New York prosecutors routinely put people in prison for simply carrying a firearm without a concealed carry permit. In some cases, they've even prosecuted out-of-state gun owners who do have a carry license, just not one recognized by the state and city. These gun owners are told that ignorance of the law is no excuse for committing a "violent" crime. But as it turns out, ignorance of the law is an excuse if you're an NYPD officer who wrongfully arrested a legal gun owner on charges of criminal possession of a weapon.
U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan ruled in favor of the city of New York in a lawsuit filed by Raffique Khan, an Army veteran and legal gun owner who possess both a premises permit and a concealed carry license. Khan was out celebrating his mother's 70th birthday with family, but when he realized they'd be dining in a "sensitive place" under New York law, he went back to his car and stored his firearm.
From Cogan's opinion:
At some point, the police “Intelligence Division” was tipped off that someone matching plaintiff’s description was in possession of a firearm, tried to enter the eatery, and then put the firearm in the glove box of a blue BMW. Shortly thereafter, Officer Hughes was briefed on the situation and left with Officers Bessen and Nicholson to investigate. The officers located the blue BMW, ran the license plate, and determined that the car belonged to plaintiff.
The officers then searched plaintiff’s name through various databases, and learned that plaintiff had a “business carry” firearm license. Before N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), New York used the nomenclature “business carry” to describe a license permitting the holder to conceal a firearm because, at that time, anyone seeking a license to carry a concealed firearm had to show cause, such as a business reason, for doing so. Post-Bruen, i.e., at the time the officers identified plaintiff’s firearm license in the database, New York changed the term to a “concealed carry” firearm license. Nonetheless, licenses that were once listed as “business carry” in police databases, such as plaintiff’s, were not automatically updated.
Apparently, none of the officers on the scene knew what a “business carry” firearm license was. After turning to the internet, the officers had even less clarity. Even so, the officers continued watching and eventually saw plaintiff and two others leave the eatery and sit in the blue BMW for about half an hour. After plaintiff began to drive away, the officers initiated a traffic stop.
Okay, let's assume that all of these officers were so new to the force that they had no idea what a "business carry" license meant, or maybe those licenses were so rarely issued in the pre-Bruen days that they'd never run across one before. Why turn to the internet instead of a supervisor or a seasoned veteran of the force who could enlighten them?
Though Khan immediately and proactively informed Bessen that he had a pistol in his glovebox, but was still arrested for supposedly purportedly for criminal possession of a weapon. Khan spent the night in jail and was arraigned the next day. A day after his arraignment an officer from the NYP Licensing Division started investigating Khan's arrest.
Instead of informing the arresting officers that they'd charged a guy with a valid carry permit for carrying without a permit, the officer told Khan he was required to surrender all of his other firearms, and his premises permit was suspended. It took three months for Khan's charges to be dismissed, and another two weeks for his licenses to be reinstated.
Despite this travesty of justice, which could have been easily remedied if any of the officers involved had properly done their job, Cogan decided the officers just made a series of innocent (and unpunishable) mistakes. The judge says that police had probable cause to arrest Khan for improper storage of a firearm (even though that's not what he was originally charged with) because an informant claimed Khan had left his gun in a glove box, which is not considered a "safe storage depository" under NY law. Khan maintains that he actually stored his gun in a legally compliant safe in his vehicle, but Cogan says that doesn't matter because the informant led police to believe that the gun was improperly stored.
In other words, the officers independently corroborated every piece of information that the informant gave except for the location of the firearm inside the vehicle. That is sufficient to establish probable cause to believe the uncorroborated information, i.e., that plaintiff stored his firearm in his glove box, in violation of NYPL§ 265.45(2). The officers therefore had probable cause to arrest plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court grants summary judgment on plaintiff’s false arrest claim. And for the reasons above, because plaintiff’s false arrest claim fails, his remaining claims necessarily fail, too.
Now, I'm not an attorney, but this strikes me as utterly insane. Sure, the information that informant told police might have given the officers probable cause to investigate Khan, but Cogan says the officers didn't need to corroborate where Khan's gun was stored before arresting him... on a charge that didn't even involve how the gun was stored?
Using this logic, cops are better off not knowing the law than understanding New York City's draconian statutes on gun possession. They're safer not fully investigating a supposed violation of the city's gun control laws and arresting someone on mere probable cause than looking for actual proof that a crime's been committed. Ignorance indemnifies them and the city from being held responsible for their actions, even if leads to a legal gun owner getting arrested, charged with a crime, and losing access to their Second Amendment rights for more than three months.
According to Cogan, gun owners like Khan have no legal recourse other than to wait it out and hope that police and prosecutors eventually realize a mistake was made. Even then, they should count themselves lucky to get their guns back and their rights restored. Asking for anything more than that is a non-starter.
I don't know that Khan will be any more successful at the Second Circuit if he appeals Cogan's decision, given the hostility towards the Second Amendment that appellate court has demonstrated over the past few years. Still, I hope he continues pursuing justice here... and that these officers will eventually be held accountable for their actions.
Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member