Legal Question in Criminal Law in New York

Generally, three prior misdemeanor convictions are not an automatic bar to obtaining a pistol permit. However, these convictions can make it difficult to be approved. Penal Law �400.00(1) explains the eligibility requirements for one applying for a pistol license in New York.

In relevant part Penal Law �400.00(1) states:

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 or she 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.

Therefore, only felonies or serious offenses will result in rejection. The underlying facts of your convictions will be very relevant. But the application can be rejected for bad moral character and the licensing officer can review the underlying facts of your misdemeanor cases.

However, at least one court has held that a prior felony does not require automatic rejection of the application. In Matter of Caputo v Kelly, 2011 NY Slip Op 30289U, 3 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 8, 2011), the court held that that Penal Law �400(1)(a) does not per se prohibit an applicant with a prior conviction from obtaining a pistol license. In Caputo, New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly denied a premise handgun license application because the petitioner had pleaded guilty to an �E� felony approximately ten years earlier. The court expressly rejected Commissioner Kelly�s argument that a prior conviction acted as an absolute bar to licensure.

Instead of a full carry, you might consider only seeking to possess a pistol in your home. This is because the the US Supreme Court has held that the right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense is not just a right; it is a fundamental right. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

The United States Supreme Court has now made clear that one has a personal right to bear arms and to use the same in self-defense in the home and that the Second Amendment protects �the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). The Court thus concluded that citizens must be permitted �to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.� Id. In McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3026 (U.S. 2010), the Supreme Court held that �the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.�

Good luck and don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. John Campbell