Westchester pistol fees bill on Senate agenda

S-4879, Provides that the legislative body of the county of Westchester shall fix the fee to be charged for a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver and provide for the disposition of such fees, is on the Senate Codes agenda for Monday 5/22 @ 11:00am.

Companion A-5092.

Newsbits

Thursday’s Newsbits:

Elections:

Jurisprudence:

Legislation:

Politics:

Deep Thoughts by Monica Ferguson


Newsbits

Friday’s Newsbits:

Elections:

Jurisprudence:

Legislation:

Politics:

S-3340, ERPO reporting, passed Senate

S-3340, Requires Extreme Risk Protection Orders to be reported to the statewide computerized registry of orders of protection and certain warrants of arrest, passed the Senate.

Companion A-5873.

 

Changes in the state budget bill

There are some changes to the CCIA in one of the state budget bills A-3005C/S-4005C which was just enacted. Governor Hochul talked about doing it early on in the budget negotiations process then everybody got quiet about it.

Here is what changed:

  • Exemption from place of worship sensitive location for “those persons responsible for security at such place of worship.”
  • Privately held land within a public park is excluded from the private park section of the definition of sensitive location.
  • The “forest preserve” as defined in subdivision six of section 41 9-0101 of the environmental conservation law is excluded from the definition of public park as a sensitive location. This effectively excludes parts, but not the entirety, of the Adirondack and Catskill Parks from falling under the public park sensitive location definition.
  • Summer camps have a narrow exemption that allows them to maintain and use guns in some circumstances.
  • Sensitive location exemption for hunting expanded and reworded. “persons while lawfully engaged in taking of wildlife or attempts to take wildlife pursuant to a hunting permit or license issued by the department of environmental conservation, or as otherwise authorized pursuant to the environmental conservation law, and persons while lawfully engaged in hunter education training, marksmanship practice, marksmanship competition or training, or training in the safe handling and use of firearms, in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules, and regulations.”
  • Sensitive location exemption for employees of the revenue control and security departments of the MTA and the NYC transit authority who are authorized to carry a firearm as part of their employment.
  • Sensitive location exemption for persons engaged in historical reenactments and motion picture or theatrical productions while in compliance with local, state, and federal law.
  • Sensitive location exemption for persons while participating in military ceremonies, funerals, and honor guards.
  • Sensitive location exemption for storage or display of antique firearms, rifles or shotguns at museums and historic sites.
  • Sensitive location exemption for individuals traveling to or actively competing or training in biathlon, while complying with local, state, and federal law.
  • Restricted location exemption for hunting. “persons while lawfully engaged in taking of wildlife or attempts to take wildlife pursuant to a hunting permit or license issued by the department of environmental conservation, or as otherwise authorized pursuant to section 11-0707 and 11-0709 of the environmental conservation law.”
  • Restricted location exemption for employees of the revenue control and security departments of the MTA and the NYC transit authority who are authorized to carry a firearm as part of their employment.
  • Police and military exemption for mandatory unload and lock of rifles, shotguns, and firearms when left in a vehicle.

Draft of armed while intoxicated bill

Here is a draft copy of the proposed Saratoga Springs’ ordinance prohibiting carrying while intoxicated (PDF).

Don’t be surprised if other municipalities introduce similar bills even though state law prohibits them from enacting their own gun laws.

DiPerna-Gillen v. Ryba

A good 2A decision from the courts. A more detailed write-up is at The Volokh Conspiracy, “Petitioner’s Second Amendment Rights Are Not Dependent on Her Spouse’s Acquisition …“, but here is the gist of it:

“… The court’s main point was that, given the decision in Bruen, which came down while the appeal was pending, petitioner had a constitutionally protected right to carry, even without a showing of special need …”

More info here too, “Matter of DiPerna-Gillen v Ryba.”

Newsbits

Friday’s Newsbits:

Armed Citizen:

Jurisprudence:

Politics: