There is an interesting controversy out of New York county where Acting District Attorney, Madeline Singas in Nassau County has prohibited prosecutors from owning a handgun. This is a curious way for an “acting” district attorney to start if she wants to be an actual district attorney since I believe that rule is unconstitutional. Prosecutors like other citizens have a second amendment right to own a gun. [Update: Singas has withdrawn her clearly unconstitutional condition on prosecutors]
We have previously seen New York prosecutors get into trouble with handguns, but that is no more reason to ban gun ownership than it is to deny other protected rights like free speech due to improper public comments.
The Nassau County District Attorney’s Office on New York’s Long Island bars even legal guns at home without a special exception from Singas. The application for the office now states:
“
[A]ssistant district attorneys are not permitted to apply for a handgun permit nor own or possess a handgun while employed by the Nassau County District Attorney. Any exception to this policy must be in writing and approved by the District Attorney.”
I wonder if an applicant can score extra points by pointing out that the office application states an unconstitutional condition for employment.
The Nassau County District Attorney’s Office insists that “Our practice of asking prosecutors to not possess handguns is to ensure the safety and comfort of staff, victims, and witnesses, and is consistent with other district attorney’s offices in the New York City metropolitan area.”
First of all, the application does not suggest that anyone is being “asked . . . not to possess handguns.” It says that they are not permitted. Second, it is hard to see how a ban on home guns would add comfort to “staff, victims, and witnesses.” Finally, whatever the desire of the office, it cannot make people feel more comfortable than denying a protected right to others in this context.
Gene Volokh deserves credit for raising this issue and has pointed out that N.Y. Labor Code § 201-d protects any “lawful, leisure-time activity, for which the employee receives no compensation and which is generally engaged in for recreational purpose” that is included in the subcategory of “hobbies” and conducted “off of the employer’s premises and without use of the equipment or other property.”
It is astonishing to me that Singas would create and retain what I view as a clearly unconstitutional condition for employment.
What do you think?
Nick Spinelli,
Cops hate the 2nd Amendment depending on who is toting the gun. Indeed, they hate when particular classes/color of folk have guns.
So if a SWAT team goes all D. Smith and doesn’t want to respect 4th amendment rights and storms into my dwelling (for whatever reason), my gun can protect me??
(Fred Hampton’s friend on house watch had a gun when Chicago PD, the FBI and County police stormed his house and murdered dissidents (#AllLivesMatter))
Ninianpeckitt – Oh I guess this explains how the U. S. Supreme Court misinterpreted states v state rights. A simpleton interpretation.
hsk, I have stated here previously I know women who are taking personal safety into their own hands, getting training, and concealed carry permits. And, women are more conscientious on getting the proper training than men. But, women do have a ways to go in overcoming that fear/hate dynamic.
And, it is the militarization of our country that makes the 2nd even MORE important. You do realize the biggest haters of the 2nd are cops, don’t you?
It is interesting to me that women appear to be more predisposed to stringent gun control laws than men. There are of course many women that are pro- gun but many more appear to be anti-gun.
I think it goes back to the child within us. Little girls scream for help. It’s called crying wolf. When something frightens them, the call out to others for protection, whereas boys and men either stand and fight or run, depending on who their adversary is and what they think their odds are.
Even as women get older they scream for help when in a frightening situation often times bringing the attention of the wrong people. Just listen to the screaming at any frightening event and you will generally hear numerous women screaming in the backgrounds.
Women are more likely to want assistance from police than men. Women do not want to risk their own lives in their own defense and are willing to pay others to do it for them. Many women will not even consider owning a gun because it is frightening and dangerous to them, even though women are murdered quite often. Women are generally not a daring as men in most situations. A built in self preservation mechanism perhaps having to do with propagation of the species.
How much of it is instinctual behavior and how much cultural would be an interesting study. Men are generally stronger and as protectors, are more willing to take on the defense of themselves and others rather than rely on others like women. Men have historically been the protectors and women the protectees. Most fire fighters, police and military personnel are overwhelmingly men not only in this country but around the world.
Perhaps we need to put into place a draft and affirmative actions requirement to afford women more job opportunities in theses areas. lol
It reminds me of women who do not believe that men should have a say in the abortion issue. Perhaps until women take on more responsibility in the protection and security of our society, they should have no say in gun control.
Obviously I saying this in jest. I don’t want women personally protecting me or my community. They cannot be trusted not to scream and give away your position. Let those super women who want to, remain the pretenders in Hollywood.
It certainly seems unconstitutional.
Practically speaking, a person who is willing to put someone in a cage for years has no problem blowing someone away with a gun.
Remember patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons (Bertrand Russell, a polymath, a Cambridge apostle, hope that’s enough class status for the blog)
What’s astonishing is how militarized our lovely American society has become. I live across from my school and cannot cross the street without seeing some type of gun (conceal and carry or the thousands of law enforcement personnel from every level of gov.).
issacbasonkavich, please note that MOST GUN CRIMES ARE COMMITTED WITH STOLEN WEAPONS. . Registering and licensing guns guns serves no purpose. I have no problem with a background check as long as as long as no record of it is kept.
.
Here are some of the reasons I am against the government or anyone else keeping records of gun ownership.on’t bet it couldn’t happen here in the future.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Josef Stalin, the sole leader of the Soviet Union from 1924 to 1953, said:
“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Mao Tze Tung, communist dictator of China said:
“War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.”
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Idi Amin, president of Uganda from 1971 to 1979, said:
“I do not want to be controlled by any superpower. I myself consider myself the most powerful figure in the world, and that is why I do not let any superpower control me.”
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Pol Pot, who created in Cambodia one of the 20th century’s most brutal and radical regimes, was responsible for killing one million of his own ‘educated,’ yet unarmed citizens.
This information is from the website below and pretty much sums it up.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/gun-control-dictator-style-tyrants-who-banned-firearms-before-slaughtering-the-people/#tyJo0rxb2c00uSa1.99
Please do some research on the reductions in crime when it is easier for the average citizen to obtain and or carry a weapon. When only the criminals have guns, everyone else including you and the ones you love are potential victims of violent crime.
Don, Interesting cross rip on religion and govt. I like it.
Being lectured about guns by people who still have a monarchy just strengthen the 2nd.
This is about as constitutional as an employment rule prohibiting prosecutors from using condoms.
The right to bear Arms does not equate with the right to own a gun.
There is nothing in the second amendment which confirms the requirement of ownership of born Arms, only that there is a right to bear them.
There is nothing in the second amendment which defines the word Arms. In particular the word “gun” and “firearms” is missing. The words “weapon” and “ammunition” are also noticeable by their absence in the second amendment.
So in the absence of a definition, of the word “Arms” there is nothing to prevent the real and valid interpretation of the second amendment as a right to retain one’s limbs or Arms.
If so, Sharia Law and the severence of limbs would be unconstitutional, but one might argue that severence of a hand does not equate with the loss of an Arm. But part of an Arm. And certainly not Arms. But beheading would be unconstitutional, as the head is not an Arm or Arms, despite containing a limbic system.
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right to bear Arms belongs to individuals, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited, and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices. But note that the word “firearms” is not used in the second amendment as it was originally written abd the word was not defined which is very unusual in a legal document.
State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
So it would appear that the second amendment is not being breached by Madeline Singas as the regulation of firearms is not prohibited by order of the Supreme Court and that the word “firearms” are not even mentioned in the second amendment.
So the right to bear Arms does not equate with the right to bear guns, firearms, hand grenades, poison gas, chemical weapons, stealth fighter bombers, aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons etc.
It means that Americans have the Right to bear “Arms” a word that is not defined in the second amendment but from an anatomical definition it implies the upper limbs.
Would a male DA have made this edict? Women are much more anti-gun than men. That’s simply a fact.
Odd position for a person who is trained in legal matters to take. An overstep. She needs to walk that back.
As has been pointed out by someone w/ a severely limited understanding of the important 2nd Amendment, there are many people w// this mindset. And, these DANGEROUS people are why defenders of the 2nd are not willing to give one inch. I used to be la de da about the 2nd. That changed a decade or so ago.
Another anti-gun nut case.
Prosecutors could be subject to retaliation from criminals they have they have sent to jail, or possibly members of a gang if they are affiliated with one..
If I were in that vocation I would want to carry a weapon just like any law enforcement officer..
New York has an abundance of anti-gun laws, and their gun violence continues to be high. They need to concentrate on vigorous prosecution of violent criminals and putting them in jail for maximum sentences.
Usurping the right of legal law abiding citizens is counter productive. When only the criminals have guns, people are in more danger.
Gun buyback programs are a farce. Anyone who thinks a criminal is going to sell their guns to the police is just plain dumb.
YOU JUST CAN’T FIX STUPID
Having read Volokh for some time, he may “desire” credit, but he certainly “deserves” credit.
You have the extremists on both sides. Unfortunately extremists like her give fuel to the other extreme, the NRA and the oligarchy that is the gun industry. The best course for common sense is to stay the line of common sense: all guns registered, licensed, and only in the possession of those who are legally competent; back ground checks on all gun transactions, mandatory education, increased penalties for gun infractions.
Constitutionality is often ignored when it comes to handguns in or near courtrooms. Wisconsin law allows district attorneys with carry permits to have handguns in the courtroom but some judges have prohibited that practice. I believe Mr. Gossett has previously contested the prohibition but has not become a “test case”.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/da-fights-to-carry-gun-in-winnebago-county-courthouse-ga5pgef-159365825.html
We have discussed here the disparate views on handguns throughout this country. Oh, there are 2nd Amendment haters everywhere, but it seems like it is almost genetic in the northeast where I grew up. I have some pretty conservative family and friends in the NYC area and New England who are anti 2nd Amendment. I find when I talk w/ them it is mostly about fear, they don’t even want to see or hold a handgun, they seem to think they are radioactive. We know fear and hate are ugly cousins.