Tag Archives: New York

Pennsylvania’s “Ride on Red” law.

On July 20, 2016, Governor Wolf approved legislation that would allow motorists to proceed with caution through a red light if the vehicle presence is not detected by the signal’s detection system and fails to change to green. Act 101, more commonly know as the “ride on red” law gives anyone on the road the option to go through red lights as long as they use commons sense and caution. The law became effective on September 20, 2016.

Act 101 was introduced by Representative Stephen Bloom (R – Cumberland County) as an amendment to Title 75 (Vehicles) to create a solution for a common issue faced by motorcycle and pedalcycle riders. The intent was to allow drivers of motorcycles and pedalcycles stuck at a standstill because traffic control signals that utilize a vehicle detection system are not always able to detect motorcycles and pedacycles due to their smaller size. As a result, those cycle drivers would be forced to wait until a larger vehicle arrived and was detected by the traffic control device. Impatient riders would tire of the wait and unlawfully proceed through the intersection.

Representative Bloom’s original proposal was to allow the driver of a motorcycle or pedalcycle to proceed through the intersection only after exercising due care as provided by law. If the vehicle detection system failed to recognize the vehicle and the rider had come to a full and complete stop, the rider would make sure it was safe to continue, and proceed with caution through the intersection.

The amendment to §3112 of the motor vehicle code states, in pertinent part, if a traffic-control signal is out of operation or is not functioning properly, including, but not limited to, a signal that uses inductive loop sensors or other automated technology to detect the presence of vehicles that fails to detect a vehicle, vehicular traffic facing a Red or completely unlighted signal shall stop in the same manner as at a stop sign, and the right to proceed shall be subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a stop sign as provided in section 3323 (relating to stop signs and yield signs).

The law does not state how long a driver should wait before assuming the light is not operating and proceed through the malfunctioning or unresponsive stop signal. Theoretically, a driver is allowed to treat the malfunctioning or unresponsive stop signal as a stop sign and the driver may use his judgment to proceed through the intersection with caution.

The problem is not every driver has the same level of patience or judgment and some may see the law as a “free pass” to go through the light. Moreover, the law does not differentiate rural areas from more congested urban areas of the state. Drivers may now argue the red light was taking too long to change and proceed through a busy intersection under the assumption it was malfunctioning. In busier traffic areas, it may create the potential for more traffic violations as well as more accidents. Impatient drivers may elect chose to go through an intersection with a properly functioning traffic signal risking their lives as well as the lives of unsuspecting oncoming drivers powerless to avoid collisions.

According to the National Coalition for Safer Roads, more than 3.7 million drivers in the United States ran a red light in 2014. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says 709 people were killed and an estimated 126,000 were injured in crashes that involved red light running that same year.

1 Comment

Filed under News & Events

“Start Spreading the News!” New York to finally allow part time residents to get pistol permits.

By Ian K. Friedman, Esq. 

It is rare to find something gun related in the news coming out of New York State that could be considered positive. However, October 15, 2013 will go down as a day that was a marked exception to the rule. For nearly 20 years, New York State and New York City (which for purposes of firearm laws should always be treated as a separate entity) have denied part time residents of the state the ability to apply for and be granted a New York or New York City Pistol Permit. This is now no longer the case thanks to the great work of Attorney Daniel L. Schmutter who is lead counsel for Alfred Osterweil in the matter of Osterweil v. Bartlett.

Mr. Osterweil was denied a New York State Pistol Permit because the State contended he was no longer a resident, since he was changing his primary residence to Louisiana, while still maintaining strong ties to the community, including secondary home in New York. The reason for this denial is the previous interpretation of NY Penal Law § 400 (3)(a), which covers firearms licensing, held that domicile (effective banning anyone who owned a part time residence, but made their permanent domicile elsewhere) in New York State was required to be able to be granted a New York State (or New York City) Pistol Permit. Osterwil sued claiming violation of both his Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights under a 42 USC § 1983 claim. This claim was initially dismissed by the District Judge.

However, on appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeal, the New York State Attorney General, suddenly changed his position and argued that the law did not actually contain a domicile requirement, in an attempt to prevent the matter from being decided on constitutional grounds. The Second Circuit sent a certified question to New York Court of Appeals asking:

Is an applicant who owns a part-time residence in New York but makes his permanent domicile elsewhere eligible for a New York handgun license in the city or county where his part-time residence is located? (Osterweil v Bartlett, 706 F3d 139, 145 [2d Cir 2013])

The New York Court of Appeals decided to overrule “an Appellate Division decision, Mahoney v Lewis (199 AD2d 734 [3d Dept 1993]),” which held that “as used in this statute the term residence is equivalent to domicile” (id. at 735).” This was one of the reasons given by Judge Bartlett, along with 400 (3)(a), and finally as a lawful regulatory measure under District of Columbia v. Heller (554 U.S. 570 [2008]). It is clear that the New York State Attorney General was fearful of losing a case on Second and Fourteenth Amendment grounds and decided to concede that domicile was not the same as residence and concede a loss by technicality.

The New York State Pistol Permit is a process that can vary greatly from county to city to village (in short any and all political subdivisions in the state) in terms of what a person is asked on the application and how they can apply. In counties outside of the five Boroughs of New York City, a New York State Pistol Permit is valid in the entire state and can be range from a Restricted one limited to Target Shooting to Unrestricted Concealed Carry (this is not the case in New York City). In the vast majority of Counties, the approval process is headed by a Judge (the Defendant in this case was “George R. Bartlett III, the Schoarie County Court Judge and also the county’s licensing officer”); in a few areas a Sheriff or Chief of Police, and in NYC, the NYPD, handle the requests.

The process is also extremely expensive and invasive when compared to Pennsylvania’s more modern and liberal rules for obtaining a License to Carry Firearms (and of course an LTCF is not required to purchase a firearms). It is a process that for some will take more than a year to do and may require legal action to overturn a denial. It may also only result in a person being given a restricted license vs an unrestricted one (similar to the various gradings Massachusetts has in their firearms licensing system).

We at Prince Law Offices, P.C. can help residents of other states, who wish to obtain a New York State or New York City Pistol Permit, and who are part time residents of New York State and New York City. Now, it is possible to be a resident of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and every other state in the Union and no longer be denied your right to own (and carry) handguns in New York State (and own handguns in New York City).

As a licensed member of the New York (along with Pennsylvania) State Bar, I am prepared to assist in all matters related to New York Firearms Law: including improper searches for firearms “loaded with 8 rounds,” Questions about NY SAFE Act Compliance for both consumers and industry, trusts to ensure that grandfathered “Assault Weapons” can be safely transferred out of state and not confiscated by the State of New York, upon your death, and any other Firearms Law related matter.

3 Comments

Filed under Firearms Law, Gun Trusts, Pennsylvania Firearms Law