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 [Update: Singas has withdrawn her clearly unconstitutional condition on prosecutors]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?
ninian, We don’t get a monarchy, you don’t get a Constitution. That’s why we beat you folks 250 years ago.
Nick – I don’t think we beat the English because they didn’t have a Constitution. I think it had more to do with a French navy in the right spot and troops trained by a fake Baron.
bam, Thanks again. I’ll say again, you are one of the great woman commenting here. I’m going to the GoFundMe page right now. I know that area fairly well. Been to about 20 Card games in my life. One of the best baseball towns in the US.
Nick
It’s front page news here in St. Louis. People are terrified to walk the streets in the City of St. Louis, even after a filled-to-capacity baseball game, where the streets are flooded with pedestrians walking to their cars. The fact that this victim and his girlfriend offered no resistance to the robber is even more frightening for those of us who have always believed that full cooperation will spare one’s life in such an encounter. The robber is alleged to have jumped out of a car, brandishing a gun, and demanding valuables from the couple. They complied with his demands, gave them their possessions and then turned to run from him. He shot the victim in the back as he was attempting to flee. For what it’s worth, there is a suspect in custody. As expected, he has a long rap sheet.
____________________________________________________________________________________
From the Gateway Pundit:
Army Veteran Takes Mother to Cardinals Game – Is Robbed, Shot in the Back and Paralyzed (VIDEO)
Jim Hoft Sep 28th, 2015 1:35 pm —389 Comments
Army Veteran Robbed, Shot and Paralyzed as Violent Crime Spirals Out of Control in St. Louis
Army veteran Chris Sanna took his mother to a Cardinals game last week.
chris sanna
Chris was robbed and shot in the back after the game.
Chris and his girlfriend gave the robber their valuables but he was shot in the back anyway.
KMOV.com
** There have been 151 murders in St. Louis so far this year – nearing a 20 year high.
There have been at least three similar robberies in St. Louis in the past month. In each incident a black man robbed the victims then shot at them anyway.
KMOV reported:
“
An Army veteran has been paralyzed after he was shot during an armed robbery Friday night outside the Old Cathedral.
“My son lives in Houston and asked me ‘Mom, what do you want for your birthday?’ I said I wanted to go to a game with all of you, all my boys,” said Candis Sanna, the victim’s mother. “And this is what happens.”
Around 10:30 p.m., Chris Sanna and his girlfriend were walking to their vehicle near Walnut Street and Memorial Drive when a black sedan pulled up to them. Two male suspects were inside the black sedan. The driver of the sedan exited the vehicle and demanded the victims’ property at gunpoint.
“After she gave him her purse, he pulled a gun,” Candis said. “That’s when they turned to run, and he shot at them twice.”
The bullet went through Chris’ liver, spine, and lungs. He was taken to the hospital and was listed in stable condition. But the Sanna family says it’s the brazenness of the crime that has them shaken up.
A GoFundMe page was set up to support Chris Sanna.
Skip, I was being facetious. I’m in agreement with you here.
I don’t understand how getting shot can be a liberty.
Rights are conceived and defined by poltically motivated humans and therefore unnatural.
I don’t understand the second second amendment is misquoted. It would appear individuals have not read this amendment in which the terms of reference are not defined.
Not that any of this matters because readers have already decided what it means in their own minds whereas the passage says something quite different.
And finally in a democracy why is the will of the majority ignored?
This demonstrates the legal culture of ignoring laws and rights they don’t like. Appalling, and done stupidly enough to be reversed. Meanwhile thousands of others are rewriting laws in more subtle ways that are every bit as objectionable.
Annie at 11:20 am wrote:
“Maybe she thinks people don’t have a “natural right” to own a gun and is only following her conscience?”
Why have a Constitution if everyone in any official position of government can abrogate it based on their conscience, thus usurping the rights of it’s Citizens. They’re not just natural rights in this country, they’re “CONSTITUTIONALLY” protected rights, at least their supposed to be.
Didn’t we just debate a similar debate on the same issue in the Davis case. The women thought she didn’t have to do her job, that of issuing a marriage because of her “Conscience”, religious conviction or what ever it was?
I suggest there is really no rule of law unless there are rights to protect. Just ask those in communist countries.
bam, Thanks for that story, I had not heard. Horrible!
In response to a senseless and tragic shooting of a baseball fan, who was robbed, shot and left paralyzed while he was merely walking to his car after a game on Friday night, the retired St. Louis County Police Chief has a solution. He now suggests that fans be able to check their guns–prior to a baseball game and before entering the game–for the sole purpose of allowing the attendees the opportunity to defend against these all too common attacks.
St. Louis is now descending into a state of war. It’s now every man for himself. Gone is the pretense of WE’LL PROTECT YOU. It’s now more like, IF YOU WANT TO BE SAFE WALKING THE STREETS, ARM YOURSELF.
From CBS St. Louis
____________________________________________________________________________________
Local
Former Police Chief Proposes a ‘Gun-Check Truck’ Outside Busch Stadium
Kevin Killeen (@KilleenKMOX)September 29, 2015 9:16 AM
ST. LOUIS (KMOX) – Retired St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch says the tragic shooting of a St. Louis Cardinals fan during a robbery after the game Friday points out something criminals know and are taking advantage of – you can’t bring a gun into Busch Stadium.
“All you have to do is ride around a sports venue, catch somebody in an outlying area going to a car, wearing a Cardinals shirt or whatever shirt they have on, and target them before they get to their car,” Fitch says.
Related story: Man Shot in St. Louis Post-Game Mugging Paralyzed
Fitch is proposing a gun-check truck outside the stadium, where lawful gun owners could store their weapons just before they go in the game, and pick them up when the game is over.
“I hear the police chief say ‘Leave your gun at home, so you don’t leave them in your car and get them stolen.’ Well there has to be another solution,” Fitch says. “So it’s just kind of thinking the problem through and working it out. Thinking what the options are.”
Fitch says the gun trucks could be staffed by retired police officers, and he says it would give licensed gun owners a way to protect themselves after the game.
Fitch was a guest on the Charlie Brennan show on KMOX.
(TM and © Copyright 2015 CBS Radio Inc. and its relevant subsidiaries. CBS RADIO and EYE Logo TM and Copyright 2015 CBS Broadcasting Inc. Used under license. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)
Retired ADA:
What State/County did you serve? Were there judicial orders (or state laws) barring your carrying in the courtroom or courthouse complex? If yes, what were your responses?
“Defense”, damn you autocorrect.
Wrxdave, I wonder if she thought that the natural right to self dense only included knives and clubs and various other objects. I’m curious, just WHO determines what is a Natural Right? I bet there are folks out there that think it’s their Natural Right to live anywhere they decide to squat. After all isn’t it a “natural right” to have shelter? I do agree with you that her legal knowledge seems to be lacking.
Any law including the “supreme law of the land”, the U.S. Constitution, is meaningless without penalties for violating the supreme law and adequate enforcement to create a deterrent for law breakers.
Today most government officials can violate the “supreme law of the land” with impunity and there is no risk of any substantial penalty for breaking the law.
Why are we surprised that it keeps happening? There is virtually no risk for government officials and contractors that violate the Constitution.
As a retired ADA, I find this shocking from an aspect other than constitutional concerns. We were authorized by law to carry concealed weapons provided we had proper training just like any other law enforcement officer. We were not required to do so, but we were encouraged to do so. Like all law enforcement jobs, being a prosecutor can be dangerous if you prosecute career criminals and violent criminals. I sent many, many persons to very long prison sentences, some for life without parole, and a few to death row [none executed however]. You make lots of enemies if you do a good job. This woman is putting her people in harm’s way with no way to defend themselves.
The Right to keep and bear arms is a Natural Right, logically flowing from the Natural Right, endowed with our creation, of Self Defense.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not grant these Rights, they merely codify them and in an ideal world protect them from Government interference (infringement); this is far from an ideal world.
As a Natural Right, it absolutely is an Individual Right belonging to a person upon his birth and no Government, no legislature, no court, no act of man should have the power to infringe upon, modify, or take away that right, save it takes away that man in whole.
Does this seem like an extreme view? I do not think it is, it is a view highly compatible with simple, basic Liberty.
Restrictions on Liberty do not create violence or crime, that exists regardless of those restrictions, for violence and crime lie in the heart of men and unless we change the root causes restrictions on Liberty will not create a peaceful society.
If it would, our Prisons would be violence and drug free places. I will maintain that it does not even make much impact on the magnitude of the violence or crimes – those are due to other factors. Comparing other countries to the US is comparing countries where those other factors are completely different – so it’s apples & oranges. Liberty & unrepressed Civil Liberties is not anarchy.
Even within the context of our highly infringed and modified version of the Right to Bear Arms as recognized and codified in the 2nd Amendment, this Acting DA has gone beyond what can be considered legal in any jurisdiction, barring a Natural Right, protected at all levels of Government by the Bill of Rights as a term of Public Employment, in a position where that right is probably more likely to be actually needed than many others.
I think this calls into question her legal judgement, as she has, without question violated her oath, providing she took one, …to uphold and protect the Constitution…
One obvious thought. Do you think this is a publicity stunt?
The Science Geek
http://www.thesciencegeek.org
One of the deputy prosecutors ought to make a video of him shooting a Smith & Wesson model 460XVR and email it to Ms. Singas, asking to clarify if this violates her policy.
“One of the deputy prosecutors ought to make a video of him shooting a Smith & Wesson model 460XVR and email it to Ms. Singas, asking to clarify if this violates her policy.”
It is probably OK since about 80% of the population could not possibly use a model 460XVR as a hand gun.
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. Now the outlaws know where to go rob and steal. The assistant prosecutors need to move out of Nassau County. They are targets. The prosecutor who made this decision needs to be robbed at gunpoint. It might point something out to her.
Who has standing to take her to court? Filing a lawsuit against the boss may not be the best career move. It might be a while before a career oriented ADA files suit against her.
The policy might be vulnerable if it became a political issue. But does anyone think that voters in that area will demand an end to the policy? Will a candidate running against her make handgun possession for ADAs a campaign issue? Maybe not.
Constitutional or not, this employment policy may stay on the books for a while.
She should claim it is her RELIGIOUS FREEDOM…