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.

Does Nassau County D.A.'s No-Handgun-Possession Policy Violate New York Law?

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?