years — “none” of which should have been approved.

Source: New York Post

Here’s to hoping that while the Court of Appeals clarifies New York law, it also takes up my invitation to end the corruption in the Licensing Division.

Corbett v. City of New York IV – Motion for Leave to Appeal (.pdf)

19

Is It *Really* Impossible To Get A Gun License in NYC? (Part VII — Corruption? You Can’t Prove It!)

This is the seventh installment of a series documenting an ordinary New Yorker attempting to exercise his Second Amendment rights: Part I (license application), Part II (application rejected), Part III (the lawsuit), Part IV (appeal filed), Part V (appellate briefing complete), Part VI (N.Y. Appeals Court Not Interested in Ending NYPD Corruption).

Appellate Division: Affirmed.Yesterday the Appellate Division of the N.Y. Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling dismissing my challenge to New York’s corrupt practice of issuing gun licenses only to those whom the NYPD feels have a “good reason” to have a gun — a practice that has resulted in corruption for a century now.  This result is, of course, not surprising: as the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), approaches its 10 year anniversary, New York courts still petulantly resist the mandate that firearm ownership is a right — not a privilege, and not requiring membership in a “militia” — subject to intermediate scrutiny or higher.

In this case, the Appellate Division has finally used “intermediate scrutiny” by name, which is a slow step towards acceptance of Heller.  Intermediate scrutiny is the lowest level of scrutiny that the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed for gun laws since Heller, and it requires that a regulation be: 1) substantially tailored, 2) to an important government interest.

As should be obvious, that’s a 2-part test, and while the “important government interest” part is easily satisfied (it’s certainly reasonable for the government to want to protect its citizens from gun violence), the Appellate Division has plugged their ears to the second part of the test.  During oral arguments, I specifically asked the judges to require that the most vague, invasive, and irrelevant questions on the gun license application, all of which ask if you have ever done something (e.g., taken a prescription painkiller under doctor supervision) be narrowed by temporal or other boundaries:

Justice Sweeny: “[The disputed questions are] not the be all and end all.  It could very well be the basis for further investigation.  Why is that not relevant?”

Jon: “Right, because they could narrowly tailor it.  They could say, ‘have you used [prescription painkillers] for more than a week?’  Have you done it within the last 5 years?  Any of these things would allow them to more narrowly tailor it.”

[Watch Oral Arguments] [More Details About Oral Arguments]

Their decision, of course, is silent on the matter, stating that the rules “are justified because they serve to promote the government’s” interest without any thought to tailoring.  In affirming the court below, the Appellate Division has made it clear that they refuse to set any boundaries whatsoever on gun license restrictions in this state.

Further, the court continues to ignore the persistent corruption in the NYPD Licensing Division:

“Petitioner has not established that the denial of his application was the result of corruption or other impropriety”

This ignores the fact that my original case in the lower court was dismissed before I had a chance to gather or present any such facts.  I got no period of “discovery” or any other procedure by which I could demand the turning over evidence.  Meanwhile, officers literally in the office where and when I submitted my gun license application have pled guilty to federal corruption charges, admitting they accepted cash in exchange for approval of gun licenses.  Under these circumstances, due process is lacking whether I can prove that my individual case was affected or not.

I look forward to petitioning New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, to hear this case.

21

Is It *Really* Impossible To Get A Gun License in NYC? (Part V — Filings Complete in Appeal in N.Y. Supreme Court, Appellate Division)

This is the fifth installment of a series documenting an ordinary New Yorker attempting to exercise his Second Amendment rights: Part I (license application), Part II (application rejected), Part III (the lawsuit), Part IV (appeal filed).

Opposition to Corbett Gun License AppealWe’re now at 15 months from the date I — just an ordinary citizen with no criminal record — applied for a license to carry a handgun in New York.  My application was filed in December 2016, denied in April 2017, and the NYPD denied my administrative appeal in May 2017.  My petition to have a lower court review the denial was filed in September 2016 and rubber-stamped by a judge in February 2017 who decided that the NYPD’s denial of the license was “rational” because I didn’t give them a good reason to approve it.

The appellate process in New York is a bit clunky.  This is partially owing to the hodgepodge of trial courts — from local town courts that hear small matters, to city courts that hear more significant matters, to county courts that are the highest trial courts.  It’s perhaps also partially owing to the odd naming system in place in this state: the original petition was filed in the “Supreme Court,” the appellate court I’m in now is called the “Supreme Court, Appellate Division,” and the next and last court it can go to is the “Court of Appeals.”  There’s also the “Supreme Court, Appellate Term,” which is somewhere in between “Supreme Court” and “Supreme Court, Appellate Division,” which was skipped here.  Compare this to California, for example, where there are Superior Courts for the trials, Courts of Appeals for the appeals, and their Supreme Court to appeal an appeal — and that’s it.  It really shouldn’t take an hour of research just to figure out which court will hear your case.

It’s also clunky because they have very strict, archaic rules about how they want their documents.  You can’t electronically file, unlike virtually every other court in the state.  But you also must e-mail them a PDF copy, after you “bookmark” each section and subsection in the file (Have you ever used the bookmark feature in Adobe Acrobat?  I hadn’t either!).  You have to file 8 copies of everything, but you probably can’t just staple the hundreds of pages required per copy.  Oh no, you must bind them, but not with comb-binding like you can find at Kinko’s — they only accept binding with metal fasteners or glue binding.  If your fasteners are visible from the outside, you have to put tape over them, because we wouldn’t want any sharp edges in the judge’s chambers.  Some documents must be double-sided while other documents must be single-sided.  You also must use recycled paper for all your printing, because let’s be environmentally-friendly while failing to allow e-filing and requiring 8 copies.  And finally, don’t even think about attaching exhibits to your brief (if you want to, say, cite a government document or a news article and provide the court with a copy), because that’s simply not allowed.

That aside, let’s take a walk through what the City says about my appeal (the contents of what they were responding to — my original appellate brief — are discussed in the previous post):

NYPD is tasked with the grave responsibility of protecting New York City’s 8.5 million residents and over 50 million annual visitors from senseless gun violence and accidental shootings.

Well that does sound like a very important task, but how many people are killed each year in New York with legally-owned handguns?  They omit that statistic, but I’d bet more people are killed by the NYPD each year than by the 88,000 current license holders in New York.

“But if we increase the number of license holders, then there will be more victims!”  Well, the State of Texas has 1.2 million licensees out of 28 million residents (4.3%) and they study how law-abiding those licensees are each year.  Not surprisingly, Texas license holders in 2016 committed 0.35% of crimes in total and 0.40% of assaults with a deadly weapon despite being 4.3% of the population.

NYPD rationally denied Corbett’s application for an unrestricted permit to carry a concealed handgun. That determination is due considerable deference and should be affirmed.

In what sane world is a police department due “deference” when evaluating their decision to deny a constitutional right to the citizens?  We don’t allow them “deference” when they violate 4th Amendment rights by arresting someone without probable cause — they have to prove that they did, indeed, have probable cause.

NYPD’s requirement that applicants complete a minimally invasive background
questionnaire is part of a presumptively lawful regulatory measure that
does not substantially burden Corbett’s right to bear arms.

The background check asks you to go through your prescription medication history, which I refused to do (no, it’s not limited to “prescriptions that get prescribed to crazy people”).  They ask you to tell them any time you’ve ever lost a job.  They ask you for everywhere you’ve lived so that they can talk to your neighbors.  That’s not “minimally invasive” to me — that’s more like the background check one goes through for a government security clearance (unless you’re Jared Kushner, in which case you can flat-out lie and keep your job).   And for those of you who don’t think it’s a big deal, the NYPD admits they would have denied my application even if I had bent over for the background check because I still don’t have a “good reason” for which I “need” a gun.

Corbett was disqualified from carrying a concealed handgun because he obstructed NYPD’s mandatory background investigation [by refusing to answer the most invasive questions]. … His belief that these questions were constitutionally impermissible reflects an absolutist view of the Second Amendment that is not grounded in the law.

In the NYPD’s view, challenging them on the constitutionality of their questions is “obstruction” and “an absolutist view of the Second Amendment.”  Sorry, NYPD, the citizens do have a right to challenge you in the courts, nor is my view that there should be a procedure for an ordinary citizen to carry a gun “absolutist.”  Keep in mind that I completed an application that contained several dozen pages, came in for an in-person interview, submitted to fingerprinting, and paid over $400 (original app process described here).  “The Second Amendment is my gun license” is absolutist.  Challenging their most invasive 3 questions and their “good reason” requirement is simply asking for reasonable access to my rights.

But the government’s opposition to my appeal was strangely silent on one issue: the continuing corruption within the NYPD Licensing Division which resulted in several arrests of police officers in 2016 and 2017 and the transfer of the commanding officer who denied my application to another unit.  Apparently, the fact that one can buy a “good reason” from the NYPD was not an important enough issue to address.

Here’s hoping that the Court doesn’t ignore the elephant in the room like the City did in their opposition.  From here, the Court may order oral arguments, or it may not.  Either way, it will then rule on the appeal (sometime this year), which will either result in the case being sent back to the lower court to do something differently, or will result in the appeal being dismissed and my next appeal to New York’s highest court.

Corbett v. City of New York – Appellate Brief (.pdf – 7MB)

Corbett v. City of New York – Opposition Brief (.pdf)

Corbett v. City of New York – Reply Brief (Bookmarked) (.pdf)

24

NYPD Upset That They Will Have Fewer “Get Out of Jail Free” Cards to Give to Family in 2018

Many years ago, I was hanging out with a police officer friend of mine at a bar.  One of her police friends said he was about to drive home, and I asked if he was good to drive.  He chuckled a bit and said, “Of course, what are they going to do, arrest me?”  He then left the bar, far more intoxicated than I would prefer to be behind the wheel, and presumably drove home.

He was right, of course: assuming he didn’t get into an accident thus forcing a report to be made, while you may be shocked by his attitude, you probably know that police officers will not cite or arrest each other for pretty much anything that doesn’t have a complaining civilian witness, and sometimes not even then.  This “professional courtesy” is also often extended to their families by providing the family member business cards with little notes on them.  Having such a card is not a license to kill, but it is probably going to get you out of a minor speeding ticket.

It takes special audacity, however, to be the largest police union in the country and to take this to the next level by printing up plastic credit-card like “get out of jail free” cards, and giving each officer 32 of these cards every year.  It takes even more audacity to complain to the media when the union reduces that number down to 20:

“They are treating active members like shit, and retired members even worse than shit,” griped an NYPD cop who retired on disability. “All the cops I spoke to were . . . very disappointed they couldn’t hand them out as Christmas gifts.”

A few points.

First, it’s clear that these cards are expected to grant special privileges upon the holder, to wit: that they will receive leniency upon being stopped for committing a crime.  Otherwise, they’d make pretty lousy gifts.  “Oh, thanks, Dad, a 2018 edition of a worthless card from your former employer!”  Of course not.

Second, this is corruption.  It’s not major, “let’s get a law passed in exchange for cash” corruption.  But all are entitled to be treated equally under the law, and if some are treated “more equally than others,” we end up with nonsense like NYC’s gun licensing scheme, where for a full century, anyone from literal mobsters to random rich people are entitled to their Second Amendment rights where the people as a whole are not.

NYPD Get Out of Jail Free Card
Yes, seriously.

Third, the reason cops want 32 of these cards is not because they have 32 family members to give them to, but because they are literally selling them on eBay.  For a $50 donation to your local corrupt cop, you too can have a get-out-of-jail-free card.  For a bit more, you can get one signed by an actual cop.

It’s a problem that it’s long time we address, and the first step in fixing that problem is treating this like the corruption that it is.  NYPD rank-and-file cops simply see this as a perk of the job — as “professional courtesy.”  But there’s nothing courteous about it to the general public, who is deprived of the public safety benefit they are paying for when people think they no longer have to follow the law.  Police officers and their family should be setting the example when it comes to lawfulness — not seeking to be above the law.

4

London Metro Police Caught Spying on E-mails of Journalists and Protestors

jenny_jonesWhile many people have little problem allowing governments vast snooping privileges when investigating “terrorists,” it’s been called out again and again that governments are incapable of showing any such restraint.  Many of the headlines are dominated by the U.S. and our struggles with high-tech abuse from organizations like the NSA, but government assholery isn’t an American-specific problem: last week, London Metro Police were exposed as “hacking” the emails of various journalists and protestors.

We know this information thanks to Jenny Jones, a Green Party representative who exposed the existence of this unit in an article in The Guardian. She became privy to this information thanks to a letter written to her from a whistleblower with inside knowledge about the unit.

The letter she received basically reveals that the police have been illegally accessing the email accounts of individuals for many years.  The letter claims that London police asked the police in India to get the passwords for them, and in turn, Indian police hired various hackers to do it for them. Once these hackers got the passwords, they were sent back to the Indian police, who then sent them to London police. This has been going on for years, and the whistleblower claimed that the unit had no respect for the law and didn’t have any regard for the personal privacy of individuals.

Consider the absurdity of there existing a secret unit in a local police department that has the ability to do such hacking (or sometimes, apparently, outsource the hacking to India).  U.K. law apparently allows such spying only to combat terrorism or a major crime, which probably means it should be taken outside of the hands of municipal cops.  Yet the NYPD here in the U.S. also considers its job to include international terrorism, to the point of having thousands of cops who work in locations other than New York city.

It is still very early in the “investigation,” so it is yet to be seen if exposing the matter will result in change. But, if these allegations prove to be accurate, it will be a serious blow to the reputation of the police force and another reminder that handing over keys to the government is a bad idea, even if they allege they will only use those keys when absolutely necessary — because time and time again, all governments everywhere have shown this to be a fantasy.

1

Is It *Really* Impossible To Get A Gun License in NYC? (Part III — NYPD Sued Over Requirement that License Applications Give “Good Reason”)

nysupremecourt
New York County Supreme Court

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.

For Part III, I’m pleased to announce that I’ve taken up the fight in court with a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the City of New York’s interpretation of state laws that effectively allow the NYPD to deny a license whenever it wants.  I’ve additionally challenged the NYPD’s refusal to fulfill a Freedom of Information Law request, as well as 3 of the most absurd questions on the application form.

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.)

Corbett v. City of New York IV – Petition & Complaint (.pdf), Case No. 158273/2016

There are 3 separate challenges within this lawsuit:

  1. First and foremost, NY Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f)  specifies that a license should be issued when an applicant shows “proper cause.”  The City of New York (as well as Westchester County, FWIW) interprets this to mean “a good reason that we approve of” rather than “filled out an application and is not disqualified.”  In particular, the city requires that applicants show a greater need than that of the general public (!!), so “I want to defend myself” is not good enough while “I want to defend myself because I regularly carry around bags of diamonds” probably is.  Virtually all of the rest of the state interprets this the other way, granting licenses to individuals who are U.S. Citizens with clean criminal records.  The “proper cause” requirement, as interpreted by New York City, is not only unconstitutional (imagine having to convince the government that you had “proper cause” to speak freely, practice your religion, say “no” to a search without a warrant, etc.), it leads to decisions that are arbitrary at best, and influenced by corruption as we’ve seen above at worst.
  2. Second, I challenged 3 questions in particular.  These three questions ask if you’ve ever been fired from a job, ever used painkillers or sedatives (under a doctor’s orders during/after surgery counts), and if you’ve ever testified under oath anywhere in the country.  Saying “yes” to any of these questions extends the application process, requiring you to explain yourself.  These three questions are highly invasive, not protected by, e.g, HIPAA confidentiality requirements, not evaluated by any professional qualified to do so (there are certainly no doctors in the NYPD Licensing Division qualified to say if your prescription regimen would make you unfit to have a gun), and are generally irrelevant for any purpose other than giving the NYPD an excuse — not a reason — to deny the license applications of good, qualified citizens.
  3. Third, after my application was denied, I sent the NYPD a Freedom of Information Law request (Exhibit C of the petition above), asking for every application for a gun license in a 3 month period with all personally identifying information redacted.  My intent here was to see whether the NYPD was consistent when considering applications or was granting preference to VIPs.  The NYPD said that they would not fulfill my request because doing so would be invasive to privacy and would interfere with law enforcement (Exhibit D of the petition).  How releasing these records could possibly do either of those things is a mystery to me, and therefore I’ve asked the court to review it.

I’m hopeful that this petition may push the NYPD to a more reasonable licensing scheme.  Despite people telling me that the NYPD’s rules are challenged all the time, I wasn’t able to find a challenge to the “proper cause” requirement in this state in the last 5 years, and never has the proper cause requirement been challenged in the context of the state’s ban on open carry + the Supreme Court’s decision that the right to bear arms is applicable to individuals and assertable against the states.  Whether you think we need more or fewer guns in this country, I hope you’ll agree that the licensing scheme should at least be fair, and to that extent support my reform against the NYPD’s “licenses only if we want to give them” scheme.

 

Fighting for civil rights in court is expensive!  Want to contribute to the fight against government assholery? Donate via PayPal, Venmo, Chace QuickPay, Bitcoin, or check

35

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑