I just realized I missed something about the policy in Nassau County, New York that 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.”
It turns out that New York Labor Law § 201-d provides, in relevant part,
[(1)(b).] “Recreational activities” shall mean any lawful, leisure-time activity, for which the employee receives no compensation and which is generally engaged in for recreational purposes, including but not limited to sports, games, hobbies, exercise, reading and the viewing of television, movies and similar material; …
2. Unless otherwise provided by law, it shall be unlawful for any employer or employment agency to refuse to hire, employ or license, or to discharge from employment or otherwise discriminate against an individual in compensation, promotion or terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of: …
c. an individual’s legal recreational activities outside work hours, off of the employer’s premises and without use of the employer’s equipment or other property ….
3. The provisions of subdivision two of this section shall not be deemed to protect activity which:
a. creates a material conflict of interest related to the employer’s trade secrets, proprietary information or other proprietary or business interest; …
d. with respect to employees of [certain government employees], is in knowing violation of article eighteen of the general municipal law or any local law, administrative code provision, charter provision or rule or directive of the mayor or any agency head of a city having a population of one million or more, where such law, code provision, charter provision, rule or directive concerns ethics, conflicts of interest, potential conflicts of interest, or the proper discharge of official duties and otherwise covers such employees ….
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision three of this section, an employer shall not be in violation of this section where the employer takes action based on the belief either that: (i) the employer’s actions were required by statute, regulation, ordinance or other governmental mandate, (ii) the employer’s actions were permissible pursuant to an established substance abuse or alcohol program or workplace policy, professional contract or collective bargaining agreement, or (iii) the individual’s actions were deemed by an employer or previous employer to be illegal or to constitute habitually poor performance, incompetency or misconduct….
It’s hard for me to see how any of the exceptions apply here, so the policy strikes me as clearly improper as to recreational possession of handguns, for instance at a target-shooting range. The employer may not punish an employee for violating the policy in such a situation.
I’d say the same would be true as to applying for a handgun permit in order to keep the handgun for recreational activities.” That might be a tougher call, given that applying for the permit is not itself a recreational activity. But since applying for the permit may be necessary to own the tools needed to engage in the recreational activity — if the applicant is motivated by recreational purposes — I would think that it would be covered. I take it, for instance, that an employer can no more punish someone (given New York Labor Law § 201-d) for applying for a hunting permit, or for buying a snowmobile, than it could for actually hunting or snowmobiling. Or is my analysis mistaken here?