pageok
pageok
pageok
Nassau County (N.Y.) Assistant DAs Barred from Possessing Handguns:

A reader pointed me to an odd policy:

[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.
And the applicant questionnaire asks the following questions:
1. Have you ever used, sold, or given away any illegal drugs? _________
2. Are you, or have you ever been, delinquent with respect to the filing of federal or state income tax returns? _________
3. Have you ever had a license to possess a firearm in this state or any other state? _________
4. Have you ever gambled illegally? _________
5. Have you ever been terminated from any employment? _________
6. Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offense? _________
7. Have you been convicted of any traffic violations? _________
8. Has any state ever suspended or revoked your driver's license? _________
9. Have you ever declared bankruptcy? _________

To be sure, the questionnaire states, "NOTE: AN AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE WILL NOT NECESSARILY SERVE, IN AND OF ITSELF, AS A DISQUALIFICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT," and at least as to some of these items that must surely be so: Consider the traffic violations question. Moreover, the government is surely free to ask about things that are not themselves illegal (such as declaring bankruptcy, or being terminated from a job) in case they reflect on the person's likely future job performance, or in case they might uncover other conduct that is illegal or that might reflect on the person's likely future job performance.

Still, the firearms question strikes me as something that one wouldn't expect to see in the company of the other questions. The other questions all deal either with misconduct, poor judgment, unreliability, or with something that is often — though not always — the result of misconduct, poor judgment, or unreliability (being terminated from a job or bankruptcy). Why is gun possession, especially licensed gun possession, of similar interest to the employer?

It also seems odd that the question focuses only on licensed possession, given that in many states one doesn't need a license to possess a firearm. I wonder whether that reflects a considered judgment that licensed possession is more relevant to the hiring decision than unlicensed possession, or just a lack of understanding of how guns are dealt with in much of the U.S.

In any case, this struck me as odd enough to note, and to ask further about. Does anyone happen to know the reasons for the policy? I e-mailed the office on the 5th about this, and they promptly acknowledged my message, but I haven't heard back from them yet on the substance; if I do, I'll pass along their response.

Thanks to Mike Guasco for the pointer.

UPDATE: I reposted this to fix a glitch with the comments; if you tried commenting on the original and couldn't, please try again.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Does Nassau County D.A.'s No-Handgun-Possession Policy Violate New York Law?
  2. Nassau County (N.Y.) Assistant DAs Barred from Possessing Handguns:
areader (mail):
I would guess they want to check out the license/registration records to see if it has been revoked or the terms of it violated in some way. There's no point in asking about unregistered guns because there's nothing to background check.
1.12.2009 2:53pm
Kingsley Browne (mail):
areader:

I would guess they want to check out the license/registration records to see if it has been revoked or the terms of it violated in some way. There's no point in asking about unregistered guns because there's nothing to background check.


The problem with that explanation is that they don't (apparently) ask for everywhere you've been licensed to drive a vehicle; they simply ask about traffic violations. If they really were just concerned about violations of the law involving firearms, one would expect them to simply ask about such violations, the way they do with traffic violations.

It's hard to imagine this policy being animated by anything other than a hostility to guns. Given Heller, and maybe even without Heller, one wonders how the D.A.'s office would be able to justify a complete ban on ownership of firearms (as opposed to carrying them while on the job) as a condition of employment.
1.12.2009 3:05pm
totally anon:
That and the bankruptcy one are the only no answers I could deliver (construing criminal offense to include certain non-driving infractions and illegal gambling questions to include football pools).
1.12.2009 3:11pm
areader (mail):
The problem with that explanation is that they don't (apparently) ask for everywhere you've been licensed to drive a vehicle; they simply ask about traffic violations.

Well, nobody ever said state (or federal) bureaucrats were good at writing forms in a sensical manner. I'm suspicious of how much information can be gained from an obsessive parsing of the language, the way lawyers like.

After all, the opposite problem to your comment - pointed out in the original post - applies. If it was really motivated by animus towards guns, why not ask about all firearms?
1.12.2009 3:11pm
theobromophile (www):
It also seems odd that the question focuses only on licensed possession, given that in many states one doesn't need a license to possess a firearm. I wonder whether that reflects a considered judgment that licensed possession is more relevant to the hiring decision than unlicensed possession, or just a lack of understanding of how guns are dealt with in much of the U.S.

Actually, the question only focuses on licensing, not licensed possession. D.C., I think, is the only (or one of the only) jurisdictions which requires you to own a gun before applying for the license. In most states with licensing statutes, you could apply for the license (and acquire it), but never actually own a firearm.

That just makes the question even more strange, as it is both underinclusive and overinclusive as far as firearm possession goes.
1.12.2009 3:11pm
Bill Poser (mail) (www):
Not only does this strike me as unconstitutional, but it is also bad policy. ADAs have been targets for retaliation by criminals. Some I don't know about Nassau county, but I bet that some ADAs in some areas would be very unhappy with a prohibition on carrying a gun and would either ignore it or seek employment elsewhere, where they would protect themselves.
1.12.2009 3:13pm
whit:

(construing criminal offense to include certain non-driving infractions and illegal gambling questions to include football pools


infractions are by definition NOT criminal

civil infractions =/= criminal offenses.
1.12.2009 3:15pm
PatHMV (mail) (www):
Having paid your taxes late in the past may be grounds to not hire? I can understand not hiring somebody currently delinquent in their taxes, but having filed late without an authorized extension at some point in the past?
1.12.2009 3:27pm
Alan Gunn (mail):
Why is this puzzling? The answer is likely that the D.A. disapproves of guns and doesn't want to hire people who don't share that opinion. Remember, this is New York, in which you have to have a license for every handgun you touch, even one you'd like to pick up and maybe dry fire in a gun shop to see if it fits your hand.

Many years ago, one of my students shot an armed teenager who was trying to rob him at gunpoint. He had a license for the gun he used. The local prosecutor had the student arrested, though he was let go fairly soon, as he had done nothing illegal. The prosecutor's explanation was simply that she didn't think people should carry guns. (The assailant confessed to a cellmate but was found not guilty by the jury anyway. This was in Ithaca NY, a city that issues its own money and probably has a foreign policy as well, though I can't vouch for that.)
1.12.2009 3:29pm
Kazinski:
I wonder if the Assistant DA's spouse would be allowed to "own or possess a handgun" during the term of their employment? I'm sure it's a legal prohibition, if allowed be state law, but to what purpose, are Assistant DA's more likely to commit handgun crimes than the public at large?
1.12.2009 3:31pm
Bill Poser (mail) (www):

The prosecutor's explanation was simply that she didn't think people should carry guns.


And why isn't such an admission on the part of the prosecutor conclusive evidence for the student's lawsuit against her for malicious prosecution as well as the basis for disciplinary action by the bar? You don't get to prosecute people just because you don't like their legal activities.
1.12.2009 3:40pm
John Jenkins (mail):
We don't know yet whether SCOTUS will extend the Second Amendment to the states (and I don't know whether New York's constitution has a right to keep and bear arms provision), so we don't know whether the provision is unconstitutional.

The regulation of District Attorneys does make me chuckle, when contrasted with Oklahoma's policy on District Attorneys possessing weapons:

"A district attorney may carry a firearm on his person to use only for personal protection if he has successfully completed an approved course of firearm training conducted by a state certified firearms instructor which meets the minimum requirements for firearms training as set forth by the Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training."

19 Okla. Stat. ยง215.29.
1.12.2009 3:41pm
TomHynes (mail):
They aren't allowed to possess a handgun while employed by the D.A.?

First, I think it should be a criminal statute, so you can arrest someone for "D.A. in possession of a firearm".

Second,the government as employer can ask you to give up or limit some constitutional rights e.g. unlimited free speech. Can a bureaucrat ask you to give up 2nd Amendment rights with no justification?
1.12.2009 3:42pm
Houston Lawyer:
New York, where don't ask, don't tell, would be an improvement from the current repressive regime.

Can we require them to wear armbands that say "I put people in jail" on one arm and "I am not allowed to shoot you" on the other?
1.12.2009 3:49pm
forpeterssake (www):
I think this kind of policy is indefensible. It would be one thing if the ADA's were prohibited from carrying firearms on government property or courthouses. I can see good policy arguments for such a practice, but not for the Nassau County policy. I'd be interested to see if they respond.
1.12.2009 3:55pm
PlugInMonster:
[Unsubstantive insult deleted. -EV]
1.12.2009 4:00pm
Oren:
My guess: they don't want to be embarrassed when an ADA violates some minor NY gun law that no one has ever heard of.
1.12.2009 4:02pm
DG:
Follow the link. There are also draconian restrictions on political involvement. ADAs aren't even allowed to attend political rallies or donate money to politicians. This is far more restrictive than anything I've ever seen and far exceeds federal law in this area.

It would also seem to ban running for office.

How can that be permitted in a public employer?
1.12.2009 4:07pm
PersonFromPorlock:
Why only ADAs? Is the DA that hard to work for?
1.12.2009 4:18pm
whit:

It would also seem to ban running for office.



this is mind boggling to me. how can one be forced to give up one's second amendment rights OFF DUTY while employed as a DA?

I cannot see how this is unconstitutional.

Can the DA's office say "you must consent to all searches requested by police?" how about "you must waive miranda if arrested?" of course not. so how can they require you to give up your 2nd amendment rights?

i work with a cop who not only ran for public office, but won. there was no conflict, since he did not work in the same jurisdiction.

as it should be.
1.12.2009 4:34pm
AlanO:
As a prosecutor I find this policy beyond stupid. I carry a gun every day and consider it something that goes with the job. Fortunately I have a boss who respects gun rights and carries himself.

For those of you who are undecided if this policy is unconstitutional consider how you would feel if the DA forbade assistants from having an abortion? Or from subscribing to a particular magazine? Or from being a member of a particular party?

I'd like to see someone sue this jurisdiction over this policy and make them justify it in court.
1.12.2009 5:00pm
Working Man:
Most states give citizens a right to carry a weapon, and only if law enforcement can come up with reasons why you cant carry(criminal, mentally unstable, etc) can you be denied. California on the other hand is reversed. You can be denied for any reason, and it is up to you to come with the reason good enough for them to give you the right. Acquiring a concealed weapons permit in California is difficult.

One of the perks(IMO) of being a ADA in California is a almost automatic concealed weapons permit you are granted. Could have something to do with being an ADA in California is more dangerous than NY, but that seems silly.


I'm Yes on 4 of those questions and Im a pretty straight laced guy. 5 if filing an extension makes someone delinquent.
1.12.2009 5:01pm
Yankev (mail):

You don't get to prosecute people just because you don't like their legal activities.
Unless of course you are a Clinton administration official and they are using lawful means to block a public housing project that you want to build. Then you just analogize their leaflets to baseball bats and prosecute anyway. You may not win, but you can certainly cost them a lot of time and money and deter others from expressing an unauthorized opinion. (Okay, this is probably OT, but the official got away with it and was even named as a possible Obama pick for USAG.)
1.12.2009 5:08pm
Tammy Cravit (mail):
@whit

infractions are by definition NOT criminal


This is not universally true. In California, crimes are classified as one of felony, misdemeanor, infraction. (16 Calif. Penal Code). An example of a criminal infraction would be petty theft (490.1 Calif. Penal Code), which can be charged as either an infraction or a misdemeanor at the prosecutor's discretion.
1.12.2009 5:27pm
whit:
thx for the info. leave it to california, to be special that way
1.12.2009 5:29pm
hattio1:
Off the top of my head, I agree this law is stupid, but I don't see how it could be unconstitutional. No one has a constitutional right to a job. Basically they can choose between their right to carry or working in some other legal field. After all, there are jobs that require you not to drink, even off hours. Why not a job that requires you not to carry a gun, even off hours?
1.12.2009 5:32pm
Dave N (mail):
I love being a prosecutor. However, the restrictions are such that Nassau County is the last jurisdiction in the United States where I would ever apply.

I am rather shocked at how cavalierly Nassau County wants its Deputy District Attorneys to give up core First Amendment (political speech and activity) and Second Amendment rights (and yes, I am fully aware of the First Amendment rights federal employees routinely give up courtesy of the Hatch Act).

Reading the application, it sounds like Nassau County would be all in favor of forcing their employees to give up 13th Amendment rights as well, since it provides:

I also understand that in the event that I violate the three (3) year commitment by leaving the office before my third anniversary date without the express approval of the District Attorney, that I forfeit all of my right, title and interest in and to payment for accrued sick leave, personal leave, vacation leave and compensatory time.
What a happy place to work.
1.12.2009 5:42pm
ShelbyC:

I don't see how it could be unconstitutional. No one has a constitutional right to a job.


No, but you have a constitutional right to own a handgun, and the government has very limited discretion in making you give up constitutional rights in exchange for a job.
1.12.2009 5:47pm
NickM (mail) (www):
PersonFromPorlock -based on what Dave N. posted, perhaps the answer is Yes.

Nick
1.12.2009 5:50pm
D Palmer (mail):
Interesting policy. Can an employer refuse employment because an individual engages in a legal activity (gun ownership in this case)? Can an emplyment policy be governed by the 2nd ammendment?

If this is acceptable, can the Nassau County DA restrict other legal activities as a basis for continues employement? Eat too much sugar, no job for you. Drive a foreign made car, no job for you. Painted your home chartreuse, no job for you. Smoke? No job for you.

Not being a lawyer, I can't point to any specific case law, but this seems like an unreasonable intrusion into one's personal life that would be difficult to defend.
1.12.2009 6:03pm
whit:

Off the top of my head, I agree this law is stupid, but I don't see how it could be unconstitutional. No one has a constitutional right to a job. Basically they can choose between their right to carry or working in some other legal field. After all, there are jobs that require you not to drink, even off hours. Why not a job that requires you not to carry a gun, even off hours?




because drinking is not a constitutional right. gun rights ARE constitutional. so, i find the analogy disanalogous :)

again, could a job require you to not exercise your 4th amendment rights, 5th amendment rights, etc? could they say "if questioned by police, you must give a statement". of course not.

i would argue no. the 2nd amendment is no different.
1.12.2009 6:04pm
hattio1:
Whit,
But it's clear in Federal law that you can require a person to give up some of their first amendment rights. So, perhaps I chose a bad analogy with drinking, but the question is, is the 2nd Amendment somehow more protected than the first? I doubt it. Though I would be happy to be wrong.
1.12.2009 6:57pm
gattsuru (mail) (www):
I wonder whether that reflects a considered judgment that licensed possession is more relevant to the hiring decision than unlicensed possession, or just a lack of understanding of how guns are dealt with in much of the U.S.


I've said this before about the Obama team's selection of similar word choice, and I'll repeat it now.

Do you honestly believe that many people in the Nassau county New York DA system are going to be from anywhere where firearms are not registered?
1.12.2009 7:04pm
ras (mail):
Al Capone couldda answered `yes` to every question, at least till he met Mr. Ness; the ideal candidate, in fact.
1.12.2009 7:05pm
Letalis Maximus, Esq. (mail):
Easy answer. The more questions you ask, the more chances that an applicant will lie, fudge, or misremember and thereby put down a false answer. Intentional or otherwise. Then, if the supervisor needs to find a reason to fire the employee, the investigators can be sent to comb through a the employee's past. Any false answers on the application are, viola, grounds for termination!
1.12.2009 7:26pm
David E. Young (mail) (www):
Instapundit's observation about the "cash for guns" link on the DA's website helps explain this somewhat. It suggests the DA might be a gun control advocate.

The question is reminiscent of similar ones on the employment application for Obama's transition team. We know that Obama is a gun control advocate and has picked very strong such advocates for a number of his most important team members.

Eugene's suggestion is the most likely explanation and applies equally to the Obama questionnaire:

"a lack of understanding of how guns are dealt with in much of the U.S."
1.12.2009 7:31pm
whit:

But it's clear in Federal law that you can require a person to give up some of their first amendment rights. So, perhaps I chose a bad analogy with drinking, but the question is, is the 2nd Amendment somehow more protected than the first? I doubt it. Though I would be happy to be wrong.



well, yes. the restrictions while ON DUTY are pretty clear, and i'm not even referencing those for speech or firearms rights, but speaking of off duty conduct.

1st amendment rights off-duty (as i understand it) can only be restricted in very narrow ways, and only if they obviously conflict with the public office held, etc.

this, otoh, COMPLETELY restricts ALL 2nd amendment rights, and there is no way that carrying a gun (off duty) somehow conflicts with one's employ as a DA.

now personally, i think off-duty 1st amendment restrictions are too broad for many professions (for example, i don't think a police officer posing nude in a magazine should subject her/him to discipline, but i know some agencies have gotten away with that), but certainly a COMPLETE ban on an employee exercising their 2nd amendment right at all, is just not (imo) consitutional.

we are talking about
1) legal behavior
2) that is an exercise of a civil right
3) that in no way can reflect "badly" upon the DA's office
1.12.2009 7:38pm
hattio1:
Whit,
You may be onto something with the "no way [the legal behavior in question] can reflect 'badly' upon the DA's office," but that is precisely the question you would be disagreeing with the DA on (and unfortunately, a lot of other people). As to whether it completely restricts the right, I don't see this as being too important, as the 2nd is really only one right, while the 1st is a whole bundle of rights. But, then, I'm not a Constitutional law guy.
1.12.2009 8:45pm
Mike Howard (mail):
If I were Kathleen Rice, and I wanted to staff my office with politically correct, progressive minded sheep, that's how I would do it...
1.12.2009 8:50pm
gattsuru (mail) (www):
As to whether it completely restricts the right, I don't see this as being too important, as the 2nd is really only one right, while the 1st is a whole bundle of rights. But, then, I'm not a Constitutional law guy.


I'd like to think that the "no religious tests" clause is pretty good evidence that the writers of the Constitution would have opposed singling out even one right from the whole bundle that is the 1st amendment.
1.12.2009 8:55pm
SMSgt Mac (mail) (www):
Gee, My first thought about this list was it would make a good "One of these is not like the others" question for an IQ test. My second thought: "for the very young". (But then again I don't live in NY so guess I shouldn't leap to conclusions.)
1.12.2009 9:04pm
whit:
what's especially sad is that these assistant DA's are (theoretically) versed in constitutional law and should (theoretically) not be willing to give up those rights 24/7, just to get a job. Especially a right that can mean the difference between life and death.

also, is there any other constitutional right that this DA thinks reflects "badly" on his office if one of his DA's exercises it?

if a ADA refused a consent to search would that reflect badly on him?

it's just absurd.
1.12.2009 9:14pm
Eugene Volokh (www):
hattio1: There is of course a body of law that deals with what restrictions the government employer can impose on an employee's off-the-job speech. Do you have a sense of how that law plays out, by analogy (since you're drawing the analogy), with regard to Second Amendment rights, if Second Amendment rights are indeed in play here?

You did say, after all, that "in Federal law that you can require a person to give up some of their first amendment rights," and drew the analogy to the Second Amendment, so the scope of that "some" is pretty important.
1.12.2009 9:17pm
J Richardson:

If I were Kathleen Rice, and I wanted to staff my office with politically correct, progressive minded sheep, that's how I would do it...


I'm surprised she didn't ask if you have ever taken a drink of "intoxicating spirits" (or the Demon Rum) given her crusade against drunk driving. Remember this is the DA who obtained a 2nd deg. murder conviction for a drunk driving vehicular homicide. While I don't condone drinking and driving, that was a bit excessive.
1.12.2009 9:46pm
ReaderY:
It is odd that they don't seem to have any problem at all with firearms, just with getting licenses for them.
1.12.2009 10:54pm
guest (mail):
The more questions you ask, the more chances that an applicant will lie, fudge, or misremember and thereby put down a false answer. Intentional or otherwise. Then, if the supervisor needs to find a reason to fire the employee, the investigators can be sent to comb through a the employee's past. Any false answers on the application are, viola, grounds for termination!

Ah. The Scooter Libby/ Pat Fitzgerald method of Human Resourses management.
1.12.2009 11:11pm
Wikipedia (www):
"During her tenure as district attorney, she also neglected to renew her license to practice law in New York"
1.12.2009 11:13pm
Kenvee:
I don't know about the constitutionality or not. I know that employers have the ability to make certain requirements of employees and the employees have the choice not to work there. But there's also a limit to what you can regulate someone's out-of-work activities. I find it troubling to say the least that any employer would be able to prevent an employee from exercising his constitutional rights on his own time.

But putting aside constitutional issues, I'm a prosecutor. While I don't personally carry, I would refuse to work at an office that prohibited me from ever doing so. If I felt it was necessary for my safety, I would get a concealed license and carry in a heartbeat. (In Texas, prosecutors were recently given the right to a special concealed license that allows us to carry in courthouses and certain other places normally forbidden.) I think that any DA who didn't respect the safety of his employees is one I wouldn't respect enough to work for.
1.13.2009 9:25am
anonymous coward:
I think some people are missing two important points.

1) They are not talking about carrying a gun. The quote is "[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. "

They are banning their employees from owing a handgun. Period.

2) They are showing a complete lack of understanding on how the rest of the country operates. In the majority of the country (I think 45 of the 50 states) there is no licensing of guns. You can walk into a store, do the NCIC check and walk out with a rifle or shotgun. Pistols may be handled a little differently, depending on the state.

I have a 'few' guns in my gun locker. Some I bought. Some I inherited. Not a single one is 'licensed' because I live in an enlightened state.
1.13.2009 11:24am
a juror:

(In Texas, prosecutors were recently given the right to a special concealed license that allows us to carry in courthouses and certain other places normally forbidden.) I think that any DA who didn't respect the safety of his employees is one I wouldn't respect enough to work for.


If you have ever been a juror in, say, a trial of violent gang members, you would wish that privilege extended to jurors, too. Jurors, after all, aren't volunteers.
1.13.2009 11:31am
PeterWimsey (mail):
2) They are showing a complete lack of understanding on how the rest of the country operates. In the majority of the country (I think 45 of the 50 states) there is no licensing of guns. You can walk into a store, do the NCIC check and walk out with a rifle or shotgun. Pistols may be handled a little differently, depending on the state.


While I disagree with the policy, I don't think that these are fair points. First of all, this is a position as a county ADA; I don't think they need to be concerned about how the rest of the country operates. Secondly, firearms include handguns, and since many places do require a handgun license of some sort, the questions seems reasonable given their goals.
1.13.2009 1:05pm
Duncan Frissell (mail):
The peculiarity with the gun language is the assumption that gun ownership is generally licensed. It's mostly not licensed but even in states that have never had licensing, non-gun types often think that licensing is required.

I've encountered that belief in both California and New Jersey which have never had general gun ownership licensing.
1.13.2009 1:49pm
anonymous coward:
Actually, the point I was making was twofold:

1) They are not denying the right for their people to keep and bear arms on duty. If they are dealing with a private business or various sorts of government buildings they can deny people the right to be armed on the premesis. It's misguided, but within their ability.

They are saying you must give up your rights to own a handgun in order to work for them. They should have not ability to regulate what you do on your own time regarding fundamental rights.

2) I was noting that for the vast majority of the country there is no 'gun licensing'. Not for handguns, rifles, shotguns or carbines. That means that nobody outside of NY, IL, or the other couple of states are eligable for employment under these rules. I cannot get a 'gun license' even if I wanted one. It doesn't exist.

I think we are on the same page. The policy is nuts. There is nothing to fear from a law abiding citizen with firearms of any kind. I was just pointing out that these lawyers (who are supposed to be so much smarter than I am) don't have a clue how the world works beyond the Hudson river.
1.13.2009 3:19pm
Michael Ejercito (mail) (www):

Given Heller, and maybe even without Heller, one wonders how the D.A.'s office would be able to justify a complete ban on ownership of firearms (as opposed to carrying them while on the job) as a condition of employment.

Could the D.A.'s office justify requiring residence in a supervised environment as a condition of employment?

Could the D.A.'s office justify a complete ban on homosexual intercourse as a condition of employment?
1.13.2009 5:59pm
Anon011902390:
Why isn't there a 5th Amendment issue with some of these questions? Certainly if there is a 2nd Amendment issue. There should be a high level of scrutiny for any attempt to impinge on the 5th Amendment, and I certainly don't see any great reasons on the face of this as to why the local prosecutor needs to know whether an applicant has ever illegally gambled (I would actually see some utility in asking whether an applicant has gambling debts, but not whether someone has historically gambled illegally).
1.13.2009 9:24pm
Pete P (mail):
There's an important detail many of you may not be aware of with this item.

Under New York State Law, only HANDGUNS are considered "firearms". With that a sharp lawyer (and a prospective ADA had better be) could own rifles and/or shotguns and honestly answer "NO" to this question.



Also, it is NOT a 'permit' in New York, it is a Pistol LICENSE.
1.14.2009 10:16pm
David Chodrow (mail) (www):
I am aware that in Suffolk County next door to Nassau County, they actively put their new Assistant DA's through hand-gun training including time on a shooting range with live weapons.

http://www.NassauCountyCriminalAttorneys.Com
1.15.2009 2:11pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.