SAF sues New York State over need provision in state law

[oneshooter]

The lawsuit involves two New York residents, Alan Kachalsky and Christina Nikolov, both of whom have had their handgun permit applications denied by handgun permit licensing officers in Westchester County. According to court documents, both plaintiffs were turned down because they could not “demonstrate a need” for self-protection. This pattern suggests that in the Empire State, proactive personal protection is not recognized as being sufficient to justify the carrying of a handgun.
The concept of proving “good cause” to obtain a handgun carry permit is unthinkable anywhere west of the Mississippi River, and certainly here in Washington State, where we have one of the earliest “shall issue” statutes in the nation. The right to carry has been part of the Evergreen State fabric since Washington was a territory, and the right of individual citizens to bear arms is specified in the state constitution.


http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m7d16-Bellevues-SAF-sues-in-New-York-over-good-cause-requirement

Not my state, not my fight.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. Not directly our fignt, but the more we beat Bloomie and his fellow travellers back

the better it is for all of us.

[HockeyMom]

2. Former 50 year resident of NYS

My gun loving husband never owned one while living there, although I did know people who were in the diamond and banking industry who did. They "needed" to because of their jobs.

My husband certainly had no NEED to own one.

[X_Digger]

4. Question for you..

Please chime in here..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=316554

Been wanting to get feedback from those who feel that it's okay that _some_ people are armed.

[GreenStormCloud]

6. Sometimes, you don't know you need a gun until it is too late.

My wife and I avoid that by having one handy all the time.

[HockeyMom]

7. I have defened myself twice

as a young woman without one. Have you?

[rrneck]

8. What's your point? nt

[Katya Mullethov]

11. Having partaken in numerous fisticuffs

I prefer a shotgun .

[HockeyMom]

12. Friend (4' 8" woman) was a second degree black belt

we were in the South Bronx subway late at night. Three guys came up behind up and touched her on the shoulder. By instinct, she attacked him. They ran away.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. My training and size are well in excess of your friend's, but I still prefer a firearm

Clean, simple, less risk to the victim, higher risk to the perp(s).

[HockeyMom]

15. Why did they run away then?

She FREAKED them out because they EXPECTED an easy female victim and didn't get one.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. Who knows, noob thugs perhaps?

I too have direct experience and also teach self defense (including shooting) mostly to women and GLTBQs.

Today most street thugs, especially in groups will not turn tail. They see resistance as a form of disrespect. They will kill you for bucking them. Their props are more important than your life. The vast majority of them are armed. The best thing to do if you choose to resist is to shoot those who do not run away immediately. Double taps if you have the control, center of mass if you do not.

[Callisto32]

26. Touched her shoulder, and she instinctively attacked them?

Man, remind me to never be anywhere near that lady. She seems unnecessarily violent to me.

You don't know WHAT they expected, because you failed to assess the situation.

I'm glad you two choose not to have guns, you wouldn't be safe with them.

[PavePusher]

36. And you can guarantee this will be the result....

the next time around? For you or someone else? (Hopefully there won't be a next time, but that's why bookies and insurance companies get rich and bettors... usually don't.)

Also note that she was prepared... but were you? The way you worded your anecdote sounds like you were relying on her for protection. What if you are alone the next time?

Lastly, what legal or moral code states that I must risk my own safety by only engaging would-be criminals with my bare hands? I will take the path that minimizes my personal risk of injury or death, unless someone can prove why I shouldn't.

[Katya Mullethov]

40. I cannot guarantee my method will produce those results 100% of the time

But a glimpse into the cavernous maw of a 12 gauge doth truly thoothe the thavage breatht . Where it truly excels in this regard , is group therapy. Be aware that if you do not use it the effects are only temporary , as they be entitled to yo shit (which you have acquired unfairly through a rigged system* which fosters the inequities in wealth distribution).



* working 70 + hours a week .

[AtheistCrusader]

39. Maybe they wanted directions, and fled when some person flipped out on them?

I tend to get the hell away from people throwing punches and stuff too.

I'm 6'2" 220lbs male, would you be ok with me hauling off on the next person that taps me on the shoulder?

[rrneck]

14. Handy in that instance

but too heavy to carry around.

[Taitertots]

18. So she scared away an undetermined unarmed non-attacker in a public place n/t

[pipoman]

28. Was your friend 78? Was she disabled?

Are you suggesting some form of 'survival of the fittest'? Would you like a list of anecdotes which didn't quite work out so well for the victims? I have at least one cd here with all of the crime scene photos, a little messy...

[GreenStormCloud]

34. Why spend years and LOTS of money learn how to hurt someone?

That is what the martial arts are - ways to hurt people. To get to that degree, she had to spend LOTS of money on the lessons and a ton of time practicing. Instead, in a few days she could have become competent with a handgun, spent a lot less, and use most of the rest of that time to play with the kids. She would need only a couple of hours at the range, once a month, to maintain basic proficiency. And a gun beats karate almost every time.

[HockeyMom]

50. She competed in state championships

She worked in a dojo and wanted to eventually open her own. She didn't do it primarily for self-defense.

[Hoopla Phil]

52. And I've competed in state championships in USPSA. So what?

[HockeyMom]

53. Someone else mentioned it was a lot of money

to spend for self-defense, implying owning a gun would be cheaper. I replied that was not her main reason for spending all that money and years of practice.

[Hoopla Phil]

54. And self defense is not my main reason in competing in USPSA.

The shooting sports are wide and varied.

But your basic assertion is that hand to hand self defense classes are adequate for dealing with muggers, rapists, and murderers. It is not and has been demonstrated. If it were then why do police carry firearms? And what about the old or the infirm? Does your moral center believe in survival of the fittest? I hope not but your philosophy of self defense would dictate that to be the result. As the old saying goes. "God made some men big and some men small. But when Sam Colt made the pistol, he made all men equal."

[Euromutt]

61. So what do you recommend for people...

...who don't happen to be into a martial art for its own sake, and thus have no other reason than self-defense to invest the time, money and effort required?

[proteus_lives]

38. And if they stood 2 feet away and pointed a pistol at her....

What would the kung-fu master have done then?

Catch the bullet in mid-air?

:rofl:

[HockeyMom]

42. Smart thing would not be to have a gun

but to take a TAXI instead of the subway that late at night. We took the train because my friend insisted. She was Puerto Rican in her "neck of the woods" and was confident in her martial arts.

[GreenStormCloud]

22. You got lucky that your crooks were easily frightened.

Every year there are over one million violent attacks in the U.S. A few months ago, in my small town a couple was murdered in their home by being bludgeoned to death. A few months before that another couple (only three blocks away from us) was murdered in their home by being stapped repeadedly. No suspects have been caught. I submit for your consideration that those criminals would not have been scared off by a falling fan.

[Callisto32]

25. Not as a young woman.

But, I scrapped for my life on two occasions as a young man (12 and 14) against an abusive 3x year old stepfather, who HAD a gun.

I'd much rather have had my own, thank you.

The "you guys can't defend yourselves from attack without a gun but WE can" canard is total, utter bullshit.

Been there, done that, sister. I'd much rather be armed, thanks.

[GreenStormCloud]

33. I am a retired private investigator.

You have met only the most timid of villains and you make the mistake of thinking that all the bad guys are as timid as the ones you have met. I guarantee that there are lots of really bad, genuinely violent, street criminals out there who will not be impressed by your weak defense measures.

[spin]

9. And what would have happened in the unlikely event ...

that some violent criminals decided to invade your home while you were present?

It does happen, you know.

If you were lucky, you could have dialed 911 and the cops would have arrived in time to save you. Of course, you might have ended up as hostages when the cops arrived, or you might have been injured or dead and the bad guys might have left. In which case, the cops would have set up a crime scene and launched an investigation.

But then, your husband might have had a gun in the house and was unable to get to it or died attempting to fight the intruders.

The chances of such an incident are slim but still possible. Some people here prefer to be prepared in case of such an event. There are no guarantees that a firearm inside your house will save you from an attack from a violent intruder but at the same time it does give you some chance.

I wear seat belts when I drive because it is possible that some fool might pull out in front of me with no warning and I will have no time to avoid a collision. I still might not survive the accident without serious injury or ending up six feet under, but at least I have a better chance. I've been driving for almost 50 years and this still has not happened. Tomorrow it might, who knows. I have a fire extinguisher 10 feet from my computer. The house I live in has survived for almost 100 years without a fire. Tomorrow it might catch fire. Maybe I can put the fire out before the house is a total loss.

I don't expect to have my house catch fire or to have an accident, but it is possible. I also have no real fear of someone breaking into my home and threatening my life or my family. Still, it is possible.

I chose to own a firearm a means of self defense as a last resort in case of a home invasion. The firearm offers no guarantee. First I have to be able to reach it. Assuming I do, I have to be able to use it proficiently in an extremely stressful situation. I never want to shoot another person unless absolutely necessary as I realize that there will be both legal and psychological results which will be at the minimum, unpleasant.

You chose NOT to have a firearm. That is your decision and may be a wise choice in your situation. If you are unwilling to learn how to master a deadly weapon or are unwilling to kill or seriously injure anther person who intends to kill or injure you, then firearms are a bad choice for you.

Realize that you don't have to be a rich banker for some criminal to break into your home while you are there. If so, only rich people would suffer from home invasions.

But I suspect that both you and I will go through our lives without ever having a NEED for a firearm. The only difference is that if such a situation does happen, I am armed and skilled. You are not.

[HockeyMom]

10. I pushed the window fan out

onto the burglar trying to get in the downstairs window while my husband was getting his gun out of the closet. I did it by INSTINCT. It took him longer to to go the closet than it did for me to go to the window.

NYPD told me at the time I have good reflectes.

[spin]

21. Very good ...

Quick thinking. Congratulations.

[GreenStormCloud]

23. Can you guarantee that all crooks will be afraid of a falling fan?

It is likely that your particular crook did not want any level of confrontation. Most burglars don't and will flee if they know that someone is awake and at home. But others crave the sense of power they get from winning a confrontation with a resisting resident. If you have the bad luck to meet one of those, your falling fan will be a turn on for him.

[HockeyMom]

43. Metal fan with blades still turning?

If that had hit him on the head, he probably would have been unconscienous, if not worse. It had to weigh a good 20 or 25 lbs.

It also made a whole lot of noise falling onto the concrete and woke up all the neighbors. They cane running outside in the PJ's.

One more thing. He wasn't inside the house. Better to let him break in first, and then shot him? I think it's better to keep a burglar from coming inside the house IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[oneshooter]

46. You are lucky he didn't file assault charges.

He was not in your house, therefor was not a threat to you. By assaulting him with a dropped object, the fan, you opened yourself up to a assault charge, and a civil lawsuit for damages, injuries, loss of income and personal pain and suffering. Had he won he could have bankrupted you.

Ya got to think about the law.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[rrneck]

47. The only thing important to her

is her own opinion.

It's so important she keeps it in a bubble so it won't be corrupted by reality.

[oneshooter]

48. She may have "her reality" bite her if she continues. n/t

[HockeyMom]

51. Given that these things happened 30, 40 years ago,

and nothing has since, I would be willing to bet I will be more likely to die of old age.

[HockeyMom]

49. He was on our property

He was trying to jimmy open the downstairs window, which we had to get fixed. It was 2 AM. That is enough.

So you are saying we should have waited until he actually got inside so my husband so could shoot him instead?

[oneshooter]

67. I don't say it, but the LAW might. Learn the LAWS that affect your rights. n/t

[Callisto32]

27. Reflexes.

[Hoopla Phil]

66. That reminds me

It's all in the reflexes. lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQTp5BL5MMU

[slackmaster]

37. Too bad you didn't have an anvil handy

[safeinOhio]

32. For half the price of a decent

auto handgun you can make your home very safe. Many sites on the NET offer all kinds of home security that you can install yourself. Dead bolts and 3 inch screws on hinges and strikers. Cheap alarms for windows and doors. Motion sensors for both outdoor and indoors.
I have many guns and lots of ammo on hand. Just as I don't want to have to survive a flaming car crash, I don't want to have to be in a shoot out. I take precautions both driving my car and truck and take lots of precautions around the house against intrusions. 90% of crime is opportunistic, so most intruders will move on to an easy target. Just having signs that state the home is protected by a security company, even if it's not, will stop most. So, why not spend a few hundred bucks on security it you worry about home invasions. If someone does get in, you'll have more time to get your weapon. Not likely to happen if they have trouble kicking in the door and lights and sirens are going off.. If nothing else a little yappy dog.
At night kids use to walk down my alley all night long. After I put up motions lights in the ally and on the side porch, they rarely come down my ally.

For personal security, not everyone is comfortable with a hand gun. Mace, pepper spray and personal alarms are much cheaper and effective in urban areas.
If you are really worried about personal safety, avoid high crime areas especially at night alone. Never buy or use illegal drugs. Stay away from gangs. Last, but not least, never get involved in a love triangle. By following those rules you'll reduce your chance of becoming a violent crime statistic by more than 75%.

[GreenStormCloud]

35. You are completely correct.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

A person who has a gun for protection, but hasn't taken some basic, cheap, and easy methods to harden their house is being foolish. Make your house uninviting to an invader and he will probably go on to the next house. But have guns anyway, just in case.

But sometimes you can't do all of that. If your job is night cashier at a convenience store in a high-crime area you may want to buy some body armor and wear a couple of hidden guns.

[HockeyMom]

44. As I said previously, my husband HAD A GUN

I had the fan out the window before my husband could GET TO his gun.

[rrneck]

45. What does this antecdote prove? nt

[cowman]

17. Next time I'm in NY

I'll check with the Dept of Needs as to the provisions for owning a gun, Oh damn it, there is no Dept of Needs.

[Callisto32]

24. So diamond dealers and bankers protecting themseleves are more important than

"regular folks" protecting themselves.

How very elitist of you...

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

30. Diamonds are a girls best friend... or so they say.

Can't let the thugs take our diamonds now can we?

[armueller2001]

31. Apparently

diamonds and cash are more important than mine and my family's lives.

Good to know.

[Euromutt]

62. I don't think that's actually HockeyMom's personal opinion

Which would be why she put "needed" in quote marks. It does, however, seem to be the opinion of many police chiefs in New York state, as in other north-eastern states, that protecting a briefcase of diamonds justifies use of lethal force, but protecting one's loved ones does not.

[HockeyMom]

63. I went to college with a young woman

who brought the cash from ATM machines to the central bank at night. She, also, had no problem getting a CCW in NY because her job put her in danger. She was all of 22 years old. Actually, it WAS her employer which mandated that she carry a weapon as part of job. She told me she only kept her gun for work purposes and that if she didn't need it for that, she would never own a gun.

[Euromutt]

69. So was the gun for *her* protection?

Or for protecting the money she handled?

See, I continually marvel at the inconsistency of people (not necessarily you) on this forum, and in the gun control lobby, who contend that the best way to avoid violence when being robbed is to cooperate fully and "just let them have what they want," that it's "just stuff" and not worth killing someone over; and at the same time don't have any objection to permitting licensed security guards from being armed, even though the only purpose of those guards is to protect material property. Evidently, it's okay to kill people over "just stuff" when the stuff is the property of a corporation.

And hey, when I was "all of 22 years old," I carried an automatic weapon into a restaurant in Germany. Remarkably, nobody batted an eyelid, because I was wearing the uniform and full battle gear of the Royal Netherlands Army, and the locals were used to having NATO military units holding exercises in their neighborhood, and stopping in for a post-ENDEX meal (especially during asparagus season!).

[one-eyed fat man]

70. Germans were very NATO friendly.

I knew a Gasthaus owner near Pegnitz that used let us back our M60 tank into his barn.

I miss those days as a young soldier in the field, with nothing between me and the cold hard ground but some thin native girl!

:toast: Prost!

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

29. "gun loving husband" ...

so that's where the animosity for guns comes from here.
I don't blame you... a nice 1911 could give any woman some stiff competition.

[cleanhippie]

3. I guess they need to demonstrate where the "department of need" is and what the rules are.

I mean WTF? Demonstrate a need? maybe if that same requirement was in place to get a protest permit..........

[jody]

5. Makes as much moral sense as demonstrating a need to speak or vote or assemble or worship.

All unalienable rights, all the time and those who oppose those rights that are forever off limits to any government can kiss my ass or get ready for a fight to the death.

[Taitertots]

19. It is simple you don't have need if you are not rich or a minority

Just look at the history in New York with regard to permit issuance.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. Gun control is as racist and classist today as it was historically

[benEzra]

41. The whole point of NYC's Sullivan Law was to disarm people of the "wrong" ethnicity...

and to allow its author and namesake ("Big Tim" Sullivan of http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/mob_bosses/rothstein/becker_5.html">Tammany Hall fame) to disarm the bodyguards of his political opponents so that they might more easily be intimidated, and to curry favors from neutral or friendly elites who wanted the right to be armed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=134977&mesg_id=134977

[HockeyMom]

55. Schools both in NY and Florida

My daughter used to teach in the South Bronx. She took the subway. Some nights she stayed late at night for Parent/Teacher meetings. Not only would that not be enough for CCW, it would be illegal for her bring a gun onto school property. In this case, even if there was a shall issue, it would be moot.

Same is true for Florida. You can keep a gun in your locked car, no license, permit. However, even in Florida with all these gun rights, you still cannot carry a gun on your person, or in a locked car within 1,000 yards of school, among other places.

I also work in a school in a very high crime area. I would be committing a felony if I brought a gun onto school property, whether with a CCW or in my car.

The school where I worked, again, was in a very bad area. We had lock downs for people trespassing on the property, including someone who had just robbed a store. This particular school also housed emotionally disturbed kids who had a history of violence and breaking the law. There was a full time armed deputy and a part time armed deputy on campus. Staff, and the deputies, carried around radios with them at all times. These kids many times became violent and had to be wrapped and taken away in squad cars.

I suppose pro gun people would think school staff should have been carrying guns also in this school for their own protection? We had to go through great lengths to keep any potential "weapons" such as scissors, staple removers, caustic liquids, even shapened pencils, etc., away from these kids. We also could not even wear jewlery would could be used against us. In order to work with kids, we also had to take self defense and applied behavior courses.
No way, no shape, no how, did anyone want these kids to be anywhere NEAR a gun, locked or not.

I would like to hear comments on these situations; CCW and "take you guns" to work laws in Florida, let alone the stringent gun control laws in NY.

[PavePusher]

56. You can carry on school grounds in Utah....

hasn't been a problem.

Are New Yorkers less trustworthy than Utahans? If so, why?

[HockeyMom]

58. I work in Florida

You cannot take a gun onto school property in Florida, either.

[Hoopla Phil]

65. How about this Texas school that made arming teachers a matter of policy?

Haven't reported any problems with it. So why would you assume that a person that goes through the training, testing, and background checks to get a CHL would cause problems?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/15/texas-school-district-to_n_119282.html

[HockeyMom]

68. I work in a school with kids

one step away from a juvenile detention facility. You don't want them near weapons of any kind.

[Hoopla Phil]

57. Cannot recall the state but there was a small rural school that made headlines

a few years ago. Since police response to any emergency was more than 30 minutes they instituted a program where teachers would be armed. Since they haven't been in the news lately I assume there have been no problems of note.

You other questions are worthy of discussion but run the risk of hijacking this post. Perhaps you could start a new one with those topics you wish to discuss.

[PavePusher]

60. This was in rural Texas. Don't remember the town... n/t

[Hoopla Phil]

64. Thanks for helping narrow that down. Found a story on it for citation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/15/texas-school-district-to_n_119282.html

[spin]

59. You had two armed deputies on campus ...

one full time and one part time.

As a first line of defense this was probably adequate to handle most situations. The fact that there was armed police on your campus means that it was no longer a "gun free" zone or a shooting gallery.

I have no problems going into an area where I can not legally carry as long as there is armed security. The last time I appeared as a witness in court there were four armed officers in the room. That room was probably the safest place in my small town.