Comments

Testu Nagouchi Wed, 05/1/19 - 20:27 these new rules should not be adopted because the current rule is vital to public safety in the city.

Edward Lentz Wed, 05/1/19 - 20:41 This rule is vital to public safety in the city. People with premises permits can't be trusted to go directly to and from locations outside the city. The "target license" was eliminated "because of the difficulty in verifying whether a target licensee is, in fact, traveling to a firing range outside the City". The current rule "allows the City to promote public safety by better regulating and minimizing the instances of unlicensed transport of firearms on City streets". The rule has survived every court challenge so far, so it's worth defending at the Supreme Court. It passes intermediate scrutiny, so it complies with Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago.

Joseph Austin Wed, 05/1/19 - 23:42 This proposed rule change is fantastic and welcoming to us gun owners. Many of us have multiple residencies and would like to legally travel. This will not deteriorate any progress that NYPD has done to get guns off the streets, because NYC has the strictest gun laws, and extensive background checks are already being done.

Alex Khodorckovsky Wed, 05/1/19 - 23:43 Guns are available for rent in most ranges/shooting clubs/competitions. If they don't have a carry permit, they shouldn't carry it - no matter what condition the gun is in. If there's a need to transport, submit an application for carry license. I oppose to the proposed amendment

John M. Gatbois Wed, 05/1/19 - 23:58 For the safety of all New Yorkers, I implore the mayor, the city legislature, and the NYPD to leave this rule in place. That’s at a minimum. What we really need is for this rule to be strengthened. Why can people just carry their guns willy-nilly to ranges in the city? That just leads to people being stopped by the police and wasting the police’s time. I saw one guy who didn’t even have a gun, but the police thought he had one so they had to shoot him. It is unbelievable that we allow people to waste the NYPD’s time like that. If nobody was allowed to have guns at all, then only the police would have them and we wouldn’t have to worry about all these criminals legally carrying guns around. Take away their permits, and boom, no more criminals carrying guns. Only the police, who are trained to be expert marksmen. That’s why they give them 12-pound triggers — because they’re so skilled and knowledgeable about firearms. So please, don’t just leave this rule in place. Strengthen it for all New Yorkers and make people just keep their gun safely in a locker at the range all the time. And when you’re done with that, I was at Williams-Sonoma shopping for cookware, and I saw knives just laying out in the open, for sale to anyone who walks in! I mean, I grew up using paring knives and butter knives, we have a long tradition in this country of cutting apples and making PB&J. But an 8” chef’s knife? That’s only designed to kill people as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Nobody needs an 8” blade. So once you’re done implementing common sense gun safety policies, please ban these assault knives. They do not belong on our streets. Don’t let this absurd Supreme Court lawsuit scare you. I saw some people on the internet saying you’re considering this rule change purely in a doomed, bad-faith attempt to moot the case. That’s BS, I believe in you. So I believe that Mayor de Blasio can stand up to the gun and knife lobbies and finally rid New York of this outrageous scourge of individuals being responsible for themselves instead of just calling the police.

David Enlow Thu, 05/2/19 - 11:33 This is a very transparent attempt to move the goal post in the recent Supreme Court case. As a gun owner I oppose this rule change and the abuse of power this clearly shows.

Marlo Reyes Fri, 05/3/19 - 14:20 I oppose the attempted change of this rule it is vital to the safety of all New Yorkers.

Hallet Bruestle Sat, 05/4/19 - 15:48 This law should not be changed. Not because it is a good law; it is blatantly unconstitutional. No, it should not be changed since this is a clear tactic to try to moot the SCOTUS case that is specifically looking into this law. After the SCOTUS decision, I would heavily support this law being repealed, if it wasn't already struck down by SCOTUS.

Ben Ye Mon, 05/6/19 - 15:25 In addition to this new rule change, which I approve, you should also honor the NYS licenses as well. The fact that nyc doesn’t recognize its own State licenses is ludicrous, after all, legal gun owners have a much better safety record than illegal gun owners. You should make wholesale changes to gun ownership laws because the SCOTUS is clearly restoring our rights as citizens, despite your well intentioned attempt at creating a socialist state. The backbone of democracy is the implicit trust we have in each other. As a citizen, we have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Defense of ones rights is implicit in the 1st Amendment and explicit (vis a vis Heller vs DC) in the Second Amendement to our Constitution. No local or state law may abrogate the Law of the Land. Lastly, while I am a firm believer in the capabilities of the NYPD, the police can only be in so many places at a time. If an invasion occurs, the home owner must be able to defend their life. If you strip them of that skill by limiting their access to gun range training, they will be less likely to defend themselves against criminals. So for all of these reasons and others, I support this change in NYC gun rules.

Hassan Hamoud Tue, 05/7/19 - 14:32 I am against this rule change, this change seems very arbitrary and not well thought out. Please do not allow this change to go through.

Mike Henderson Tue, 05/7/19 - 20:53 I do not support the proposed rule change, as it is a clear attempt to moot the NYSRPA v New York City case before it is heard by the United States Supreme Court. The wording of this proposal makes it clear that the Police Department does not have the overall safety of the public or the rights of citizens as a primary motivation for this change, but rather a deep-seated desire to deprive New Yorkers of their Second Amendment rights as effectively and thoroughly as possible. This is merely an attempt to dodge judicial review while maintaining as many unconstitutional laws as possible.

Charles Davis Wed, 05/8/19 - 22:20 Those of you commenting about Premise Permit holders not being trusted to go to and from ranges exclusively obviously have no concept of the time, effort and cost associated with getting and maintaining a Permit in NYC. Anyone who has gone through this process I can promise you would not do anything to jeopardize this status. If the rule is from point A to point B that is what we will do. Although I may not agree with the strict CCW restrictions placed on New York City residents. I am a law abiding citizen who happens to have a Premise Permit, including 8 non resident pistol licenses in a addition NRA basics of pistol shooting conducted in a classroom and at the range under the guidance and supervision of an NRA-Certified Instructor. Additionally those of you who are looking to oppose this need to clearly understand the limited number of ranges here in the city and the limited resources we have for practice and to maintain our skills so that in the event that a home invasion does occur that we are prepared to protect ourselves as without causing unnecessary injury to others. This rule would simply allow already law abiding citizens concerned with being prepared to travel to a secondary home outside city limits with the gun in a proper locked container with the bullets stored elsewhere. This is not a proposal to have a free for all and should not be treated as if it is. I went through the vetting process and continue to be vetted daily to make sure I comply with the permits regulations why should I not be allowed to travel to a location to practice or to a secondary home that I pay additional rent and taxes for. My gun ownership along with being a 2nd amendment right also means I have a responsibility to maintain my skill and knowledge of the firearm I am in possession of. I maintain memberships in the GOA and support NYSRPA as well as continue to keep abreast of the latest safety and product releases. Although I do understand those of you opposing the rule to better serve the bigger picture to be decided by SCOTUS I personally support this proposal.

Mike Kelly Sat, 05/11/19 - 1:25 I think the state of NY needs to defend their gun laws. I don't want any changes to the law currently. I'd like to see this go to the Supreme Court. I'd really like to see the highest court in the nation decide this once and for all!

Michael Ercolano Sat, 05/11/19 - 21:15 This rule change is too little, too late. NYC purposely makes it difficult and expensive (AKA infringement) for law abiding citizens just to get and maintain a premises license. You can't even get a carry license at all unless you are rich and famous and have connections. I'm looking forward to this SCOTUS case, and I hope they rule against NYC.

Raymond Nocella Sat, 05/11/19 - 21:33 This is attemp to put a band aid on the problem. .. anything short of repeal is unacceptable, It’s a right not a privilege!

William Millward Sun, 05/12/19 - 11:30 In a truly free society this rule cannot stand. Firearm ownership is a right not a privilege. "The right to keep and BEAR arms shall not be INFRINGED." This rule is without doubt an infringement on the Second Amendment of our Constitution.

Ricardo Torres JR Sun, 05/12/19 - 20:35 I absolutely believe this proposal should go forth. The New York City Police Department should recognize that we also are the public. We’re responsible and trustworthy and have been vetted. Yet more importantly we are the ones who work within the confines of the law and recognize the responsibility of it .

Jamie Tittemore Sun, 05/12/19 - 22:45 NYS Pistol Permit process in and of itself is laughable when one considers the right to self defense and gun ownership is a right not a privilege. "May Issue" permits are blatantly unconstitutional, and then there is a fee as well. NYS beaurocrats should be concerned, since 2008 SCOTUS has ignored the attacks on the 2nd amendment, the court has now shifted and SCOTUS is now agreeing to hear these cases. I think a reckoning is on its way, and personally idprefer the State of New York leaves these laws "as is" so SCOTUS can review them in "all their splendor". Kavanaugh was very clear in his dissent on DC v Heller 2, about Scalia's test of history, text and tradition. I believe there is some concurrence about the level of scrutiny that states must apply when contemplating gun legislation, and I think thats why they may have agreed to hear this case. I believe NY's beaurocrats feel the same way, and thats why your trying to move the goalposts here. I dont believe its going to matter. We will still get review, and the remainder of the law is riddled with violations and inconsistencies.

m mazzone Mon, 05/13/19 - 11:32 I would respectfully ask the NYPD to expand the language in this amendment to include Limited Carry and Unrestricted Carry licenses as well. All NYC license holders should have the ability to take their firearms out of state for competitions, training, and practice. The current NYC "approved" ranges do not offer many of the training programs available at other locations and most (if not all) require a membership. In addition, the permitted NYC citizens have been through one of the most intensive screening process in the country. If they are trusted to posses firearms in NYC I'm sure they can be trusted to safely transport out of state. Thank you.

Simon Gratzman Mon, 05/13/19 - 21:17 This is attempt to put a band aid on the problem.Anything short of repeal is unacceptable, It’s a our constitutional right not a privilege!

Anthony Gerace Tue, 05/14/19 - 12:37 The process in which to obtain a pistol permit in NYC is a deterrent. The high application fee(s) is a deterrent. Per the guidelines, an applicant (once given a purchase authorization) is free to purchase a pistol throughout NYS. Once the pistol is purchased, inspected by NYPD and brought into your NYC home, your restrictions kick in. As a pistol owner in NYC, you are forbidden to transport the firearm out of NYC for any reason BUT you can transport the pistol to Upstate New York to hunt with (with authorization) while a request to transport the pistol to a range within NYS but outside of NYC is denied...…..CLEAR CONTRADICTION. THE RULES MUST BE FULLY REPEALED. ANYTHING LESS IS UNACCEPTABLE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Thank You and God Bless.

Barry Grossman Tue, 05/14/19 - 21:52 I fully support the change. It has unfairly rhe ability to train and become proficient with a handgun. Also restricts being able to bring your firearm to an other residence you may have out of the city, even if it’s unloaded and in a locked box. Please change the law.

Ken Johnsen Thu, 05/16/19 - 8:28 The second amendment states "shall not be infringed" The current rule and even th "new" proposed rule infringe on my right to move the firearms I own. New York City has no right to control my activity once I leave the city.

Scott Landman Thu, 05/16/19 - 13:01 Rules should permit the right to take pistol outside NYC to any other place lawfully permitted to carry. For example, I have full carry for NY state - I should be able to transport pistol to movie theater in Westchester.

Robert Romano Thu, 05/16/19 - 22:02 Attached is my comment in opposition to the proposed rule.

Louis Parente Fri, 05/17/19 - 10:38 We are law abiding citizens and not criminals, yet we are being treated as such. I have went through all of the necessary background checks required to own a handgun and yet NYC continues to infringe upon my Second Amendment Rights.The current rule imposed by New York City is a clear violation of those rights and needs to be challenged.

Jay Publius Fri, 05/17/19 - 14:18 I support the proposed rule changes. I have attached a document of several additional rule changes which I believe are necessary to comply with Osterweil, benefit pistol permit holders, and render the Supreme Court case moot.