jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
The appendix says that both were denied licenses to carry outside the home for self defense.
NY is now arguing the licenses are good for self defense outside the home. "Koch’s license also allows him to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense while traveling to and from work"
idk who who is right but i have a bad feeling. Watch as NY waves their magic wand and the case goes away.
Carry outside the home for self defense means an unlimited license.
App-7
On or about September 2014, Plaintiff Nash “applied to the Licensing Officer . . . for a license to carry a handgun in public”; his application was granted on March 12, 2015, but he was “issued a license marked ‘Hunting, Target only.’” (Id. ¶ 25). Nash’s license does not permit him to “carry a firearm outside of his home for the purpose of self-defense.”
...
Plaintiff Koch “was granted a license to carry a handgun in public by the Licensing Officer” in 2008. (Id. ¶ 34). The license, however, was “marked
‘Hunting & Target’”; Koch is therefore unable “to carry a firearm outside of his home for the purpose of self-defense.” (Id. ¶¶ 34-35)
They both have restricted licenses. This apparently allows very limited carry such as to and from work based on the NYS quote.