New York DA Forces Staff to Forgo Second Amendment Rights

[TechMan]

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150925/witless-for-the-prosecution-new-york-da-forces-staff-to-forgo-second-amendment-rights

Madeline Singas, Acting District Attorney for Nassau County, New York, is a hypocrite. Worse, she is willing to gamble with the lives and safety of her staff and their families for her own perceived political benefit. While claiming “a commitment to justice, compassion, and integrity” and boasting about keeping “more vulnerable people safe,” she enforces a policy of mandatory disarmament amongst the attorneys who put their own safety on the line to administer justice in her jurisdiction. On Monday, Prof. Eugene Volokh broke the story that the Nassau County District Attorney’s Office bars prosecutors from having handguns, even at home.

According to Prof. Volokh, Singas’s Office justified the policy as follows: “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.”

Read the rest of the article.  If I was a prosecutor in that office, I believe I would be finding another gig.

[wmenorr67]

Lawsuit in 3.2.......

[vaskidmark]

Not that much different than what the private sector is doing to millions of workers, except it is the .gov.

stay ssafe.

[zxcvbob]

Notice the work "asking".   It sounds voluntary to me.  (don't ask, don't tell)

[Firethorn]

On Monday, Prof. Eugene Volokh broke the story that the Nassau County District Attorney’s Office bars prosecutors from having handguns, even at home.

Isn't this highly illegal?

[T.O.M.]

Most prosecutor's offices hire attorneys on an "at-will" employment basis, which means that the employment can be terminated at the will of the elected official.  Which means that if the boss doesn't want you to own a gun, and you do anyways, you can be fired.  Not a 2A issue, as the 2A only protects the right to possess, not the right to continued employment.  So, if you want the job, you make the choice.  Same if the prosecutor used his 1A rights to express that drugs should be legalized, and the elected DA could fire for that statement.

(Note, I don't think this is morally right, but it is legal.  And as a former prosecutor, I wouldn't do the job without having firearms.  Too many enemies made along the way...)

[zxcvbob]

Most prosecutor's offices hire attorneys on an "at-will" employment basis, which means that the employment can be terminated at the will of the elected official.  Which means that if the boss doesn't want you to own a gun, and you do anyways, you can be fired.  Not a 2A issue, as the 2A only protects the right to possess, not the right to continued employment.  So, if you want the job, you make the choice.  Same if the prosecutor used his 1A rights to express that drugs should be legalized, and the elected DA could fire for that statement.

(Note, I don't think this is morally right, but it is legal.  And as a former prosecutor, I wouldn't do the job without having firearms.  Too many enemies made along the way...)

Perhaps the DA *wants* a few prosecutors to get killed, to kick-off a new Tough On Crimeâ„¢ campaign.  (I'm pretty sure it's been done before)  She has her sights on Attorney General; the lives of a few peons is a small price to pay.

[T.O.M.]

A whole lot of DAs use that position as a stepping stone to other political office.  Sounds more like this DA is setting up a run for other offices by courting favor from the anti/liberal side of the aisle. 

[Jamisjockey]

Not that much different than what the private sector is doing to millions of workers, except it is the .gov.

stay ssafe.

Except private employers can only fire you.  I'd be real concerned about legal ramifications of ignoring her orders were I an employee under her.

[RevDisk]

Most prosecutor's offices hire attorneys on an "at-will" employment basis, which means that the employment can be terminated at the will of the elected official.  Which means that if the boss doesn't want you to own a gun, and you do anyways, you can be fired.  Not a 2A issue, as the 2A only protects the right to possess, not the right to continued employment.  So, if you want the job, you make the choice.  Same if the prosecutor used his 1A rights to express that drugs should be legalized, and the elected DA could fire for that statement.

(Note, I don't think this is morally right, but it is legal.  And as a former prosecutor, I wouldn't do the job without having firearms.  Too many enemies made along the way...)

I'd honestly be fine with giving up my 2A rights if I was given appropriate compensation. Say enough to hire a full fire team 24/7/365, appropriate air support and enough cash to cover emotional compensation. Kidding, but more seriously, I'd give up my 2A rights in exchange for reasonable full time body guards. This isn't unusual actually. I know of a couple of CEOs who essentially give up their right to drive in exchange for a driver. The risk of the CEO running over a child or puppy (or DUI) is orders of magnitude more expensive to the company than a driver making $50k/yr.

What are the limits, if any, of uncompensated personal time restrictions an employer can make on employees? No dating members of another race? Or no engaging in specific sexual acts? Or automatic firing if they're caught watching soccer? Obviously, there are limits. Employers generally cannot demand sexual acts in exchange for employment.

I'm not doubting that you're legally correct, just curious of the limits, if any exist.

[T.O.M.]

Rev, I honestly don't know where the line is these days.  I know that tobacco bans have been upheld.  I know some terminations for "immoral" behavior (hookers, swinging, dope), or conduct which rwflwcts poorly on the employer (Klan membership).  I recall cases where supporting political candidates has stood up as valid basis for terminating "at will" employees in politically related offices.  Hell, it's almost standard practice around here for a newly elected prosecutor to fire all of the supervisors and senior attorneys to make way for their own people.

As an aside, rumor has it a neighboring county prosecutor has made is known that an application for a CCW permit will be viewed as a letter of resignation.

[grampster]

Sometimes I think we all should have the right to walk up to certain people and be able to punch them right in the face.

[wmenorr67]

Rev, I honestly don't know where the line is these days.  I know that tobacco bans have been upheld.  I know some terminations for "immoral" behavior (hookers, swinging, dope), or conduct which rwflwcts poorly on the employer (Klan membership).  I recall cases where supporting political candidates has stood up as valid basis for terminating "at will" employees in politically related offices.  Hell, it's almost standard practice around here for a newly elected prosecutor to fire all of the supervisors and senior attorneys to make way for their own people.

As an aside, rumor has it a neighboring county prosecutor has made is known that an application for a CCW permit will be viewed as a letter of resignation.

I know that tobacco bans have been upheld based on premises but not to the point that an employer can prevent you from smoking in your own home.

[T.O.M.]

I know that tobacco bans have been upheld based on premises but not to the point that an employer can prevent you from smoking in your own home.

I know that a few companies are doing tobacco testing along with drug testing, with employment contingent on clean tests for both.  This isn't a new story, but Google found this quickly so I'll link to it:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/story/2012-01-03/health-care-jobs-no-smoking/52394782/1

Article about bans on tobacco use both during the work day and during off hours.

[Jamisjockey]

I know that a few companies are doing tobacco testing along with drug testing, with employment contingent on clean tests for both.  This isn't a new story, but Google found this quickly so I'll link to it:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/story/2012-01-03/health-care-jobs-no-smoking/52394782/1

Article about bans on tobacco use both during the work day and during off hours.

I would imagine that private employment vs public employment, the employer has more rights in the private sector.

[dogmush]

I know from anecdotal evidence that the tobacco thing is really common among Firefighters/Paramedics around here. That's at least one (set of) .gov agencies doing it.  I've heard that some of the local LE agencies are making no tobacco use (on or off duty) part of the contract for new hires as well.

[wmenorr67]

I know from anecdotal evidence that the tobacco thing is really common among Firefighters/Paramedics around here. That's at least one (set of) .gov agencies doing it.  I've heard that some of the local LE agencies are making no tobacco use (on or off duty) part of the contract for new hires as well.

Might as well add alcohol to the list also.

As for tobacco most LEO's I know smoke and/or dip.

[MechAg94]

I know from anecdotal evidence that the tobacco thing is really common among Firefighters/Paramedics around here. That's at least one (set of) .gov agencies doing it.  I've heard that some of the local LE agencies are making no tobacco use (on or off duty) part of the contract for new hires as well.

What about steroids? 

[roo_ster]

What about steroids? 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
<takes breath>
Hahahahahahaha!

[Ned Hamford]

If I was a prosecutor in that office, I believe I would be finding another gig.

Legal gigs are very hard to find right now and you'd be impressed at the rationalizations attorneys can come up with.  

I actually have a friend in the office.  <see above>

[HankB]

The story about the NY DA demanding that assistant DAs not own handguns - even at home - reminded about G. Gordon Liddy, who as a convicted felon, cannot own a firearm.

I understand Mrs. Liddy has a very nice gun collection.   

[Hawkmoon]

Not that much different than what the private sector is doing to millions of workers, except it is the .gov.

I don't know of any private sector employer who even attempts to prohibit employees from keeping firearms at home.

[Ben]

The story about the NY DA demanding that assistant DAs not own handguns - even at home - reminded about G. Gordon Liddy, who as a convicted felon, cannot own a firearm.

I understand Mrs. Liddy has a very nice gun collection.   

I realize you're joking, but am wondering if that wouldn't both hold up legally and be non-punishable by the employer. How can they force your work obligations / contracts on other members of your household?

[TommyGunn]

I realize you're joking, but am wondering if that wouldn't both hold up legally and be non-punishable by the employer. How can they force your work obligations / contracts on other members of your household?

No, he's not joking;  Mrs. Liddy HAS a very very nice gun collection. 

[Ben]

No, he's not joking;  Mrs. Liddy HAS a very very nice gun collection. 

I'm old, I know the story.

I was referring to the tie-in to the OP.