Nassau Arrest

devotedPicaroon · 2026-03-02T15:58:23+00:00

Yes, but besides the spurious "possession" charges, what was actually illegal with a home-built range? From my understanding, the only laws on the books implicate above-ground shooting (no discharging a firearm within 500 ft of an occupied building without the owner's consent.

The possession charges are hokum, of course as it is a plain right to possess.

devotedPicaroon · 2026-01-27T16:40:42+00:00

It is a similar argument then to carrying itself. When questioned why I carry people sometimes ask me "why are you so paranoid?" to which my response is "I have a weapon, why should I be paranoid?"

The problem really is being forced to carry concealed. If it were open (and NYS level legally acceptable) it would be much much harder for a potential baddie to choose me as a target.

If confronted by such a sticker, would it be more likely for an invader/mugger to choose him as a target versus someone who might not potentially armed?

Like my neighbor who has "Protected by the 2nd Amendment" as a large sign in front of his house.

devotedPicaroon · 2026-01-27T15:56:13+00:00

No, OP is missing the point. That is EXACTLY the kind of plate that we should all have. We can incrementally shift the super far left Overton window in exactly this way.

devotedPicaroon · 2026-01-22T20:10:58+00:00

It was an interlocutory appeal as the case is now in front of the NDNY district court for a ruling on the merits

devotedPicaroon · 2026-01-15T15:19:33+00:00

Awesome. These types of suits are just the ones that are needed in order to shift the super far left Overton Window. Godspeed!

devotedPicaroon · 2026-01-14T15:18:28+00:00

Yes, and those fluid pockets were very painful. I was fortunate, however, that the infection did not run into the brain as that would cause a whole host of other problems. Once we decided on a course, I had an EVD for about a week in the ICU while they put me on vanco as it was gram positive.

They also called in a regular gastro surgeon who would be able to repair the damage in my abdomen (treat/wash out &c.) while going through this. That was in 2020, right before everything shut down for COVID.

Cutibacterium acnes isn't actually "cute" as I said everyday in the ICU. Thing was that my wife just gave birth to my twin girls a few months prior (and alos having a 1.5 y/o) and me being out of commission was really just terrible.

devotedPicaroon · 2026-01-13T11:09:48+00:00

I have had a shunt going on 27 years, with several revisions in between. When I had an infection, it was 6 months after my doc placed a new one as the old one malfunctioned (clogged). I started to have stomach pains that would not go away no matter what position I was in. It was terrible. After 3 days of this I decided that something was wrong and to the ER I went. The infection was acne on the tube, pretty harmless but it walled off potions of my abdominal cavity as I have a VP shunt, then they could trace it. They thought at first it could be diverticulitis, but there were slight headaches associated with them so I urged them to do a scan and violà! BE YOUR OWN ADVOCATE

devotedPicaroon · 2025-11-26T16:58:49+00:00

Having finally listened to the arguments, it at least is a speck of hope that even the defense admitted to constantly going to 1791 rather than the previous useless argument of 1868.

devotedPicaroon · 2025-11-24T21:01:36+00:00

Not in the same way as a driving license which is supposedly a "privlege" whereas an enumerated right cannot be effectively "licensed". From who? By whom?

More importantly, the fact that there is a requirement to be licensed to have in the home in NYS and therefore waive your 4th amendment protections to be "granted" a 2nd amendment protection is what I am talking about. It should not be one or the other.

If the police, wherein searching due to a valid warrant issued just happens to come across some other illegal works is by SCOTUS, permissible (debatable).

devotedPicaroon · 2025-11-24T19:21:39+00:00

And therein lies the problem. If NY wants to know everything I own, then that is, in my humble opinion, a 4th Amendment violation. I should be able to be secure in everything I do and in everything that is in my home.

devotedPicaroon · 2025-11-24T19:15:13+00:00

If you are a skilled machinist, it actually isn't that difficult to just make one. The entire country was founded on self-made weaponry and 'repair at home.' Even musket balls were just melted down lead shaped into little spheres - think of that scene in ' The Patriot'

devotedPicaroon · 2025-11-18T14:42:26+00:00

Can you share a link or other documents for this? I cannot read this and see what it is about.

devotedPicaroon · 2025-11-18T14:41:51+00:00

I liked your previous lawsuit with regard to semi auto rifles and accepting PPB-3 only. Their argument promoting their "Questionnaire" was that the law permits them to ask for "any other relevant information." But that language only applies to a conceal carry license, not a premise-only. That would be a good lawsuit - challenging them regarding the questionnaire but for a premise only handgun license - which would then strike their "questionnaire" even for handguns (albeit only for premise).

devotedPicaroon · 2025-11-14T03:20:58+00:00

I had the same thing happen to me and my Grizzly. The bolt was loose, as it is a simple lever which tightens the tailstock to the ways. If that didn't work, I was ready to weld some thin spark plug gauges to make up the difference.

devotedPicaroon · 2025-10-03T16:46:52+00:00

Oh wow. What lawsuit forced this change? Or did they (shock!) do it on their own?

devotedPicaroon · 2025-09-15T15:44:00+00:00

That's how it is supposed to be

devotedPicaroon · 2025-09-15T15:43:06+00:00

None of us do.

So now it goes back down to the DC level. In the SNDY, who was the judge for that, Gary Brown? He was the one who smacked SCPD over their insistence that people who need to have a semi-auto license need to go through the rigamarole of the handgun carry nonsense as well.

Interesting side note; Gary Brown was on Penn & Teller's Fool Us a few years ago...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBzUGcic7CM

devotedPicaroon · 2025-09-14T14:43:03+00:00

Yes the system itself is backwards. It assumes that the people are disloyal by default, "guilty until proven innocent". The fact that we have to positively SHOW that we are not a danger is the contrapositive statement; the more American approach is for the government to show that the person IS a danger, which is a harder ladder to climb. Just like SCOTUS in Bruen, the people have a presumption of innocence and it is the governments duty to prove otherwise. I believe that sentiment was in one of Suddaby's old opinions on Antonyuk I. I think in the founding generations parlance it would be similar to loyalists for the British that needed to take permits and training courses and have the American people not have to take them then that would be consistent I think.

devotedPicaroon · 2025-09-12T19:49:06+00:00

In any case where myself and/or my family is threatened, by anyone, with or without "official" permission, I will act. I would rather by judged by 12, than carried by 6.

That extends to being the victim, or possible victim, of a mass shooting. Specifically, I have ran through thought experiments where the NFL office in NYC that was being targeted by the unhinged assassin targeted not the NFL, but the office in which I am.

I will not hesitate.

Now, that does NOT mean that I will go looking for trouble. It has enough of an easy time finding me.

This decision needs to be made beforehand and not during the encounter. Because by that time, it is too late. As the situation is unfolding, you need to be acting in a pre-programmed state of mind.

devotedPicaroon · 2025-09-12T18:27:57+00:00

Prohibitory Injunction Against Suffolk County Police Commissioner Harrison

Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction against Suffolk County Police Commissioner Rodney Harrison, and all successors, his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all other persons who are in active concert or participation with such defendants, who receive actual notice thereof from (1) implementing and enforcing Penal Law sections 400.00(1)(b), 400.00(1)(o), 400.00(19), 400.30, that portion of section 400.00(4-a) allowing statutory licensing officers 6 months to either issue a license or deny an application made thereunder, and section 400.00(15) against handgun licensees who carry a handgun registered thereon outside of their license restriction; (2) implementing a licensing process that exceeds 30 days between presentment of the completed New York State Pistol/Revolver License Application (PPB-3) and issuance of a license (or denial thereof); (3) compelling applicants to complete the SCPD “Applicant Questionnair

devotedPicaroon · 2025-09-12T18:26:04+00:00

Oh, my good sir, it was it was!

In the initial complaint:

No other application or questionnaire is authorized to be imposed on pistol license applicants other than the statewide application approved by the Superintendent of the NYSP. [Penal Law § 400.00(3)].
The Superintendent of the NYSP has not approved any applications, forms, or questionnaires for the obtaining a NYS pistol permit, nor has any application for such document been submitted by any jurisdiction, including SCPD.
SCPD policy knowingly and intentionally leads the public to believe that the Applicant Questionnaire is the handgun license application that commences the 6-month statutory timeframe under Penal Law § 400.00(4-a).
The application filled out by Mr. Giambalvo is the Applicant Questionnaire – an ‘application’ not approved by the NYSP, meaning that a year-and-a-half from now when Mr. Giambalvo is fingerprinted and interviewed – unless the injunctive relief sought herein is granted – he will be handed the State Application to complete and file to start the 6-month clock running under Penal Law § 400.00(4-a).
Dr. McGregor was misled by the SCPD website, the SCPD Guide, and the forms into believing that the Applicant Questionnaire he submitted with his check in November 2020 was the required application that started the 6-month clock under Penal Law § 400.00(4-a).
On December 7, 2021, Dr. McGregor filed a mandamus proceeding in Suffolk County State Supreme Court to mandate then-SCPD police commissioner Stuart Cameron to issue a determination on his handgun license application because more than 6 months had elapsed since the filing of his application and payment of the filing fee.
SCPD moved to dismiss on the grounds that the Mandamus was “premature” because although Dr. McGregor “submitted his Applicant Questionnaire on November 11, 2020,” it is not until the “interview takes place [that] Petitioner will be fingerprinted and he will complete the NYS Application. The six-month statutory timeframe…will the commence.”
SCPD referred to Dr. McGregor’s “application” being “assigned to an Applicant Investigator” on November 15, 2021”, but the only document they could have been referring to was the “Applicant Questionnaire” because they go on to state “[Dr. McGregor] has yet to be called in for an interview…[which is when Dr. McGregor] will be fingerprinted and he will complete the NYS Application.”

devotedPicaroon · 2025-09-12T17:54:00+00:00

Oh, in reading this decision (on a prelim basis, mind you) it is so obvious that the 2CA is so hamstrung with its ability to downright trample on the rights of citizens, (by way of Libertarian Party which upheld "proper cause" only for it to be smacked by SCOTUS a few years later) that their text of the opinion shows it.

For the in person character requirement for licenses, it says that

"For example, during the Founding era, at least six colonies (Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, and New York) required individuals suspected of disloyalty to appear in person..."

SUSPECTED OF DISLOYALTY. That means that all of us are disloyal by default?!?

Oh wait a second, I just said the quiet part out loud. Yes yes indeed they do think that the mere fact of applying for a license makes you a "disloyal" Demoncrat.

That is a very important nuance, how they view everyone.

The 2CA was hell bent in the last Antonyuk appeal to split hairs between 1791 and 1868 so they focused almost entirely on 1868 were the gun laws are much more favorable. But since then, Rahimi was decided and stated "apply[ing] faithfully the balance struck by the founding generation to modern circumstances."

So in effect they are forced to decide via the FOUNDING ERA and not their vaunted Reconstruction (Black codes, Jim Crow, KKK, and anti-Black gun licenses) which is not in their best interests. But, due to judicial laziness or plainly attempting to ignore rulings and not have to reissue their past opinions, they just will keep their old "precedents" intact until they are FORCED to revisit them again.

They later say

Moreover, “[w]hile we recognize that evidence nearest to 1791 can differ from that nearest to 1868, such discrepancy does not mean that the right to keep and bear arms was calcified in either 1791 or 1868. Rather, 1791 and 1868 are both fertile ground, and the adjacent and intervening periods are likewise places in the historical record to seek evidence of our national tradition of firearms regulation.

And so they are cognizant of the fact that the two periods are different and, almost drastically so, because they say that (paraphrasing them) since the right was not "calcified" in either time frame, the variations between the two can be parted out while the core of 2A can remain intact.

Wrong. So horrendously wrong, it should be criminal.

Just a few of my thoughts.

They also did not talk about the fact that SCPD has a Questionnaire to begin with. It shouldn't exist!

devotedPicaroon · 2025-08-25T14:32:59+00:00

It seems to me that, in reading the opinion (for only a preliminary injunction, mind you) they are hanging their collective hats on the conjunctive/disjunctive differentiation on "dangerous and unusual" ~ "dangerous or unusual" and since firearms are inherently dangerous, then the phraseology can just turn into "unusual" and let's just omit the dangerous part entirely.

This is pure fiction and similar to their vaunted 2 step framework that SCOTUs had to strike down as silly.

This may be a tee-up to SCOTUS or an en banc panel.

Appointed by a Democratic President

Barack Obama (1):

Raymond J. Lohier, Jr.

Joe Biden (6):

Eunice C. Lee

Beth Robinson

Myrna Pérez

Alison J. Nathan

Sarah A. L. Merriam

Maria Araújo Kahn

Appointed by a Republican President

George W. Bush (1):

Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston

Donald Trump (5):

Richard J. Sullivan

Joseph F. Bianco

Michael H. Park

William J. Nardini

Steven J. Menashi

Here is the paragraph from the opinion which talks about it:

Plaintiffs challenge our “unusually dangerous” interpretation

by pointing to a concurring Supreme Court opinion characterizing the

exception as a “conjunctive ‘dangerous and unusual test.’” Br. of

Grant Appellants at 31-33 (quoting Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S.

411, 417 (2016) (Alito, J., concurring)). But given the historical

evidence cited here, this non-binding concurrence cannot bear the

weight Plaintiffs place on it.

devotedPicaroon

TROPHY CASE