Skip to content

New York City Firearm Licensing Standards Amendments

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


Rule status: Adopted

Agency: NYPD

Effective date: January 5, 2025

Proposed Rule Full Text
NYPD-handgun-licenses-10.22.24-Certified.pdf

Adopted Rule Full Text
NYPD-Final-handgun-licenses-12-Legal-14991760_187750-KB-CLEAN-Legal-14994116_189811-KB.pdf

Adopted rule summary:

In brief, these rules: 1. Create a procedure to allow individuals who do not reside in NYS to apply for licenses within NYC; 2. Clarify the procedures surrounding registering a handgun to a person’s license; and 3. Amend the limitations to the quantity of handguns that may be registered to a Concealed Carry license. 4. Makes minor corrections. Additionally of note: A licensee may still only carry concealed one firearm at any given time.

Comments are now closed.

Online comments: 39

  • Joe. R

    Hello and good day,

    ss.15(J) Arbitrarily amends the rule to to alter the expiration date of a permit from three years from the issuance of the permit to “every three years on the permittee’s birthday”. This change could effectively make the term of a permit 2 years and 1 day, if a permittee has a birthday early in the year. This artificially decreases the length and increases the cost to keep a license. No reasonable justification for this change is outlined, and it should be seriously reconsidered prior to the draft of the final rule.

    ss19(b)(4) and ss19(b)(5) lay out regulations for non-resident carry applications. Requiring other out of state law enforcement agencies to do background investigatory work prior to the issuance of a permit is an undue burden on the applicant and the already overworked agency. Agencies will be unlikely to complete this work, when it is an unusual request that they do not have procedures for, and will be requested without the payment of a fee. I do not believe that agencies will reasonably carry out this work on behalf of the NYPD, which will deny applicants their constitutional rights in accordance with the Bruen decision. Additionally, the current wording implies that an applicant must have been a resident of their jurisdiction for at least five years. This is arbitrary and should be removed. NICS and the NYPD’s existing investigatory methods have proven successful, and creating an additional burden for other agencies should be seriously reconsidered prior to the draft of the final rule, and I recommend it be removed entirely.

    ss27(g)(3)(a) Arbitrarily limits a non-resident license to one firearm, when all other carry licenses allow two firearms registered to them. All carry licenses should allow permit the same number of firearm registrations. There is no legitimate reason for this change outlined, and two should be the bare minimum, as one firearm may be at a gunsmith at any time. This change should be seriously reconsidered prior to the draft of the final rule.

    I would also like to clarify that ss27(a), the clause limiting the acquisition of a firearm to one in every ninety day period, does not apply to non-residents, who a non-resident permit, as those permittees would not be governed by NY State and NY City for that matter, and instead would be subject to their home state’s licensing regime.
    Naturally, non-residents would acquire firearms in their home states, but if those states allow for more frequent purchases than 1-in-90, then legal home-state purchases at a frequency greater than allowed for NYC residents would *not* be grounds for revoking a lawful permit. For the avoidance of doubt, a final rule should include language specifically waiving these and other relevant requirements for permittees who are non-resident permit holders.

    Thank you for your consideration of my comments.

    Comment added November 2, 2024 6:28pm
  • Yu Lau

    The 90 day rule should be removed. It is nothing more than intentional bad faith inconvenience by NYPD and the city against lawful gun owners. It does nothing to prevent criminal’s access to illegal firearms and commit their crimes.

    Comment added November 2, 2024 6:55pm
  • Gurminder Singh

    Will it be possible to add the FDE color or flat dark earth color to the approved colors for firearms, its an extremely popular color all throughout the nation and I think it should be made available to the residents of NYC as well.

    Comment added November 2, 2024 7:11pm
  • GP

    Waiting period of 90 days is unconstitutional, I believe it was struck down in another state.
    We need one license, “limited ,for premises only”, or full license, carry. Both can require training, but for carry is 18 hours with shooting.
    No need for Waiting for approval, and have gun information on a back,new card, etc.. have a barcode ,or a chip with information connected to NYPD portal . All guns will be listed on portal for confirmation of ownership.
    Revamp 1PP ,issuing department, faster turnaround, better customer support. One person who takes care of a process or departmental, but access to individual at every stage.

    Comment added November 3, 2024 8:33am
  • Jonathan Zapata

    Out of state applicants must be made to rely on their local PD’s extended investigative efforts to get a license. There is no standard process for this so this could effectively bar some applicants entirely if their PD does not conduct investigations on behalf of NYC procedure.

    Comment added November 3, 2024 12:00pm
  • Joseph

    all looks fair except the fact that you have to do a separate background check if you lived in another state in the last 5 years, and also to have to fill out a form in the jurisdiction of non resident permits for out of state applicants? In other words you are trying your best to deter new applicants for a constitutional right. This will most certainly be challenged in court if you attempt to finalize such a clause.

    Comment added November 3, 2024 1:51pm
  • C.C

    In reviewing the proposed changes, Imposing a restriction on one firearm per person rather than permit further infringes on my 2A rights especially since the original rule allowed a firearm purchase every 90 days per license.

    NYC should fall in line with all surrounding counties like Nassau and Suffolk county where there are no restrictions on the number of firearms allowed to be purchased with no color restrictions, same day registration and acquisition of a new permit in order to claim possession of a recently purchased firearm at an FFL.

    Especially since a license holder has completed a costly, exhaustive and lengthy process in order to obtain such permit to posses firearms.

    Further punishing and restricting NYC residents of their 2A rights only exposes the NYPD to further litigation and a Bruin 2.0 decision. NYC should also honor NYS issued CCW licenses.

    Comment added November 3, 2024 11:16pm
  • DE

    Please amend the rule so that NYS CCW permits are honored in NYC, at a minimum from the immediately surrounding counties.

    Comment added November 4, 2024 3:13pm
  • Justin S.

    I find this proposed rule change personally preposterous. Us non-city folk that reside in NY went through the same background check and applications as NYPD barring a driving abstract and cohabitation form. You all have the ability to grab our records from our county including finger prints yet you want us all to pay almost $500 to be able to carry in NYC and wait another 6 months, part of our state, while non-residents can now carry in your city.

    While I understand the public safety aspect of this, we are still New Yorkers. Not to mention, NYC owns the two major airports in the state which do not recognize county permit (depending on the port authority officer).

    It is very unfair and disheartening to know that the city is more interested in money grabbing than ensuring New Yorkers can defend themselves or even just drive through the city without disarming (which is the only reasonable way to get to upstate from LI and vice versa).

    I have extensive family in the city and roots going back there.

    I beg the NYPD to please consider amending the rule further to allow non-NYC members to carry in the city or otherwise pass through without disarming. The uptick in crime such as slashings, gun violence and other forms of violence should be enough to recognize our permits.

    Your fellow New Yorker.

    Comment added November 4, 2024 3:16pm
  • Michael Kouloumbis

    More gun control laws, long waits, costly fees, gun features, and other restrictions only affect law-abiding people who go through legal avenues to obtain firearms, and ammunition. Criminals obtain their firearms through illegal channels and will never be deterred by state, local and federal laws, or to register their guns, not use high capacity magazines, or not use banned guns by the N.Y. SAFE Act or any law. That’s why more Laws, and gun free zones have virtually no impact on criminals. There are presently in the United States more than 20,000 gun laws on the books at local, state and federal levels, how are adding more laws to that number is going to stop criminals.

    Comment added November 4, 2024 4:54pm
  • Chris Doumas

    With all due respect. “Shall” is not a word of option, rather, it is a mandate. NYS and in particular, NYC have made a mockery of the Constitution and the second amendment. The provisions set forth by the CCIA and our illustrious Gov. Hochul have only created proverbial ring of fire for all law abiding citizens. One step in the wrong direction and good people are turned into criminals – it’s not right. I don’t oppose common sense and safe gun ownership but I do oppose the entirety of the CCIA.

    Comment added November 4, 2024 7:06pm
  • Lawrence White

    1 firearm in 90 day rule is unconstitutional and needs to be completely struck down along with the standard magazine capacity ban and the long wait periods for the license to arrive in the mail after each firearm purchase in order to pick up the firearm from the ffl.

    Comment added November 4, 2024 7:08pm
  • JOHN K LEE MD

    No one gun per 90 day. This is unconstitutional and we paid for those permits. We will fight this to the Supreme Court of the United States

    Comment added November 4, 2024 7:52pm
  • Michael Pasquale

    Restricting law-abiding citizens’ access to means of self-defense while failing to prevent criminals from obtaining and using illegal firearms is illogical and counterproductive. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that allowing individuals to make frequent firearm purchases poses a danger to public safety. Additionally, there is no justifiable reason for imposing restrictions on the color options available for firearms. Personal preferences vary, and some individuals may prefer brighter colors for enhanced visibility and safety when carrying a concealed weapon, while others may opt for more discreet colors based on their attire.

    Comment added November 5, 2024 3:25am
  • MS

    The proposed changes 90 Day rule and limitations to my CCW are unconsttutional and in violation of my rights. It is all but impossible to get through on all of your phone lines to ask important questions and obtain the status of a pending application. I have my CCW, however, have been waiting for approval of my Premise Permit since 1/20/24 and are approaching the 11 month mark. I was called by my investigator (3) weeks ago and was told to keep watch for an E mail and have received nothing to date. I will now will be sending a Registered certified letter.

    Comment added November 5, 2024 6:34am
  • Kevin

    The 90 day rule is unconstitutional and i want you guys to ask criminals how much they care about your licensing and restrictions. You hurt law abiding citizens who follow these crazy rules while criminals can just get what they want because guess what… they dont give 2 about your laws. Theyre criminals. Wake up

    Comment added November 5, 2024 12:11pm
  • Jose M.

    ss27(a), the clause limiting the acquisition of a firearm to one in every ninety day period, should be removed. There is no legitimate reason to impose this limit on lawful gun owners who jump through so many obstacles to acquire a license.

    ss27(g)(3)(a) Arbitrarily limits a non-resident license to one firearm. What is the point of this? Owners should be able to carry any gun they lawfully posses.

    Comment added November 5, 2024 8:41pm
  • Nathaniel Mack

    NYC needs to get rid of the 90 day rule immediately it does nothing for safety should be able to buy a fire arm when I want .Recently 1pp ran out of cards that’s part due to purchase authorization because you have to print a new card after a new firearm is purchased.We should be able to register our firearm at the store that way we wouldn’t have to wait to bring our firearm home and I wouldn’t have to buy the firearm send pics and wait for license in the mail then go back to pick it up that’s senseless.340 dollars is way to much for a application fee lets knock that down to about 100 make it more affordable for the people.Also besides online let people ba able to apply on paper at 1pp that way we can knock out the paper work picture and fingerprints all in one that’s will and cut the time to get my license.please stop breaking the law and going over the six month mark it starts from submission of application not from fingerprints make it Easier on people

    Comment added November 11, 2024 7:49am
  • J. Jones

    I oppose the following amendments:

    The imposition of a 90-day limit between firearm purchases;

    The restrictive “safe storage” requirements already addressed in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008); and

    One handgun limit for non-New York City residents.

    Comment added November 20, 2024 4:22am
  • 7 Daniel

    The NYPD Firearms Licensing Process: A Broken System in Need of Reform

    Imagine needing answers about a critical process, but every attempt to get help feels like shouting into the void. That’s what dealing with the NYPD firearms licensing process often feels like. If you’ve been through it, you probably know the frustration all too well. Let’s talk about it.

    1. No One’s Home—Or So It Feels

    Have you ever tried calling the NYPD licensing division? If you’re lucky enough to get through, you’re greeted with long waits, no clear answers, or, worse, complete indifference.

    And don’t think sending an email helps. The system is a black hole where requests vanish without acknowledgment or response. Need to follow up? Good luck. The process feels like being in a room full of police officers, trying to ask for help, and they all pretend you’re invisible.

    What’s the point of having email notifications if no one is going to respond? It’s a slap in the face to law-abiding citizens trying to navigate an already complicated process.

    2. Wait Times That Make No Sense

    Here’s a head-scratcher:
    • You’re a firearms instructor with years of experience.
    • You’ve trained countless students to safely and responsibly handle firearms.
    • Yet, your application gets put on a waitlist longer than the students you trained.

    How is this even possible? Some students get their licenses in four months, while the instructor who taught them might wait years.

    Let’s not even get started on retired law enforcement officers. Why does a retired officer have to wait up to five years for a concealed carry permit while current NYPD personnel get theirs in two weeks? Two weeks!

    This isn’t just inefficiency—it’s cronyism, plain and simple. And let’s be honest, if this isn’t unethical, it’s walking a fine line.

    3. The Elephant in the Room: Favoritism

    No one likes to say it out loud, but we need to talk about it:
    • Why are some applications processed faster than others?
    • Why are certain people seemingly fast-tracked while others—often more qualified—are left to wait indefinitely?

    It’s hard not to see this as favoritism or nepotism. And when retired officers, instructors, and everyday citizens see this happening, it erodes trust in the entire process.

    4. Transparency? What Transparency?

    The NYPD’s firearms licensing system feels like a black box:
    • You submit your application and documents.
    • Then… nothing.
    • No updates, no communication, just an endless wait.

    If you’re lucky, someone might eventually get back to you. But in most cases, you’re left wondering if your application was even reviewed.

    5. Let’s Ask the Tough Questions

    Why isn’t there a clear, fair, and efficient system for licensing?
    • Why do some applicants wait five years while others wait months?
    • Why does the system feel designed to frustrate and discourage lawful gun ownership?
    • And most importantly, why isn’t anyone being held accountable?

    6. What Needs to Change

    Here’s the bottom line: the NYPD firearms licensing process is broken. But it doesn’t have to be this way. Here are some solutions:
    • Dedicated Customer Support: A fully staffed helpline during business hours and timely email responses (48 hours max) are basic expectations for any professional organization.
    • Standardized Processing: Every application should follow the same timeline, with no exceptions based on rank, title, or connections.
    • Transparency: An online tracking system would allow applicants to monitor their status in real-time, reducing uncertainty and stress.
    • Audit the System: Investigate claims of favoritism, cronyism, and delays to ensure fairness for all applicants.

    7. The Bigger Picture

    This isn’t just about firearms licenses or.about the ‘color of guns’; it’s about trust. When citizens feel ignored, delayed, or outright dismissed, it damages their faith in the system.

    The NYPD licensing division needs to remember that they work for the public. Law-abiding citizens deserve a fair, transparent, and efficient process—not one riddled with delays, favoritism, and inefficiencies.

    So, let’s start refocusing on the real issues not ones that are.simply a debate in one’s own mind, and begin asking the hard questions and pushing for change. Because when the system fails those who follow the rules, it’s not just unfair—it’s unacceptable.

    What’s your experience with the NYPD licensing process? Share your story in the comments below. Let’s shine a light on this broken system together.

    Comment added November 20, 2024 5:47am
  • Daniel Martiñez

    The proposed rules contain several provisions that raise significant constitutional concerns and practical challenges.

    90-Day Waiting Period:
    The requirement that firearm acquisitions be limited to one every 90 days (ss27(a)) is a clear infringement on Second Amendment rights. Courts have repeatedly affirmed in decisions such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and more recently in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) that firearm regulations must not place undue burdens on law-abiding citizens exercising their right to bear arms. This arbitrary restriction fails to demonstrate any meaningful connection to public safety and instead imposes an unnecessary barrier to lawful gun ownership.

    Non-Resident Applications:
    Requiring out-of-state applicants to rely on their local law enforcement for investigative efforts (ss19(b)(4) and ss19(b)(5)) is both unreasonable and unconstitutional. This effectively outsources NYC’s licensing obligations to external jurisdictions that lack a formal process for such requests. It may also violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution) by subjecting applicants to procedural hurdles that their local authorities are neither obligated nor equipped to handle. Such provisions could result in an effective denial of rights, contrary to the principles established in Bruen.

    I urge the NYPD to reconsider these changes to ensure compliance with constitutional standards and fair treatment of all applicants.

    Thank you for your time and consideration.

    Comment added November 20, 2024 8:22am
  • lawrence tesser

    to be able to add a pistol purchased and added to resident or home county permit which is outside the five boroughs easy and efficiently to a central email with specific steps needed either photos of the firearm , serial number bill of sale etc , send in appropriate info and get a replacement card in the mail with new firearm added to carry legally in the boroughs .

    Comment added November 20, 2024 6:50pm
  • Charlie Mills

    CHANGE THE REGISTRATION PROCESS!

    If you were to update your website to ask for accurate info, actually SAVE the info uploaded, and made an area where LICENSE HOLDERS can upload their new firearm documents, receive a “confirmation msg” when done, that would be great.

    Also, when an officer stops a permit holder, they call 1pp to verify validity of permit AND confirm he can carry that firearm he’s caught with. At that point there is NO reason for us to have an ID card updated with new firearms info on it EVERY-TIME we buy a new gun.

    Common sense resolutions can help you save resources and reduce stress for your employees.

    Comment added November 20, 2024 8:52pm
  • Labinot Shala

    Concerns Over Unacceptable Delays and Burdens in Firearm Licensing Process

    I am writing to express my concerns regarding the excessive delays and onerous requirements involved in obtaining a firearm permit through the NYPD Firearm Licensing Division. While we understand the need for a thorough vetting process to ensure public safety, the current procedures impose unnecessary burdens on law-abiding citizens and fail to strike a balance between security and efficiency.

    As a family man who values the importance of personal safety, I am deeply concerned about the additional 4–6 week delay between the approval of a permit and its issuance. This period is excessive and serves no meaningful purpose. In a time when random attacks on citizens are becoming alarmingly frequent, such delays could have life-altering consequences. The bureaucracy of the current system is not only inefficient but also unacceptable, especially for those seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

    To address these issues, I respectfully request that the following changes be implemented:
    1. Clarify the Application Process:
    The current application process is unnecessarily convoluted, creating confusion for applicants who are trying to comply with all requirements. Clearer instructions and accessible resources would streamline the process for all involved.
    2. Eliminate Character Reference Letters:
    The requirement for notarized character reference letters is outdated and unnecessary. Many applicants have reported that these references are never contacted, making this an arbitrary and ineffective step. Removing this requirement would save applicants time and reduce administrative redundancy.
    3. Remove DMV Lifetime Abstract Requirement:
    Since the NYPD already has access to DMV records, requiring applicants to provide a lifetime abstract is duplicative and unwarranted. This is another unnecessary hurdle that wastes time and resources for both applicants and the department.
    4. Eliminate Safe Picture and Receipt Requirements:
    Asking applicants to mail pictures of safes and receipts for items purchased years prior is unreasonable. Many individuals do not retain these receipts, and a visual confirmation offers little assurance beyond the applicant’s sworn compliance with safe storage laws.

    Exercising our Second Amendment right should not require navigating a process more complicated than buying a house or adopting a child. The delays and excessive requirements suggest a system that prioritizes bureaucracy over its stated purpose: ensuring that responsible citizens can protect themselves and their families.

    I urge the NYPD Licensing Division to review these concerns seriously and take steps to eliminate unnecessary barriers. Streamlining the process while maintaining its integrity would ensure that law-abiding citizens are treated with fairness and respect.

    Sincerely,
    Labinot Shala

    Comment added November 20, 2024 9:10pm
  • Barry Walker

    Hello everyone,

    The time it takes to get approved for a permit in nyc needs to be sped up. It took me 10 months from the time of submission to approval for my CC permit. Another 2 weeks to receive my physical permit after having to bring said approval documents to the FFL and email NYPD is an undue burden.

    Lower the permit fees. NYC permit fees are one of the highest (if not the highest) in the country. This cause an undue burden to those that can’t afford the current $300+ fee. PA cost me $20 for a non resident CC permit and I had it in less than 2 weeks. Florida (at the time last year) was roughly $100 for a non resident CC.

    The policy of HAVING to purchase a handgun within 30 days of being approved for a CC permit or have it revoked is unconstitutional. Simply having the permit with no firearm harms no body.

    90 day waiting period between purchasing a handgun (or rifle/shotgun) is also unconstitutional. I do not have to wait 90 days to use my first amendment,5th amendment, 3rd, etc etc etc. the second amendment is not a second class right.

    Update the allowed color options (or do away with them all together). This is an antiquated policy.

    Add more or hire more P.O.s/Det./investigators to the Lic div to handle the load.

    Improve customer service. Answer the phones, reply to emails within a reasonable time frame. 2+ days is not acceptable.

    Forcing ppl to buy a trigger guard is an undue burden, when 99.9 percent of handguns come with a cable lock.

    Allow more than 2 handguns to be “attached” the CC permits. Having a CC permit and still having to pay and go through a premise permit application and process is unnecessary and yet another undue burden to the people. If a person has a CC permit there should be no reason they need a premise permit as well just to be able to own more than 2 firearms.

    Reduce the permit age to 18+. The 18-21 age group is part of “WE THE PEOPLE” as well.

    NYS/NYC/NYPD need to start complying with Bruen and cease to continue to infringe on the people’s 2A rights. The above entities will continue to get sued and will continue to lose. Save the citizens taxpayer dollars. You can allocate that money to guns safety and firearm awareness projects.

    Most of the current laws/policies here only hinder and burden law abiding citizens. Criminals do not care about laws. Especially criminals who are here from law-less countries. Allow us to protect ourselves. We do not live in a Minority report type of society.

    Comment added November 20, 2024 10:54pm
  • Jeff

    Please improve the process of purchasing/registering a handgun. It is very inconvenient to have to email the handgun intake dept which is sometimes full and wait weeks without a response. I don’t even know if the submission was even received or not. Then even after confirmation I have to wait weeks to receive my new permit via mail. Please allow pickups at 1PP or something. I will gladly make the trip to pickup my permit. The issuing phone number also needs to have people picking up the phone during business hours as it is sometimes impossible to get someone on the phone.

    Comment added November 20, 2024 11:46pm
  • THEODORE J GOODMAN

    Why does it take so long to process my application when I already had a Premise permit in NYC and NYS for over 25 years….

    Comment added November 21, 2024 8:35am
  • R. Garcia

    90-day Waiting Period
    The ‘1 gun in 90 days’ rule absolutely must go. It is an infringement on law-abiding citizens and cannot in any way be tied to increased safety of the people of NYC. Once an approved permit holder has a license to carry concealed or holds a premises permit there is no reason to limit the number of handguns that may be purchased — especially after they already have a handgun.

    Purchase Authorization Process
    Having firearms listed/printed on the back of the license is an onerous process for NYPD and should be eliminated immediately as it provides very little value. Records are computerized and NYPD is already able to keep track of which firearms are registered to which license/person. There is no need to spend the time and resources to print a new card every time there is a change to the list of registered handguns. The list can be displayed for the permitholder via the existing online licensing portal/website.

    Color Restrictions
    Search for images on your preferred search engine using the phrase ‘flat dark earth’ and you will find handguns and other firearms. This color is ubiquitous for handguns. There is no reason why this color should not be permitted for NYC permitholders. Restricting it in no way increases safety for the people of NYC.

    There is also unnecessary ambiguity — how dark do “dark gray” and “dark green” need to be in order to be approved? There is currently no objective way to communicate or test this.

    The color restriction should be removed.

    Service
    It is almost impossible to get someone on the phone or get an email reply about the application process or any other question on this already confusing and convoluted process. Efforts should be undertaken to either simplify the application and purchase authorization process or provide additional support/service to applicants and permitholders (or both!).

    Comment added November 21, 2024 9:21am
  • Aaron L.

    Dear NYPD / NYPD Legal,

    I am writing to formally oppose the proposed amendments to Title 38 of the Rules of the City of New York (RCNY) regarding firearms licensing. While I support necessary corrections to typographical errors or outdated references, I strongly oppose the substantive changes regarding:

    • The imposition of a 90-day limit between firearm purchases;
    • The restrictive “safe storage” requirements already addressed in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008); and
    • The one-handgun limit for non-New York City residents
    • Override state law to remove sensitive locations

    Legal Violations and Constitutional Overreach
    The proposed amendments violate constitutional protections under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court in Heller explicitly rejected overly burdensome firearm storage mandates, affirming that such requirements infringe upon an individual’s right to self-defense within their home. These new rules are a direct attempt to impose similar unconstitutional restrictions.
    The imposition of a 90-day waiting period between firearm purchases is not only excessive but has also been ruled unconstitutional in similar cases.

    Most notably, in Nguyen v. Bonta, California’s “1-in-30” law restricting firearm purchases was struck down for violating the Second Amendment. The court in that case affirmed that such arbitrary waiting periods infringe on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. The proposed 90-day rule mirrors these unconstitutional restrictions and will likely face similar legal challenges.

    Additionally, limiting non-New York City residents to only one handgun is discriminatory and baseless, as no compelling evidence justifies such disparate treatment. These restrictions are inconsistent with federal court precedents, which have struck down laws that unnecessarily burden law-abiding firearm owners.

    Failure to Ensure Public Safety
    The NYPD has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to ensure public safety, particularly over the past four years. Despite these failures, the Department seeks to impose additional restrictions on law-abiding citizens while providing no clear evidence that these rules will reduce crime or improve public safety. Moreover, courts have established that law enforcement agencies, including the NYPD, are not legally required to protect individual safety. The proposed rules, therefore, further disadvantage citizens who seek to protect themselves responsibly and lawfully.

    Most recently, there have been multiple cases where the NYPD and laws have failed its citizens and those who visit the city. There was a stabbing spree that left 3 people dead because a individual who was let out on bail stabbed them with kitchen knifes.

    These knives 4 inches and longer are illegal under NYC law. So the law did nothing to protect people and stop a crazy person from using a kitchen knife longer than 4 inches to hurt 3 people. This person went through/near sensitive locations, so that law did nothing to protect people or keep anyone safe.

    Why these laws still on the books?
    Why is the legal team in NYC and the NYPD Legal team so bent on keeping these rules and laws in place when there’s people being murdered and hurt constantly:

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/2-killed-new-york-city-stabbing-spree-3-different-manhattan-locations-rcna180653

    Accountability and Ongoing Scrutiny
    The NYPD Licensing Division, particularly its leadership (“Top Brass”), is currently under scrutiny for its licensing processes and accountability. 
    The rules proposed here only exacerbate this issue, as they impose arbitrary and punitive restrictions that lack clear justification. Moreover, as per the City Administrative Procedure Act (CAPA), the NYPD has the authority to strike down these rules. 

    It should do so in the interest of compliance with constitutional law and the restoration of public trust.

    The NYPD should relinquish its licensing powers over to a civilian board as it has proved over years that the NYPD and this division has been littered with corruptions. Here are a few cases:

    https://nypost.com/2016/05/17/cop-tasked-with-cleaning-up-nypd-gun-licensing-division-abruptly-quits/
    https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/nypd-gun-license-bribery-scheme-case/
    https://nypost.com/2018/04/17/ex-cop-nypd-gun-license-division-was-a-bribery-machine/
    https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2024/09/12/nypd-commissioner-reportedly-stepping-down-amid-corruption-probe-n1226212

    Potential Civil Rights Violations
    The NYPD’s actions may also constitute violations of Section 242 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which makes it a crime to deprive individuals of their constitutional rights under the color of law. If these rules are implemented, I will formally report this violation to the appropriate federal authorities and the new presidential administration for further investigation and potential legal action.

    Conclusion
    The proposed rules are unconstitutional, unnecessary, and counterproductive to public safety. They represent a clear overreach of authority, violate civil rights, and fail to address any meaningful safety concerns. I urge the NYPD to strike down these proposals in their entirety and focus on policies that respect constitutional rights while addressing legitimate public safety concerns.

    Lastly, you work for us—the people. We do need to ask for permission to exercise our rights, let alone pay fees for it. This nonsense has been dragging out for 100 years and over the next few years lawsuits will continue to destroy these unconstitutional laws and “Rules” the NYPD and NYC government have on the books in the courts with lawsuits.

    Rant for you “Public Servants at the NYPD”
    What kind of nonsense is this.

    The second amendment was literally written for the overreaching and tyrannical New York City government. A government which makes you swear an oath to defend the NYC Charter, New York State Constitution and the Federal US Constitution—all of these “Rules” and local laws violate our rights and “enforcing” these nonsense laws means you’re violating our rights.

    We fought a war over gun control and a 2% tax. Now we’re paying close to 40% in taxes and you’re making us ask for permission to own a firearm? You guys are clowns.

    Nothing in this message can be construed as hate speech (SCOTUS ruled “hate speech” is protected speech). New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, I can state my displeasure with government officials. If this comment is “modified” and/or not posted, the NYPD will be sued for a 1st amendment violation and anything else a good lawyer can conjure.

    You guys, gals and genderless gingerbread cookies are scum.

    Sincerely,
    Aaron L.

    Comment attachment
    New-York-City-Firearm-Licensing-Standards-Amendments_Nov_21_2024_Aaron-L.docx
    Comment added November 21, 2024 8:19pm
  • Bernard T.

    The New York City rule that you can only carry one licensed handgun at a time needs to be changed. As far as I know, New York State does not have a law that limits the number of handguns a person can carry at the same time so why should NYC? What is NYC’s reason for such a restriction? Law abiding citizens have a Constitutional right to bear arms for self defense. Criminals carry as many weapons as they wish so why should a NYC concealed handgun carry licensee not be permitted to carry a 2nd handgun? I would like to carry a 2nd handgun as a backup in case my primary gun fails in a life and death situation.

    Comment added November 21, 2024 10:37pm
  • MC

    Please see my attached white paper: “Critical Flaws in the NYPD Proposed Handgun Regulations”

    My primary points are summarized below, with more detail in the attached document:

    1. NYPD’s proposed rules target a constituency that is already highly regulated

    2. The NYPD has provided no public safety justification for these rules

    3. The proposed restatement of RCNY Title 38 Section 5-25 is categorically redundant with existing state and federal law, contains opaque language, and serves no discernible public safety purpose

    4. Adoption of the proposed rules would make NYC a legal “lightning rod” – vulnerable to costly litigation and unfavorable case outcomes that may erode future public safety for City residents

    5. NYC and the NYPD have proven to be unreliable defenders of their own firearms regulations in federal courts

    6. The proposed rules undermine the City’s gun violence prevention objectives

    7. The proposed rules divert valuable resources away from law enforcement and towards administrative tasks

    8. The NYPD has forced the implementation of these rules via emergency rule power, bypassing both state and city council legislative processes

    9. The NYPD License Division routinely violates state law and fails to enforce its own rules consistently

    10. The NYPD License Division has a recent history of corruption; its rules should be subject to additional scrutiny to prevent further misconduct

    Comment attachment
    White-Paper-Critical-Flaws-in-NYPD-Proposed-Handgun-Licensing-Rules_November-2024.pdf
    Comment added November 22, 2024 3:28am
  • BGH

    (g) 3 (a)
    For Non-Resident Carry licenses issued pursuant to R.C.N.Y. § 5-03(b), requests to add more than one (1) handgun to a license shall not be approved.

    Should one’s self defense firearm need repair or maintenance it would leave the permit holder with no firearm for CCW. The license cannot be limited to one handgun.

    Comment added November 22, 2024 1:49pm
  • Jesse S.

    Remove the one in 90 days rule. Stop requiring each handgun to be listed on license. If a licensee loses or has their wallet stolen someone would know their address and each handgun that they have in their house. Also would save the licensing division money and time because it would not require a reprint every time an individual purchases a new handgun

    Comment added November 23, 2024 7:52am
  • Abdallah Khalil

    A list of proposed amendments:

    1. Make licenses and addition of firearms digital like NJ. ie emailing licenses/updating firearms on license

    2. Reduce outrageous fee of $340 for application

    3. Increase reciprocity

    4. REMOVE SENSITIVE LOCATIONS: Ensure that NYC’s policies comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen by removing overly restrictive barriers to lawful carry.

    5. IMPROVE PHONE CONTACT; during my application process I was unable to reach the licensing divisions extension, receiving April Cohen’s extension and voicemail over 30 times.

    6. Allow for online ammo purchasing.

    Thank you for taking the time to review my proposed amendments and look forward to having them discussed at the meeting.

    Comment added November 23, 2024 1:42pm
  • Zaur Nedashkovskiy

    Greetings.

    § 3-05 Rule (a)(7): Medical Conditions and Disabilities
    The inclusion of specific medical conditions such as epilepsy, diabetes, fainting spells, and nervous disorders as factors for disqualification is overly broad and discriminatory. Modern medicine allows many individuals to manage these conditions responsibly, and blanket exclusions fail to account for personal circumstances.
    Suggested Revision:
    Replace this rule with language that requires a physician’s certification attesting to an applicant’s fitness to handle firearms safely. This approach ensures fairness and avoids unnecessary exclusion based on manageable medical conditions.
    § 3-11 Purchase of Ammunition
    Requiring a certificate of registration to purchase ammunition adds an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. Existing procedure which consists of a valid firearm permit with listed caliber + NICS check is a robust & sufficient proof of eligibility to buy ammunition.
    Suggested Revision:
    Eliminate the requirement for a certificate of registration and allow permittees to use their firearm permit as proof of eligibility when purchasing ammunition.
    § 3-14 Rule (c): Transportation of Rifles/Shotguns
    The rule prohibiting permittees from leaving a rifle or shotgun in a vehicle unless they are physically present or in close proximity is impractical for everyday situations.
    Suggested Revision:
    Introduce exceptions for brief absences where the firearm is securely locked, such as when paying for gas, using a restroom, or running a quick errand. For example:
    “The permittee may briefly leave their rifle/shotgun securely locked in their vehicle for reasonable, time-limited activities, provided it is stored in a locked compartment or firearm safe.”
    § 5-25 Handgun Acquisition Requirements (Rules A and G)
    Rule A: Restrictions on the number of firearms a licensed individual can purchase within a certain timeframe are unnecessary and punitive. Licensed individuals have already demonstrated their responsibility, and further limiting their ability to purchase firearms offers no clear public safety benefit.
    Rule G: Limiting the number of handguns a licensed individual can own to two for Premise Residence or Carry licenses is unreasonable. Ownership and carrying are distinct issues and should be treated separately. Transporting multiple firearms securely (e.g., to a shooting range) should not be restricted.
    Suggested Revisions:
    • Rule A: Remove restrictions on firearm purchase frequency and quantity for licensed individuals.
    • Rule G: Eliminate the two-handgun ownership limit and instead require secure transport protocols (e.g., locked cases) for carrying multiple firearms. Allow lawful transport of all owned firearms to ranges or other legal destinations.

    I would also like to add that it is to no surprise that NY (especially NYC) firearm license holders carry the lowest crime rates in the country, we constantly go through checks & verifications which is a good thing, but what we see is NYPD adding more and more bureaucracy with 0 benefit to anyone but NYPD itself and as a result this looks nothing but infringement of a 2A rights. Instead i would like to see entire rule set to be revised with/in collaboration of some sort of open forum where licensed firearm owners could propose sensible rules/checks/requirements (or one of the organizations like Gun Owners of America for example) and make an emphasis on TRAINING REQUIREMENTS. Also, entire licensing scheme is extremely outdated. Why not to copy/mimic what your colleagues in NJ did by digitalizing the entire process ?

    Thank you,
    Zaur.

    Comment attachment
    NYPD-handgun-licenses-comments-zn.pdf
    Comment added November 25, 2024 6:31am
  • William C.

    Hi,

    Please see below.

    **1. § 3-05 Rule (a)(7): Medical Conditions and Disabilities**

    The inclusion of specific medical conditions such as epilepsy, diabetes, fainting spells, and nervous disorders as factors for disqualification is overly broad and discriminatory. Modern medicine allows many individuals to manage these conditions responsibly, and blanket exclusions fail to account for personal circumstances.

    **Suggested Revision:**

    Replace this rule with language that requires a physician’s certification attesting to an applicant’s fitness to handle firearms safely. This approach ensures fairness and avoids unnecessary exclusion based on manageable medical conditions.

    **§ 3-11 Purchase of Ammunition**

    Requiring a certificate of registration to purchase ammunition adds an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. A valid firearm permit should be sufficient proof of eligibility to buy ammunition.

    **Suggested Revision:**

    Eliminate the requirement for a certificate of registration and allow permittees to use their firearm permit as proof of eligibility when purchasing ammunition.

    **§ 3-14 Rule (c): Transportation of Rifles/Shotguns**

    The rule prohibiting permittees from leaving a rifle or shotgun in a vehicle unless they are physically present or in close proximity is impractical for everyday situations.

    **Suggested Revision:**

    Introduce exceptions for brief absences where the firearm is securely locked, such as when paying for gas, using a restroom, or running a quick errand. For example:

    “The permittee may briefly leave their rifle/shotgun securely locked in their vehicle for reasonable, time-limited activities, provided it is stored in a locked compartment or firearm safe.”

    **§ 5-25 Handgun Acquisition Requirements (Rules A and G)**

    **Rule A: Restrictions on the number of firearms a licensed individual can purchase within a certain timeframe are unnecessary and punitive. Licensed individuals have already demonstrated their responsibility, and further limiting their ability to purchase firearms offers no clear public safety benefit.**

    **Rule G: Limiting the number of handguns a licensed individual can own to two for Premise Residence or Carry licenses is unreasonable. Ownership and carrying are distinct issues and should be treated separately. Transporting multiple firearms securely (e.g., to a shooting range) should not be restricted.**

    **Suggested Revisions:**

    • **Rule A**: Remove restrictions on firearm purchase frequency and quantity for licensed individuals.

    • **Rule G**: Eliminate the two-handgun ownership limit and instead require secure transport protocols (e.g., locked cases) for carrying multiple firearms. Allow lawful transport of all owned firearms to ranges or other legal destinations.

    The waiting period and firearm limts are arbitrary and capricious. Creating more intentional impediments and slows down in an already onerous process will create an antagonist environment that will spur legal action against the City of New York. Similar laws relating to waiting periods, number of firearms and references are already being targeted for legal action in different states.

    These new proposed rules do not protect the public or licensencees that have already passed the application process and incentives citizens to turn to the illegal black market when they are unable to legally obtain a firearm.

    Comment added November 25, 2024 12:27pm
  • Brad H.

    To determine whether a state’s firearm restriction is constitutional, the Supreme Court in Bruen explained that “the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” 597 U.S. at 24.

    Bruen has already established that the Second Amendment covers Plaintiffs’ proposed conduct here—carrying arms publicly for self-defense and other lawful purposes. Id. at 31–32. Thus, the Second Amendment “presumptively protects” Plaintiffs’ right to carry firearms in public in New York City. Id. at 24.

    It is thus NYC’s burden to “affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.” Id. at 19; see also id. at 60 (“[W]e are not obliged to sift the historical materials for evidence to sustain New York’s statute. That is respondents’ burden.”).

    New York City cannot meet this burden. There is no well-established and representative historical tradition of the following:

    -Numerous SUBJECTIVE standards, all CCW requirements needs to be OBJECTIVE.
    -Driving History or Employment History subjective standard
    -Limiting CCW’s to One Handgun
    -Requiring outside agencies to provide details on permits held by the applicant.

    Comment added November 25, 2024 1:28pm
  • A. Clarke

    Re: Section 5-27 (a)
    “No person shall acquire a firearm if such person has acquired a firearm within the previous ninety (90) days. . .”:
    Unnecessary burden to NYC licensees who have already gone through a stringent (and likely unnecessary and unconstitutional process) to acquire an NYC permit. Though non-binding, it appears to be a clear bellwether that such a rule most likely wouldn’t withstand review as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in August (Nguyen v. Bonta) overturned a stay on a District Court ruling that enjoined California’s much less restrictive “1 in 30” day rule. NYC’s scheme seems entirely too burdensome and goes beyond any appearance of reasonability by comparison to California’s recently enjoined law. If “firearm” was replaced with “book”, many would balk at the rule and rightly so. Therefore seeing that this rule has an extremely high likelihood of failing against a legal challenge, NYPD should remove it to save the taxpayers’ money, NYC permit holders’ time, and to respect NYC permit holders’ rights.

    Re: Section 5-27 (c) & (d)
    “A licensee may not take possession of a handgun without prior written authorization. . .” &
    “A licensee may not take possession of a handgun before it has been inspected by License Division personnel and entered on the license. . .”:
    These create additional and superfluous steps. If it is deemed absolutely necessary that certain firearm information such as make, model, and serial number must be printed on the back of each license, then the burdens that accompany the inescapable delays of this process should not fall on those wishing to exercise their rights. As a default, gun owners should be able to take possession immediately, and the NYPD card issuance times should not burden owners. The built-in delays in this inefficient process only harm permit holders. Part “(d)” also touches on a rule not in the hearing today, but likely important to the reasoning and NYPD’s justification for part “(d)” – the “acceptable color rule”. Any other pistol bought in the state conforms to about all of the same rules as NYC’s barring the “acceptable color rule”. If laws precluding state FFL’s already determine which handguns can be sold, then an additional law on buyers do nothing. So removing part “(d)” (and the “acceptable color rule” by extension) would do much to lessen the arbitrary limits on permit holders and likewise do much to clean up the overall process.

    Re: Section 5-27 (d)(5)
    “A color photograph depicting the safety locking device for the purchased handgun. . .”:
    Highly unnecessary as all guns sold in NY already come with a locking device. It is an additional step that only creates an opportunity for some kind of disqualification resulting in a resubmission delay. Overall this does nothing positive, but rather can only result in harm to NYC permit holders attempting to acquire a gun.

    Re: Section 5-27 (d)(5)
    “Proof of ownership of safe storage. . .”:
    This is also unnecessary as it is done from the initial purchase. There is no reason for this to be a requirement each time.

    Overall, these rules despite the NYPD’s stated goals, do not appear to do anything but frustrate the law-abiding. They do not add value to lawful gun owners’ lives, but instead open numerous potential delays and disqualifiers to those wishing to exercise their rights as many others throughout the state, and to a greater extent the country do daily.

    Comment added November 25, 2024 1:50pm
  • Kenneth Dumex

    ss19(b)(4) and ss19(b)(5) Requiring out of state law enforcement agencies to do background investigatory work prior to the issuance of a permit is impossible as they will never complete this. This prevents our 2A rights as other agency will not comply and prohibit one from legally bearing arms.

    Comment added November 25, 2024 7:30pm