NY District Atty. bans Prosecutors from owning guns.

[YellowSnow51]

This would be the same as if that nutty Clerk from KY banned all of those under her from using condoms or taking birth control pills. Whacko!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/2...ong-island-bans-prosecutors-from-owning-guns/


The district attorney of one New York county is prohibiting prosecutors from owning a handgun -- a rule some law experts claim is unconstitutional. The Nassau County District Attorney's Office on New York's Long Island bars its prosecutors from possessing a handgun, even at home, unless a special exception is made by the Acting District Attorney, Madeline Singas, according to an application for employment.

"Assistant 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," the application states. Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA School of Law, said Monday the policy violates an individual's Second Amendment rights as well as an important New York state statute.

"Prosecutors often have special reasons they may want to be able to defend themselves," Volokh told FoxNews.com. "I'm not arguing they should have extra rights beyond what everyone else has; I'm arguing they should have the same rights," Volokh said.

The Nassau County District Attorney's Office did not return requests for comment when contacted Monday. In a statement provided to Volokh, the office said, "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."

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

unconstitutional. Period.

 

[dgordo]

unconstitutional. Period.

clearly

 

[TexMichFan]

This would be the same as if that nutty Clerk from KY banned all of those under her from using condoms or taking birth control pills. Whacko!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/2...ong-island-bans-prosecutors-from-owning-guns/


The district attorney of one New York county is prohibiting prosecutors from owning a handgun -- a rule some law experts claim is unconstitutional. The Nassau County District Attorney's Office on New York's Long Island bars its prosecutors from possessing a handgun, even at home, unless a special exception is made by the Acting District Attorney, Madeline Singas, according to an application for employment.

"Assistant 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," the application states. Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA School of Law, said Monday the policy violates an individual's Second Amendment rights as well as an important New York state statute.

"Prosecutors often have special reasons they may want to be able to defend themselves," Volokh told FoxNews.com. "I'm not arguing they should have extra rights beyond what everyone else has; I'm arguing they should have the same rights," Volokh said.

The Nassau County District Attorney's Office did not return requests for comment when contacted Monday. In a statement provided to Volokh, the office said, "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."

The problem is they are not asking they are mandating as a condition of employment. If this is ok then every business could start putting restrictions on their employees not just in the workplace but at home.

 

[fredjr82]

The problem is they are not asking they are mandating as a condition of employment. If this is ok then every business could start putting restrictions on their employees not just in the workplace but at home.

Can't they already do that today? Companies drug test today. That's trying to control people outside of the office. Do you think you can say whatever you want on your FaceBook account as long as you do it at home? You didn't use any company assets to post the message but they can still fire your ass for it.

That said it sounds like the DA has too much time on his hands. Seems like there should be bigger fish to fry.

 

[TexMichFan]

Can't they already do that today? Companies drug test today. That's trying to control people outside of the office. Do you think you can say whatever you want on your FaceBook account as long as you do it at home? You didn't use any company assets to post the message but they can still fire your ass for it.

That said it sounds like the DA has too much time on his hands. Seems like there should be bigger fish to fry.

Both of your examples don't work for me.

In your Facebook example you are mixing the result of something you do on Facebook from home to being banned form having the opportunity to have a Facebook account at all. Might not be a difference for you but it is a big difference to me. For the record if you are posting something about your workplace then you bring your company into the discussion if you don't then a company should not have a say in what you post IMHO, but that is separate discussion than this one. .

If you want to say you can't bring a gun to work fine with me and if you leave your gun at home it has no impact on the workplace. If you take drugs they don't stop having an effect once you go to work so they can impact what happens in the workplace.

 

[dgordo]

If you take drugs they don't stop having an effect once you go to work so they can impact what happens in the workplace.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

Can't they already do that today? Companies drug test today. That's trying to control people outside of the office. Do you think you can say whatever you want on your FaceBook account as long as you do it at home? You didn't use any company assets to post the message but they can still fire your ass for it.

That said it sounds like the DA has too much time on his hands. Seems like there should be bigger fish to fry.

Horrible comparisons. Apples and oranges.

 

[Titanhawk2]

Can't they already do that today? Companies drug test today. That's trying to control people outside of the office. Do you think you can say whatever you want on your FaceBook account as long as you do it at home? You didn't use any company assets to post the message but they can still fire your ass for it.

That said it sounds like the DA has too much time on his hands. Seems like there should be bigger fish to fry.

Using illegal drugs, is well, illegal. Owning a gun is not illegal.

Being stupid in public, including facebook, is clear reason not to hire somebody.

If you want to ask someone if they own a gun, then not hire them if they say yes. That's probably fine. Firing them for owning a gun, especially a government job, would be wrong.

 

[theIowaHawk]

This would be the same as if that nutty Clerk from KY banned all of those under her from using condoms or taking birth control pills. Whacko!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/2...ong-island-bans-prosecutors-from-owning-guns/


The district attorney of one New York county is prohibiting prosecutors from owning a handgun -- a rule some law experts claim is unconstitutional. The Nassau County District Attorney's Office on New York's Long Island bars its prosecutors from possessing a handgun, even at home, unless a special exception is made by the Acting District Attorney, Madeline Singas, according to an application for employment.

"Assistant 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," the application states. Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA School of Law, said Monday the policy violates an individual's Second Amendment rights as well as an important New York state statute.

"Prosecutors often have special reasons they may want to be able to defend themselves," Volokh told FoxNews.com. "I'm not arguing they should have extra rights beyond what everyone else has; I'm arguing they should have the same rights," Volokh said.

The Nassau County District Attorney's Office did not return requests for comment when contacted Monday. In a statement provided to Volokh, the office said, "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."

Agree that this is absurd and unconstitutional.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Using illegal drugs, is well, illegal. Owning a gun is not illegal.

Being stupid in public, including facebook, is clear reason not to hire somebody.

If you want to ask someone if they own a gun, then not hire them if they say yes. That's probably fine. Firing them for owning a gun, especially a government job, would be wrong.

Not only legal, but Constitutionally protected. Also, that hiring practice would be illegal.

 

[fredjr82]

Using illegal drugs, is well, illegal. Owning a gun is not illegal.

Being stupid in public, including facebook, is clear reason not to hire somebody.

If you want to ask someone if they own a gun, then not hire them if they say yes. That's probably fine. Firing them for owning a gun, especially a government job, would be wrong.

Is smoking pot in Colorado, Washingon, Alaska, etc illegal still? From a federal level it is. Are those companies that still drug test in those states channeling some federal standard for those offenders? I assume most would follow the state laws when hiring/employment is concerned? So why is something that is considered legal in those states still getting people fired? Obviously (which was my initial response to begin with) those companies are trying to "control" their employees outside of work.

 

[fredjr82]

Horrible comparisons. Apples and oranges.

Not really. I didn't really expect you to look at it logically.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

Not really. I didn't really expect you to look at it logically.

Yes is it....for the reasons others have given.
First of all, it's a violation of the 2nd Amendment, and it's a protected right. Secondly, Drug testing is done to curb ILLEGAL activity in the work place and illegal actions that can affect performance and workplace behavior. And lastly, FB behavior can reflect directly on the company and it's reputation.

What's your logic? We aren't talking about 3 states that have legalized pot. Last time I checked New York still had laws prohibiting the use of marijuana. And yes......companies in the three states mentioned are still allowed to drug test.

 

[fredjr82]

Yes is it....for the reasons others have given.
First of all, it's a violation of the 2nd Amendment, and it's a protected right. Secondly, Drug testing is done to curb ILLEGAL activity in the work place and illegal actions that can affect performance and workplace behavior. And lastly, FB behavior can reflect directly on the company and it's reputation.

What's your logic? We aren't talking about 3 states that have legalized pot. Last time I checked New York still had laws prohibiting the use of marijuana. And yes......companies in the three states mentioned are still allowed to drug test.

The reason for my initial post was to prove the point that the DA trying to pass this garbage legislation isn't the only evidence of employers trying to control their employees outside of normal business hours. The two examples I provided were relevant to the discussion that TexMichFan and I were having. I agree that this DA is a moron, but it hardly is the first example of an employer trying to control its employees lives outside of work.

 

[theiacowtipper]

This would be the same as if that nutty Clerk from KY banned all of those under her from using condoms or taking birth control pills. Whacko!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/2...ong-island-bans-prosecutors-from-owning-guns/


The district attorney of one New York county is prohibiting prosecutors from owning a handgun -- a rule some law experts claim is unconstitutional. The Nassau County District Attorney's Office on New York's Long Island bars its prosecutors from possessing a handgun, even at home, unless a special exception is made by the Acting District Attorney, Madeline Singas, according to an application for employment.

"Assistant 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," the application states. Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA School of Law, said Monday the policy violates an individual's Second Amendment rights as well as an important New York state statute.

"Prosecutors often have special reasons they may want to be able to defend themselves," Volokh told FoxNews.com. "I'm not arguing they should have extra rights beyond what everyone else has; I'm arguing they should have the same rights," Volokh said.

The Nassau County District Attorney's Office did not return requests for comment when contacted Monday. In a statement provided to Volokh, the office said, "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."

Would right to work laws apply here? Not sure if New York is right to work, but if a private company in Iowa chose to fire every employee who owned a gun, or threaten to fire them unless they gave up ownership, wouldn't that be legal? I don't believe carrying a gun is one of the protected classes, at least in Iowa, probably different in Texas. I don't know how that would apply to this case in New York, since it is a government agency.

 

[CeMar_Clone]

The problem is they are not asking they are mandating as a condition of employment. If this is ok then every business could start putting restrictions on their employees not just in the workplace but at home.

Most employers already do.

 

[hawkifann]

Would right to work laws apply here? Not sure if New York is right to work, but if a private company in Iowa chose to fire every employee who owned a gun, or threaten to fire them unless they gave up ownership, wouldn't that be legal? I don't believe carrying a gun is one of the protected classes, at least in Iowa, probably different in Texas. I don't know how that would apply to this case in New York, since it is a government agency.

I think being a government agency makes it very different....but what really makes it different is that gun ownership is a right specifically guaranteed by Constitution. You couldn't claim "right to work" by asking your female employees not to vote or by laying off any employee who wouldn't subject themselves to unlawful searches or voluntarily give up their due process rights.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Looks like what I thought was an obvious distinction needs to be made:

Carrying a weapon
vs
Owning a weapon

One of those is absolutely protected, the other (seen in other laws) can be conditioned.

 

[slieb85]

I'm confused by the end of the linked article...

" and is consistent with other district attorney’s offices in the New York City metropolitan area.""


Really? How in the world do all of them do this and no one heard about it until now? I imagine there is more to the story?

 

[TexMichFan]

Looks like what I thought was an obvious distinction needs to be made:

Carrying a weapon
vs
Owning a weapon

One of those is absolutely protected, the other (seen in other laws) can be conditioned.

This was a nice easy way to explain my position but I went a much longer route.

 

[theiacowtipper]

I think being a government agency makes it very different....but what really makes it different is that gun ownership is a right specifically guaranteed by Constitution. You couldn't claim "right to work" by asking your female employees not to vote or by laying off any employee who wouldn't subject themselves to unlawful searches or voluntarily give up their due process rights.

This is a completely theoretical discussion, but, couldn't an private employer choose to fire an employee because they are a gun owner? Since Iowa is an "at will" state, an employer could terminate based on the employees choice to bear arms, as that is not a protected area like religion, sex, or age.

I suppose a parallel is that an employer can terminate based on speech.

 

[TexMichFan]

This is a completely theoretical discussion, but, couldn't an private employer choose to fire an employee because they are a gun owner? Since Iowa is an "at will" state, an employer could terminate based on the employees choice to bear arms, as that is not a protected area like religion, sex, or age.

I suppose a parallel is that an employer can terminate based on speech.

"At will" still requires it to be work related.

 

[hawkifann]

This is a completely theoretical discussion, but, couldn't an private employer choose to fire an employee because they are a gun owner? Since Iowa is an "at will" state, an employer could terminate based on the employees choice to bear arms, as that is not a protected area like religion, sex, or age.

I suppose a parallel is that an employer can terminate based on speech.

I would argue that anything explicitly protected by the Constitution is a protected class. Even in an "at-will" state, you can't, for example, fire a woman who won't obey your wishes and give up her right to vote. You can fire an employee for bringing a gun onto business property (even if they have a concealed carry permit), but you can't simply deny them their constitutional right to own a gun. I can't imagine that standing up to challenge in the courts.

 

[theIowaHawk]

This is a completely theoretical discussion, but, couldn't an private employer choose to fire an employee because they are a gun owner? Since Iowa is an "at will" state, an employer could terminate based on the employees choice to bear arms, as that is not a protected area like religion, sex, or age.

I suppose a parallel is that an employer can terminate based on speech.

It does not require the reason to be work-related, but it still can't be a firing against "public policy", and certainly fired for exercising a Constitutional right (which doesn't affect your job) should be protected by public policy.

As someone mentioned earlier, can you imagine a person being fired for voting? For not quartering soldiers?

 

[NoleandDawg]

This is a stupid rule. I remember once I was prosecuting some shot caller for the AW's for robbery. His girlfriend came up to me in the middle of the trial and made some veiled threat about catching me in my sleep. I told her I sleep quite well with a clear conscious and a .45 beside my bed.

Prosecutors should have guns.

 

[theiacowtipper]

It does not require the reason to be work-related, but it still can't be a firing against "public policy", and certainly fired for exercising a Constitutional right (which doesn't affect your job) should be protected by public policy.

As someone mentioned earlier, can you imagine a person being fired for voting? For not quartering soldiers?

Thanks for the explanation. Is was just something that popped into my head.

 

[KitingHigh]

The problem is they are not asking they are mandating as a condition of employment. If this is ok then every business could start putting restrictions on their employees not just in the workplace but at home.

Different animals. This isn't a business. It's a government entity bound by the Constitution.

 

[slieb85]

This is a stupid rule. I remember once I was prosecuting some shot caller for the AW's for robbery. His girlfriend came up to me in the middle of the trial and made some veiled threat about catching me in my sleep. I told her I sleep quite well with a clear conscious and a .45 beside my bed.

Prosecutors should be allowed to have guns.

FIFY.

 

[icu81222]

Can't they already do that today? Companies drug test today. That's trying to control people outside of the office. Do you think you can say whatever you want on your FaceBook account as long as you do it at home? You didn't use any company assets to post the message but they can still fire your ass for it.

That said it sounds like the DA has too much time on his hands. Seems like there should be bigger fish to fry.

No its not. Big difference

 

[fredjr82]

No its not. Big difference

Read further for context.

 

[icu81222]

Looks like what I thought was an obvious distinction needs to be made:

Carrying a weapon
vs
Owning a weapon

One of those is absolutely protected, the other (seen in other laws) can be conditioned.

Agreed
Except both should be treated the same.

 

[icu81222]

Read further for context.

I did

 

[fredjr82]

I did

 

[theIowaHawk]

Agreed
Except both should be treated the same.

Why? If you own a business/employ a person, shouldn't you be able to control what they do/say/wear/carry while actively working?

 

[icu81222]

Just admit you're wrong

 

[fredjr82]

Just admit you're wrong

 

[icu81222]

That whole "shall not be infringed" thing doesn't mean "except when someone else decides different "

 

[theIowaHawk]

That whole "shall not be infringed" thing doesn't mean "except when someone else decides different "

Shall not be infringed by government. Maybe your post I responded to meant only in regards to government.

If so, I'm still surprised by two things, that you believe courthouse bans of firearms is unconstitutional and that felons have full gun rights.

 

[icu81222]

Ok

Shall not be infringed by government. Maybe your post I responded to meant only in regards to government.

If so, I'm still surprised by two things, that you believe courthouse bans of firearms is unconstitutional and that felons have full gun rights.

Good points.