Law and Order: College Village resident accused of stealing card number to order Chinese food and pizza
Laquasia M. Orr, 19, of Bronx, is charged with two counts of identity theft, 3rd, and one count of attempted identity theft, 3rd. Orr's arrest stems from a fraud complaint filed Feb. 23 and investigated by state troopers. Orr is accused of memorizing the debit card number of a former roommate and linking it to her own e-mail address and using it to order Chinese food delivery on two occasions and one attempt to order pizza.The total value of the alleged theft is $60. Video surveillance was used to help identify the person who signed for the food delivery orders.The investigation is ongoing.
Zivko Kacurovski, 56, of Linden Tree Lane, Rochester, is charged with possession of more than 400 untaxed cigarettes. Kacurovski was stopped at 11:06 a.m. Thursday on Route 77, Pembroke, by Deputy Patrick Reeves. Kacurovski was allegedly in possession of 3,200 untaxed cigarettes.
Joshua Lenair Webster, 28, of West Main Street, Batavia, is charged with two counts of attempted criminal contempt, 2nd. While incarcerated at the Genesee County Jail, Webster allegedly made two attempts to contact a person he is barred from contacting by court order.
Ryan Michael Bobzin, 26, of West Bergen Road, Bergen, is charged with unauthorized use of a vehicle. Bobzin allegedly took a vehicle without permission. He was jailed on $1,000 bail.
Just curious, does the deputy that gives out all the tickets for untaxed cigarettes ever give out tickets if he doesn't find any cigarettes? I don't ever see his name without the untaxed cigarettes charge, or doesn't that make the law and order section of the Batavian?
He is probably letting them off on the violation that caused the stop. If the driver wants to run their mouth then they get written up for everything.
There's no press releases for traffic tickets.
Deputy Patrick Reeves is very good at interrogation, which is why he gets a high number of untaxed cigarettes and unlawful possession of marijuana charges on traffic stops.
what Howard says is the very reason you Never partake in Any police questioning with out a lawyer.......It is your Right people. Do not let flashing lights, a uniform and side arm intimidate you.
Howard, that explains it, thanks.
David, that's great advise but in reality unless you are a lawyer you can usually be intimidated by the police, that's what they bank on anyways.
"Deputy Patrick Reeves is very good at interrogation, which is why he gets a high number of untaxed cigarettes and unlawful possession of marijuana charges on traffic stops."
I translate this as reading "Deputy Patrick Reeves is very good at taking advantage of otherwise law-abiding citizens who aren't familiar with the legal system. He can get people to admit to minor crimes because they don't realize that they don't have to tell a cop ANYTHING." No attack intended Howard, I fully realize you're stating a fact and not opinion.
The smoke shops on the reservation should post signs to help their customers out. Just a basic rundown of their civil rights as a US citizen and how to avoid criminal charges.
1. Be legal. Don't drive without a license, registration, insurance, or equipment violations. Pay attention to the speed limits. And for pete's sake be sober. Genesee County Sheriffs are seriously trained to detect impairment. You can't fool them. Can't you wait to smoke a joint until you get home?
2. Put the tobacco in the trunk. If a cop can't see it, there's no probable cause to break your stones. Same goes for your weed, dummy. Which you should've left at home anyways.
3. The first thing a cop asks after stopping you is "Where are coming from and where are you headed?" Respectfully tell them that it's none of their business. The phrase "I'm very sorry but I don't answer questions" works wonders. If you live in Rochester or Buffalo, they know damn well why you're there. Don't do their job for them, just decline to answer their questions.
4. If a cop wants to search your car, refuse. You can (and should) assert your fourth amendment right to refuse the search. You're an American for crying out loud! Don't let them threaten you into feeling that it will make your life easier. They are full of the stuff that makes the corn grow. They will threaten to bring a dog to sniff out contraband. Tell them that you have all day, and you're happy to wait because it'll make a cool Facebook post.
I bet that if the folks who take advantage of tax free tobacco followed these four simple rules, Deputy Patrick Reeves would charge a lot less people.
Great post Sean, but unfortunately your advise won't be heeded by many, everyone thinks that they can somehow outsmart the police at a job which they are very good at.
what folks should do is this..........have a friend drive a "decoy car" to destract the police, maybe have a shit ton of empty cartons of cigs on the back seat, and when the cops are out ewith the decoy everybody else drive by, of course you need to follow all thew laes, dont speed or have an unregistered car ect.....make sure cigs are locked in trunk and if you get stoped dont let him check the trunk......but a decoy car is definetly the answer!!!
Gary, the only problem with that is if you follow all the rules of the road, use your turn signals etc the police "shouldn't" pull over a law abiding citizen because we all know the police wouldn't ever go on a fishing trip with vehicles coming off the res looking for illegal cigs. :-)
AY-YUP!, Gary. I think you've got something there.
Let me know when you're gonna be available, and you can drive the decoy car. Perhaps swerve across the centerline a time or two, right in front of the cops. Maybe be on the phone while doing it. That'll get their attention. But, don't expect me to pay for your fines. Other than that, though, it's a wonderful idea.
It's a special friend that'd incur fines and/or points on their license, just so someone can drive by with untaxed smokes in their car.
Just to expand on Sean's comment, when pulled over by the police, and you have done nothing to your knowledge, that would warrant police contact, lock the doors, roll up all windows,except the drivers window, leave that open 1 inch.Put your hands on the steering wheel so the officer can see them at all times. If he requests you roll down the window, decline politely by telling the officer he/she has a gun, and you are afraid of guns, and for your own security, the window stays where it is.As Sean said, if the officer asks questions like where are you going, where do you live,what are you doing, just say you don't answer questions.Always have a recording device in the vehicle, and let the cop know its recording. Do not look them in the eye, ever.
I know people who have gone through DWI checkpoints employing this tactic, it works.Cops want the windows down so they can detect the smell of alcohol or drugs,
Do not incriminate yourself,exercise your rights.
The anti law enforcement sentiment in these comments surprises me.
That being said, nobody can convince me that at least some (if not all) tobacco outlets on the reservation aren't notifying GCSD of vehicles that contain large amounts of cigarettes - probably in exchange for getting their merchandise back after it is processed as evidence.
Unless you've been on the reservation and actually witnessed this Bob, you're assuming things that aren't true.
The wife and I were there just the other day, and notice not one, but two people, purchase about 20 cartons of smokes.
One of them was ahead of us on Ledge Rd. back to 77 and down to the thruway after the purchase. Never saw one cop car anywhere.
A cop is camped outside of a popular bar late one Saturday night, looking for drunks who try to drive home. After a short wait, the cop sees a guy stumble out of the bar, keys in hand, almost tripping on the way to a car on the parking lot. The bar patron tries to unlock the car, but pulls back when the key won't fit.
The patron stumbles to another car and tries the key with the same result. This goes on for 15-20 minutes with the officer watching the entire time, enjoying the show. During this time, other bar patrons are walking out, getting in their cars, and driving away. Finally, with only a coupe of cars left in the lot, the stumbling patron finds his car, starts it up, and drive away.
The officer turns on his lights and pulls the guy over. He give the patron a sobriety test, which the patron passes with ease. A breathalyzer test shows the patron is stone sober.
"What the heck is going on? What was that show back there?"
The stumbling patron replies "I was the designated drunk."
Bob, my comments are not anti law enforcement, but rather pro rights, I am sick and tired of that sentiment, particularly when some say if you have nothing to hide, you should not care if your rights are violated. I have had this debate on this site more times than I care to discuss.I have seen enough rights violations by the police on youtube to make me sick. I have seen a man in a wheelchair shot by the police, I have seen the police shoot and kill a mans dog because he was videotaping the police violating someones rights, they approached the man and began getting rough with him, the dog jumped out a car window to protect his master and the police killed his dog. The police used a flash bang device that landed in a crib with a sleeping baby in it. The police shot and killed a man who was hearing and speech impaired,why, because he was making a wood carving with a knife and some busybody called the police, the man never heard the officer tell him to put the knife down. The police have way to much power and are overstepping their bounds more and more, and people are being murdered by those who took an oath to protect them.
Bob, go on youtube for yourself, just type in murdered by the police, enjoy, it is some of the most alarming video I have ever seen.
So what would you rather have Frank, no police? Wow, everything on youtube must be the truth huh? They most of the time don`t show you what might have happened to trigger the response of those cops on youtube before those videos were shot.
As for your earlier comments, "lock the doors, roll up all windows,except the drivers window, leave that open 1 inch.Put your hands on the steering wheel so the officer can see them at all times. If he requests you roll down the window, decline politely by telling the officer he/she has a gun, and you are afraid of guns, and for your own security, the window stays where it is" and "if the officer asks questions like where are you going, where do you live,what are you doing, just say you don't answer questions" ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? Yea, I bet that works out real well for you! How about just doing what the officer asks and if you aren`t doing anything wrong you`ll be on your way with no problem!
" my comments are not anti law enforcement, but rather pro rights" The cops are there to protect your rights genius, just abide by the law and be glad they are out there risking their lives to protect you!!
Gary`s comment about the "decoy car" is just ridiculous!! I hope you are just joking because nobody can be that simple-minded can they?? Wow, wake up people!!!
Jim, I really don't care what you beleive, I have researched this subject in depth.
If you don't care about your rights, that's on you, Trying to discredit another because they know their rights doesn't support your arguement.
Its people like you that embolden the police to think they can violate the rights of the American people.
I think Gary was being facetious, that would be beyond ridiculous.
Frank. After reading your comment on what people should do when they are pulled over by the police, I believe you forgot one - and, it might be an important one.
While you are sitting there with your hands on the steering wheel, staring straight ahead and speaking thru the 1" of open window, if the officer tells you to exit your vehicle, by law (in most states) you are required to exit - or suffer the consequences of disobeying a lawful order. The choice is up to you. You can lock the door when you exit, and refuse a vehicle search, if you want to. But, I wouldn't suggest refusing to exit.
Well, hopefully you never need a police officer`s help and can handle everything yourself. I just can`t understand what kind of world you are looking for? Should we just have no laws? Should we make it so we are all above the law and police ourselves? What has all this anti-police research done for you? It`s people like me who respect the law and appreciate what the cops do. It`s people like you who disrespect the law and whine about your so called rights being stepped on and try to figure out ways around the law that are ruining this country!
Jim, can you say Ferguson, racial profiling, discrimination, crooked cops, You sir, are uninformed and further made yourself look silly with your factless comment.
I say that the protestors in the streets who burnt and looted the stores that were owned by their own people should have been arrested and not allowed to demonstate in the first place! Did you see what the suspect did before the altercation took place? The 6'4" 300 +lb suspect just robbed and choked an innocent store clerk!! He wasn`t a model citizen. How about the great citizens who opened fire on the defenseless cops recently? Do you support them? Did you take a look at the video of the barbaric behavior of those Ferguson animals? No wonder the cops are on edge there! I am not the one looking silly Frank, you are! My comments are factless? Where are the facts behind yours?
Jim, I would agree 100%, the cop in question was without doubt, defending himself, you obviously have not been following the other side of this story, and the issues the justice dept. raised.Thats the part of the story I am referring to.
My facts come from the bill of rights, you should read it,Our forefathers garnered us rights, and I for one, am not ready to give them away to make anyones job easier.
I hate guns Jim, but yet would fight tooth and nail to protect the rights of gunowners.
Thats just the way I am when it comes to the rights of Americans.If your rights mean little to you as suggested by your comments, I don't care, just don't screw with mine.
You really make a fool of yourself by suggesting I am disrespectful for knowing and exercising my rights.
I don`t believe everyone should be allowed to carry a gun.That Bill of Rights was written back when people had one shot muzzle loaders and needed their weapons to hunt to eat and survive. Today you have automatic weapons that I don`t see any need for. I don`t think that the right to own guns should be taken away but I do think there should be mandatory steps taken to prove you know how to use one. The world has changed and I believe some laws should be changed as well.
So then Jim Urtel then by your standard we should also throw out the first amendment, after all. Freedom of the press and freedom of speech that people practiced then when the Bill of Rights was written, was only their own voices and presses that could do a few hundred pages a day.
Now the press has the internet, email and instant communication worldwide. Already people too have told lies and spread dissent, have photoshop to help obfuscate the truth... and we can't believe anything we see or read.
See how stupid your argument sounds when applied to something besides arms? The reason guns are in the Bill of Rights is the same Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Speech and the banning of the establishment of a State religion are in there. They are there to make sure we have the tools that they had to use to create this Country we live in today. THATS why the 2nd Amendment is there, not to preserve a tool for hunting.
Jim,I agree with you whole heartedly, but we keep giving back our freedoms, and soon we won't have any, thats my fear.The whole debate seems silly until you become a victim of a police mistake. I have watched hundreds of videos on this subject and realize the police make mistakes, and those mistakes can cost an innocent person their life. I know my rights, and I will do everything in my power to let the police know I know my rights, thats not wrong, thats not disrespectful, thats being an American.If the police are left unchecked, we become a police state.
Kyle, no I don`t think we should throw out the 1st ammendment and didn`t mention anything about it so don`t put words in my mouth! I was talking about the 2nd only and I can`t be too far off considering the Safe Act was passed for a reason. I know most of you are against it but I think it has many good points. I know the 2nd is not there just for hunting but exactly what use besides that do you need to carry say a 45? I know, to defend yourself right? Well I think some of these yahoo gunslingers have a sick fantasy of one day getting to use that gun. If someone breaks into your home and threatens you, by all means I believe you should pull the trigger but why do you need to carry a 45 into your local supermarket or even worse, a bar? I think a lot of people get into trouble with their own gun that way.
Frank, How can you in one comment cry about the police using excessive force but then God forbid if someone goes against your own gun rights? The cops need to be kept in check but your average yahoo should be allowed to carry and use his own discretion without the laws or the police enforcing them! This isn`t the old west anymore fellas, it`s 2015! I realize the cops go over the line sometimes and there are some crooked cops for sure. I also know that they do the right thing and risk their lives protecting us and the good far outweighs the bad. You probably think the cops should be under surveilance at all times like I have seen suggested but Joe Smo should be able to walk around with that 45 in his pocket?
Jim the thing you forget to acknowledge is that there were already restrictive gun laws for years before the safe act. Safe Act was passed by Cuomo purely as an example of flexing political muscle and as an experiment on how far the political machine's rules could be stretched.
As for your argument on carrying, what makes you think that its value for defense is only restricted to the home. How many children in that school in Newton would have been alive today if some yahoo gun toting father or mother had been in that office when Lanza came in?
You dont think a trained and responsible gun slinging yahoo in a supermarket thats being robbed, or say a college that has a shooter loose, or any other of the random shooting episodes that are disturbingly too common nowadays, would save lives?
All the safe act has done is create a larger victim pool for those criminals, and nutbags to take advantage of before officers arrive to put them down.
If you think the argument that I made for ending the 1st Amendment is wrong, then how can you sit there and say the same about the 2nd. They are 2 parts of the whole. Take or alter one, then its just a matter of time before the other falls as well.
For every trained and responsible gunman who could save a life there is also the jackass who pulls a gun out of haste and makes a wrong decision. Besides, I didn`t say to take all gun rights away, I said you should have to prove yourself worthy to have that gun. A trained armed guard in those situations would be fine. Your average Joe who pulls his 45 out and misses and kills an innocent bystander because he thought the store was being robbed and it wasn`t.....not so much. It`s an endless argument and there is good and bad on both sides of it.
Jim, the idea that you think I would have to "prove yourself worthy" to you or anyone else is repugnant. Who are you to decide if someone is worthy?
"How many children in that school in Newton would have been alive today if some yahoo gun toting father or mother had been in that office when Lanza came in?"
All those children would probably be alive today had just one gun-toting mom, Ms Lanza, been up to the task of securing her weapons, and her psychotic son. God give her rest, but so it goes. How many gun-toting worthies do we need backstopping each school entryway, if mom can't get it done? Well, maybe it really does take a village. . .
Or more likely it's just damned ridiculous.
You make good points, Jim Urtel. I doubt the ratio of pistols as defensive savior, as opposed to havoc creator, is anything the gun manufacturer's lobby (the NRA) wants put in greater focus than anecdote, supposition, and wooly urban legend.
Since we are doing the paraphrasing trick here (see 1st vs 2nd Amendment discussion above), how about I borrow Jim's question?
"Jim, the idea that you think I would have to "prove yourself worthy" to drive a car to you or anyone else is repugnant. Who are you to decide if someone is worthy of driving a car?"
Don't take away guns - just ensure anybody who owns one is properly trained. Teach folks how to shoot. Teach them GUN SAFETY. You want to own a gun? You need to know how to use it, you need to know when not to use it, and you need to know how to safely store the weapon when not in use.
In the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, have the training be subsidized by the government to ensure anybody could afford it (after all - poll taxes kept/keep people from voting). Sure, small gubmint people may complain about yet more gubmint, but if keeping the people safe isn't a government function, what is?
Jim, keeping the police in check has nothing to do with guns in my comment, I'm talking about accountability when they stomp on peoples rights, I should have known you would't get it.
The police are trained in the use ,safety,etc,etc,yet they have made mistakes and killed innocents Jim, so you have just made another silly arguement.Damn dude, get some facts or shut your trap.
Kyle Couchman, never thought you and I could ever agree on anything, I thought wrong, great post.
Scott... Now I might be mistaken but I believe Adam's mother did have the weapons secured. However Adam had overpowered his mother and probably took her keys or got the combo to the gunsafe. Then he shot her dead before going on to the school. I rechecked articles and it seems that there are several fails with the Lanza's But to be honest your comments seem to be saying that limiting gun ownership will lessen these type of incidents, I assure you it wont....
Here is a link
So your characterization of her being irresponsible is a fair assessment but there are alot of red flags that reasonable gun control measures could have fixed.
I don't disagree that there should be some restriction on guns based on mental health diagnoses, but the SAFE ACT was basically, like using a sledgehammer to open a jar of olives and the fact that the Gov snuck it through in the middle of the night circumventing legal process that bills are supposed to follow is just an example that even HE thought that no one would allow the bill to pass, if normal measures were used.
Even I, like a broken clock can be right a couple of times a day LOL
"Now I might be mistaken but I believe Adam's mother did have the weapons secured. However Adam had overpowered his mother and probably took her keys or got the combo to the gunsafe."
It's my understanding she was murdered in her sleep with four shots to the head from a . 22 pistol. I don't think the lad had any problem accessing the Bushmaster. I see no way her arsenal could be described as 'secured'.
"But to be honest your comments seem to be saying that limiting gun ownership will lessen these type of incidents, I assure you it wont...."
Actually, that's not what I was saying at all, Kyle. (Though there is a pretty logic to be found in the thought that fewer snakes might lead to fewer snake bites.) I was addressing the nonsense expressed that there could be a positive outcome to Newtown had only the school office been manned with gun-toting moms and dads. If that's where we are, we're way too late.
Well Frank, wow dude, I stated all the facts I can and John Roach, WHO THE HELL ARE YOU NOT TO PROVE YOURSELF WORTHY if you should be allowed to carry and if you can shoot straight or not? I can`t understand how anyone could be anti-cop at the same time as being pro-gun! Whatever, to each his own, we all have our beliefs and no one can change them.
"So your characterization of her being irresponsible is a fair assessment but there are alot of red flags that reasonable gun control measures could have fixed."
Examples? And through which reasonable gun control measures could such red flags be remedied?
You're a smart man Scott, you figure it out, because if I have to explain it to you then there is no point in doing so as your looking for an argument, not a solution....
Jim... what you still fail to acknowledge is that before the safe act. There were still very effective gun control laws already in place requiring you to take courses and provide proof of them to carry, as well as demonstrate in some cases a need to carry in some counties. (For example being a small business owner that deals with cash, or living or working in a high crime area and so on.)
" . . .you figure it out, because if I have to explain it to you then there is no point in doing so as your looking for an argument, not a solution..."
I have to admit I figured you'd come up empty here, Kyle. But I'm shocked, shocked that you'd accuse me, or anyone else here of being at play with the ploys and snares of mere argumentation. So I can only thank God that you’re the one stalwart here on whom we can rely to be absolutely without such a tawdry device!
I have many many solutions, and have shared them with some on here Scott. As for the accusation however, all one has to do is click on your name and read your past posts. The truth to what I accuse you of is self evident.
I don't make any claim not to argue, but I never argue for argument's sake, its because I believe in what I am arguing for and I have switched sides in arguments here when facts I was unaware of came to light.
At least here Scott you can't kick and ban people you disagree with like you do on the Batavia Neighborhood Watch group. That seems the only way you "win" any arguments.
Jim, I am a US citizen, that's who. No place in the US Constitution does it say I have to prove I am worthy to you or anyone in order to have any right.
I have no problem requiring a basic training course on firearm safety. But again, where do you get the idea someone has to prove themselves to somebody like you in order to have a right?
And the idea that being pro or anti police is tied to the right to own a rifle or pistol is bull.
I am a US citizen as well John! I didn`t ever say that they had to prove it to me personally but rather that they should have to show that they know how to safely use a gun before carrying one in there pocket just because it`s their right. Take a shooting test and prove it to a trained professional. You have to prove that you can drive a car to get a license! How about rifles? The gun laws are nowhere near strict enough to purchase a rifle. It isn`t about taking away anybody`s right to anything. Just be tested every so often to prove that you responsiblely know how to use that right. There has been way too many gun mishaps from people not properly using their weapons or pulling them out when there was no cause.
As far as the anti-police to owning a gun is bull idea, I just find it rather odd that someone would want to limit an officer of the law in any way but yet be gung ho about every citizen being allowed to carry a deadly weapon. Put video cameras on the cops but on the other hand let pistol packing Mothers protect a school! Sorry, it just doesn`t make sense! If you don`t think that there have been deaths due to pure negligence and improper handling of guns that were in the hands of people that never should have had them to begin with,well then I guess you`re not as smart as you think you are!
I was under the impression that cameras on cops were also for their protection. A measure to prove they acted the way a situation calls for to kind of cover their own asses if they got sued. You said if you're not doing anything wrong when you get pulled over then you have nothing to worry about. I say if the cops aren't doing anything wrong then, like us, they have nothing to worry about either.
"... I just find it rather odd that someone would want to limit an officer of the law ..."
I haven't gone back and re-read, but I can't recall one comment by anybody suggesting that an officer be limited in pursuit of his lawful duties.
Offices have a right to ask questions. Citizens have a right to refuse to answer. Why is that controversial?
"I don't make any claim not to argue, but I never argue for argument's sake, its because I believe in what I am arguing for. . ."
So you don't share your 'solutions' because they might engender an argument? I think that's a very lame excuse for not sharing the solutions you claimed to have. Also, I do like to argue, but not just for argument's sake. If you can't read my concerns and convictions in my arguments, you're not reading very closely.
"At least here Scott you can't kick and ban people you disagree with like you do on the Batavia Neighborhood Watch group. . ."
We've had to remove a very few people from that page, it's true. And the page has improved and grown greatly since. And as you're fully aware, those offenders were removed on the basis of their behaviors, not their opinions. And you know this, Kyle, because you were given a second chance.
Nope the only people I have seen removed was over their opinions. And I do believe that more than a few were removed not only for their opinions but, for supporting those with opinions that oppose those held by you and Bea.
You can think my not sharing is lame all you want, but the facts are still there and they dont change because of your opinion Scott. So think thats a lame excuse all you want, it doesn't actually make it lame in the least bit.
"We've had to remove a very few people from that page, it's true. And the page has improved and grown greatly since. And as you're fully aware, those offenders were removed on the basis of their behaviors, not their opinions."
I was removed for stating an opinion and was falsely accused of being a racist! Kyle was right with his comment. That doesn`t have much to do with this thread though.
All I can say is if I am pulled over and questioned by the cops, I will answer the questions. If asked to open the trunk I will, I have nothing to hide.Why would you not unless you are guilty?As far as cameras, I am not talking about the dash cameras but rather the ones that I have read they want to put on the cops themselves to record their every move. I realize that there have been some incidents of police brutality and overstepping their bounds but I believe the good outweighs the bad. Hopefully none of us ever have to experience the need for a cop or a situation in which a gun is involved.
"Nope the only people I have seen removed was over their opinions. And I do believe that more than a few were removed not only for their opinions but, for supporting those with opinions that oppose those held by you and Bea."
The diversity of opinion found on Neighborhood Watch belies your assertion. Utterly, totally, and conclusively. Of course there's the danger that for you such evidence is merely opinion -- I'm afraid there's no fix for that.
Jim once again I will re-iterate that the requirements for a gun license met or exceeded what you requested BEFORE the so called "SAFE ACT"
The very first detailed license requirement was from westchester county. These were the requirements in 2010-2011. Which contain exactly what you have argued should be the law...
400.00. Licenses to carry, possess, repair
and dispose of firearms
1. Eligibility. No license shall be issued or renewed
pursuant to this section except by the licensing
officer, and then only after investigation
and finding that all statements in a proper application
for a license are true. No license shall be
issued or renewed except for an applicant (a)
twenty-one years of age or older, provided, however,
that where such applicant has been honorably
discharged from the United States army,
navy, marine corps, air force or coast guard, or
the national guard of the state of New York, no
such age restriction shall apply; (b) of good moral
character; (c) who has not been convicted
anywhere of a felony or a serious offense; (d)
who has stated whether he has ever suffered
any mental illness or been confined to any hospital
or institution, public or private, for mental illness;
(e) who has not had a license revoked or
who is not under a suspension or ineligibility order
issued pursuant to the provisions of section
530.14 of the criminal procedure law or section
eight hundred forty-two-a of the family court act;
(f) in the county of Westchester, who has successfully
completed a firearms safety course
and test as evidenced by a certificate of completion
issued in his or her name and endorsed and
affirmed under the penalties of perjury by a duly
authorized instructor, except that: (i) persons
who are honorably discharged from the United
States army, navy, marine corps or coast guard,
or of the national guard of the state of New York,
and produce evidence of official qualification in
firearms during the term of service are not required
to have completed those hours of a firearms
safety course pertaining to the safe use,
carrying, possession, maintenance and storage
of a firearm; and (ii) persons who were licensed
to possess a pistol or revolver prior to the effective
date of this paragraph are not required to
have completed a firearms safety course and
test; and (g) concerning whom no good cause
exists for the denial of the license. No person
shall engage in the business of gunsmith or
dealer in firearms unless licensed pursuant to
this section. An applicant to engage in such business
shall also be a citizen of the United States,
more than twenty-one years of age and maintain
a place of business in the city or county where
the license is issued. For such business, if the
applicant is a firm or partnership, each member
thereof shall comply with all of the requirements
set forth in this subdivision and if the applicant is
a corporation, each officer thereof shall so comply
Its obvious you havent gone through the process of obtaining such a license so I would reccomend looking up some info before asking for what was already in place.
Anyone know how many gun crimes are committed by legally licensed gun owners?
Cant find exact numbers but there are some interesting stats from Factcheck.org
Kyle, I am not basing my comments on the Safe Act and realize there were gun laws long before it. I still don`t think they are strict enough and believe that there are far too many irresponsible people carrying guns that shouldn`t be.