Last week, law professor and Washington Post blogger Eugene Volokh, exposed how the District Attorney’s Office in Nassau County, New York, was unconstitutionally prohibiting its prosecutors from possessing handguns, even in their homes. We registered our disapproval as well. On Wednesday, mere days after the story broke, Prof. Volokh reported that the policy had been rescinded. Well, mostly rescinded.
Prof. Volokh’s Wednesday post includes a copy of a memo issued by Albert Teichman, Chief Assistant District Attorney for Nassau County. The memo notes the policy was enacted in 2006, and predates the tenure of current Nassau County Acting District Attorney, Madeline Singas. Although the memo doesn’t say so, it would also mean the policy predated the Supreme Court’s pivotal holdings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. Of course, those cases should be well-known to any lawyer, especially one working in law enforcement, so that does not excuse the fact that the policy persisted, even when it was clearly at odds with the high court’s statements on the Second Amendment.
The memo claims, unlike the explanation provided to Prof. Volokh when he inquired about the policy, that the restriction was enacted “to prevent friendly fire tragedies like those that have occurred in recent years in Nassau County and neighboring jurisdictions.” It then embarks on a litany of incidents occurring between 2006 and 2011 in which law enforcement officers were killed by other law enforcement officers in the New York City Metropolitan area. None of the incidents involved prosecutors or other officials who do not routinely carry as part of their law enforcement duties.
The memo concludes, “Upon review, the public safety interests served by the policy can be substantially effectuated though a less-restrictive means that does not preclude ADAs from owning handguns, but strictly prohibits work-related possession and use.” It goes on to recommend that assistant district attorneys be “strictly prohibited from carrying or possessing a weapon any time they are working … without the express written permission of the District Attorney or the District Attorney’s authorized designee.” Violations, it states, should be punishable by termination.
A follow-up memo, also dated Sept. 30, shows the policy being enacted “immediately” and superseding any previous policy. It also states, “Assistant District Attorneys are permitted to own and possess a legally registered handgun in their homes or for legally permitted activity unrelated to their employment and workplace.” Such employees are “encouraged” to take a firearm safety course. They are also required to provide copies of their “licensure and registration documentation to the DA’s office.”
We took Acting District Attorney Ringas strongly to task in our original remarks, as she is ultimately responsible for the policies of her office, whether she originally implemented them or not. We now credit her, however, with taking positive and expeditious steps to correct an obviously untenable situation. We certainly agree with her office’s recommendation that DAs who choose to own handguns take a firearm safety course, and NRA’s network of certified trainers – the finest in the nation – stand ready to assist in that regard. While we believe that any prosecutor lawfully able to do so should also have the option of remaining armed while operating their own private automobiles, we are glad to know that they will now be able to own and use handguns on their own time and for their own purposes.
More troubling is the office’s continued insistence that “[m]any neighboring jurisdictions impose handgun restrictions on Assistant District Attorneys.” We checked the hiring websites for the District Attorney’s Offices of Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, and Richmond Counties. None of them mentioned any such requirements. Clearly, however, the use of public employment or civil service as a means of depriving individuals of their Second Amendment rights while they are at home or on their own time is a problem in any context. Public employees subjected to any such a blanket policy are encouraged to contact the NRA with their stories.
The original author of the Nassau County policy is former District Attorney and current U.S. Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-NY). Rice told the media through a spokesperson that assistant district attorneys “shouldn’t be walking around armed” when dealing with victims, witnesses, and defendants. Why she believed that necessitated banning prosecutors from owing handguns at home, however, is not explained. It suggests deficiencies not just in her grasp of the U.S. Constitution but in her legal drafting ability. Her NRA-PVFF-rating, meanwhile, indicates she takes a dim view of firearm ownership in general.
THIS is CNN (Again)
Images of the mixed-race, hater of White people who killed nine people (after asking them if they were Christians!) at the junior college.
(And who shall NOT be named here…)
REAL IMAGE (left) – CNN IMAGE (right)
I’m certain there was no intent to deceive anyone here.
Per my loyal readership, this image has been debunked as not from CNN! Mea Culpa.
Of course, this doesn’t mean the mixed race shooter didn’t shoot people based on their religion…
h/t The Last Refuge, The Feral Irishman
I’d two thoughts when Dave the
genius mechanic forwarded me this cartoon. (Hi, Dave! Hope Dallas is treating you well?)
- I remembered junior high, wherein a couple-times-a-year, some fool would either pull the fire alarm or call in a bomb threat. This was 1963-66. There was a perfunctory evac while the school was checked, and we went back to class, in an orderly fashion.
I imagine the kid who was trying to avoid taking a test had to anyway. This was not terrorism.
2. The Ray Bradbury book (and the film) Fahrenheit 451. Once a futuristic tale of government sponsored book-burning, foiled by people who made it their life’s work and duty to memorize the banned books in toto, to pass on to future generations.
Now, yet again, the sedan of censorship is driving over the works of people like Mark Twain, using the wheel of political correctness. And people are wanting to excise symbols of the Confederacy, as though not being reminded of slavery and federal government takeover of State power will make it not have existed.
No gasoline needed.
If you are not reading Peter Grant (Bayou Renaissance Man) daily, may I say your daily blog reading is – in the very least – incomplete!
For those of us interested in personal security and safety…
America’s shopping malls are wide open to attack by terrorists and criminal thugs. I’ve spoken about that on various occasions, and I’ll repeat here what I’ve warned before:
In today’s racially charged climate, with criminal flash mobs an ever-increasing problem in many cities, the average urban shopping mall now qualifies as a “stupid place” to be. (!!!)
In 2013 four Muslim fundamentalist terrorists attacked a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, in a chilling foretaste of what could happen in any city in America at any time. I wrote about it that same day. I urge you to read the warning I gave then, and ask yourself the same questions I posed on that day. They’re as relevant as ever they were.
Now Foreign Policy brings us an in-depth report on what happened that day in Nairobi, complete with many eye-witness and participant accounts. It’s the next best thing to a security briefing on what you might confront any day now in an American shopping center. I have no faith whatsoever that our police and security forces could stop such a thing from at least getting started. I hope and trust they’d do rather better at shutting it down before it got out of hand: but if the attacking party is larger, or better-armed, or their assault is timed to coincide with mass street protests that draw too many cops away from the danger zone . . . who knows?
We already know that fundamentalist Islamic terrorists and/or their sympathizers are trying to infiltrate the United States. Some claim they’ve already done so. None of us know the facts . . . but I guaran-damn-tee you, they want to. Nairobi was a foreshadowing of what they’d like to do to the Great Satan, America itself. Go read the Foreign Policy article in full, and ask yourself: if something like that goes down tomorrow, in my town, and I’m there, what am I going to do about it? Am I prepared to deal with it? If not . . . why not?
Sad, but true, from Peter.
Those who say ‘it won’t happen here’ are whistling in the dark.
or maybe IV, I forget. (courtesy of Old NFO,)
(aka, an extreme overuse of film icons…)
You ‘thought’ you had…
Remember how criminal fingerprint bases were kept separate from military and civil (e.g. fingerprinted for a job)?
Yeah, not so much anymore…
I completely missed this one, but it came out in a discussion of the latest release of the ever increasing scope of the OPM hack (an additional 6 million files hacked, PLUS all fingerprints).
This from the EFF-
FBI Combines Civil and Criminal Fingerprints into One Fully Searchable Database
Being a job seeker isn’t a crime. But the FBI has made a big change in how it deals with fingerprints that might make it seem that way. For the first time, fingerprints and biographical information sent to the FBI for a background check will be stored and searched right along with fingerprints taken for criminal purposes.
The change, which the FBI revealed quietly in a February 2015 Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA), means that if you ever have your fingerprints taken for licensing or for a background check, they will most likely end up living indefinitely in the FBI’s NGI database. They’ll be searched thousands of times a day by law enforcement agencies across the country—even if your prints didn’t match any criminal records when they were first submitted to the system.
Full article HERE. What isn’t clear, but is included are ALL the military fingerprints, which we were told were always to be kept separately for security reasons…
Yeah, right… Shoulda known better…
You can read the Fibbies Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) HERE.
Think about it… How many doors, objects, etc. do you touch on a daily basis when getting too/from work… The grab bar on the Metro, the bus, the door to the elevator, handrails? Bathroom doors? Restaurant doors at lunch?
Suppose there is an incident at a location you’ve been to, they dust and lo an behold your fingerprints show up…
You have a high security job, now how are you going to explain to YOUR security people why the cops just hauled you downtown for an ‘interview’…
BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!
But wait… It is going to get even better! For certain values of better…
Specifically, in 2012, Deputy Assistant Director Jerome Pender stated:
Only criminal mug shot photos are used to populate the national repository. Query photos and photos obtained from social networking sites, surveillance cameras, and similar sources are not used to populate the national repository.
But the new RFQ contradicts this because it appears the desired software would allow officers to submit non-mug shot photos to NGI. The RFQ says the FBI is looking for a mobile biometrics tool that would, “at a minimum . . . include fingerprints and facial photographs for submission and receipt of a response.” Photographs taken in the field are clearly not “mug shot photos” because they’re taken before booking and possibly even before arrest. And it’s hard to see how a mobile tool that allows officers to collect these non-mug shot photos and “submit” them to a database is not also “populating the national repository.”
The article from EFF is HERE. And HERE’s the link to the FedBizOps page for the biometric system…
Yep, kiss that whole privacy thing good by… As if we had any to start with…
Yeah. Thanks, Jim (and Lawdog)! (groan)
And, of course, we know the BATFE is not continuing to add to a database involving NICS check data, because it would be a violation of criminal law…
Ya think some enterprising young attorney at the DOJ isn’t conspiring to meld these databases together, along with Homeland Security? For our safety, of course.
It’s what makes the World go ’round.
What do I mean?
If we all viewed things exactly the same, how would that work? Religion, politics, types of food? Sex?
The current President? The last President?
99+% of the folks I know have NOT recently been to Europe. But most have an opinion regarding the refugee crisis. Even to the point there may not be a crisis!
I’ve had recent conversations with two liberal friends (yes, I have those) regarding what they know about the goings-on in Europe. Apparently, those nasty non-Syrian White folks are only interested in protecting the sovereignty of their individual nations, and just hate being forced to accept Islam and the terrorism which seems to be attached to it.
I don’t agree with them. Not because they are liberals, but because I’ve a different World view. Even the most liberal of reportage indicates the vast majority of immigrants are young adult males. Where are the women and children – don’t they need asylum, as well?
And then there’s the increase in attacks on non-Muslim folks by roving bands of Muslim folks. And a breakdown of the rule-of-law. And these attacks are by men.
It’s 711 A.D. all over again! Except this time it’s not just the Iberian peninsula.
Some here think there is a breakdown of traditional American society, and many of the (illegal) immigrants arriving here are keeping to their cultures to the exclusion of American culture!
And the current administration wants to increase the number of legal immigrants from war-torn Islamic nations.
Because, not doing so would be racist and politically incorrect.
I sense a dangerous pattern here.
Not because of xenophobia, but because of dilution of American Culture. People are supposed to want to come here because of the freedoms we offer, not to abuse that freedom to force the end of our culture.
Sharia Law, anyone?
Another example of The American Paradox. Being free enough to allow differences of opinion, but not so free as to accept poison pills into The Republic.
It might be too late for Europe (Muslims wanting to stop observance of Oktoberfest). I hope it is not too late here.
No, not the story you thought…
(Although my thoughts and prayers are with the dead, wounded and their families and friends in Oregon.)
A jury has found two men guilty of murder in the killing of a U.S. Border Patrol agent whose death exposed the botched federal operation known as Fast and Furious.
The jury found Jesus Leonel Sanchez-Meza and Ivan Soto-Barraza guilty of all counts. Jurors had begun deliberations Wednesday afternoon, a week after the trial began in federal court in Tucson.
Sanchez-Meza, also known as Lionel Portillo-Meza, and Soto-Barraza were part of a five-man crew that planned on robbing drug smugglers when they encountered Agent Brian Terry and three others on Dec. 14, 2010.
(Reports are they will receive life in prison…)
additionally, from Fox News
The killing led to intense political rhetoric as Republicans sought to hold the Obama administration accountable over the Fast and Furious operation. They conducted a series of inquiries into how the Justice Department allowed guns to end up in the hands of criminals.
Former Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt after he refused to divulge documents for a congressional investigation into the matter. Since then, the Justice Department has focused on arresting and trying all suspects involved.
About f’n time!
Now, what about the charges against Holder et al for complicity, conspiracy and obstruction?I’m not holding my breath…
How closely have you read the 4473?
All of us have filled out the 4473 form so many times that we could pretty much recite it and fill it out blind folded. But have you actually bothered to read the stuff after you sign and date 16 and 17?
A co-worker was perusing the later section, that hardly anyone reads, and found two interesting things in the 4473 that dispel misconceptions regarding firearm sales.
First there is the misconception regarding gifting a firearm. For a long time I have heard, and mistakenly believed, that gifting a firearm is only allowed between parent and offspring or between spouses. This is completely false. Apparently you can gift a gun to anyone you want. Take a look at the screen cap of the section explaining 11a “transferee/buyer”.
Did you catch the subtle nuance between the two examples? You cannot buy a gun on BEHALF of someone. But you can buy a gun and gift it to someone. Now the recipient of the gifted firearm must not be a prohibited person. So use common sense, otherwise you will have committed a straw purchase.
The other amazing discovery is with regards to residency. Having lived in NY for a couple years as a firearms enthusiast, I look for ways to acquire guns legally using loopholes. Such as buying non NY legal guns in PA but having them shipped to my FFL in NY. Like my Glock 21 Gen4 came with three 13rd magazines. The store clerk said he can’t ship them to NY. I told him yes he can because my FFL will buy them off me or trade them for 10 rd mags. However this recently discovered rule in the 4473 opens up opportunities for a lot of people.
In the 4473, under Current Address and State of Residency, there is a section that clarifies it. It states that if you have a house in a different state and while you are vacationing there, you must use that address while you are there buying guns.
What does this mean for you and me? Well, you can buy handguns in different states and take them with you rather than ship them to another FFL in the other state. Granted you need to have a home or apt with a supporting govt document that shows your address of that other state.
So my friend who is still living in NY, has a house in PA .He could go to a PA FFL and buy any gun he wants because he is using his PA address as his current residence. He can get any handgun or AR15 that would be banned in NY and leave them in his home in PA. According to the excerpt above, that would be completely legal.
The BATFE enforcement seems to be all about nuance (except concerning Fast & Furious, of course!).
When it comes to completing this form, watch your back, Jack! (or Jane!)
from The Silicon Graybeard – in part
From Karl Denninger at Market-Ticker, we get this tale of what Net Neutrality is really going to mean to us.
While the problem is less-severe for “landline” (e.g. Cable, FIOS, etc) customers it is by no means not present. If you have a 50Mbps connection from Comcast, for example, you could consume 375 Megabytes per minute. That works out to 22.5Gb/hour roughly 16.2 Terabytes per month.
Again, Comcast cannot engineer for that while charging you $50/month. Can you buy such service? Sure! I used to buy service of similar quality as an ISP all the time — a 44.7Mbps (each direction) DS-3 “clear channel” line for which I actually paid to move that full amount of data all the time.
But while it’s gotten much cheaper than the five-digit price tag per month I paid at that time for such capacity it sure as hell isn’t $50/month even today.
There was a lot of sentiment from young tech heads that they were being screwed because their ISP was wanting to charge extra for Netflix or other streaming services. Net Neutrality, at its root, says “all bits are equal” and they can’t charge you more for one service’s bits. But they can charge you what it costs them to provide those bits and they can meter how many bits you use. Simply, they’re going to have to charge what it costs them or go out of business, and if they don’t charge enough, they can’t get enough money to build out infrastructure for the Next Big Thing (Netflix 4K?). By the looks of it, we’ll all be having metered internet services in the next few years.
Go read the rest of the piece at Market Ticker. Let it sink in.
By hook or by crook, it appears this is headed our way. Because the industry says so…