Long Island DA bans prosecutors from owning guns.

[94user]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/28/district-attorney-on-new-york-long-island-bans-prosecutors-from-owning-guns/?intcmp=hplnws

 

Not possessing them at work, but out right ownership. Can't have one in the house, can't apply for a carry permit. An exemption can be made supposedly, like they would ever do that.  Can a DA, a lawyer be that stupid to expect this is constitutional ?  I dunno where it's worse, NY or California.

[DaveTN]

I would guess it would take a DA that wants a permit to test it. Of course then he would be under constant scrutiny and in that job it would just be a matter of time before they had cause to dismiss.
Employers can ban employees from smoking cigarettes even at home on their off time. Maybe that’s because smoking isn’t a specified right? Edited September 28, 2015 by DaveTN

[94user]

There is the rub. The prosecutors don't give up their 2nd amendment rights by working for the DA. They can't have one period under this rule. Permit not withstanding.

Edited September 28, 2015 by 94user

[jh225]

There is the rub. The prosecutors don't give up their 2nd amendment rights by working for the DA. They can't have one period under this rule. Permit not withstanding.

 

Being formerly from Commie York, I can say that the DA's "rule" won't hold up in a court of law if any of his employees challenge it. It's already been tried and been beaten elsewhere in the state. Not going to get into any specifics, but take my word for it.

 

Basically comes down to the exact reason 94user posted. Just because a person works for a certain entity, doesn't mean said person forfeits their constitutional rights.

 

Just another case of some uber liberal trying to impose their will, no matter how illegal it may be,

[Oh Shoot]

Being formerly from Commie York, I can say that the DA's "rule" won't hold up in a court of law if any of his employees challenge it. It's already been tried and been beaten elsewhere in the state. Not going to get into any specifics, but take my word for it.

 

I believe McDonald vs Chicago is quite clear on the matter of firearm ownership, and specifically that of handguns, which was what the suit was about in the first place.

 

- OS

Edited September 29, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[homeagain]

I

Employers can ban employees from smoking cigarettes even at home on their off time. Maybe that’s because smoking isn’t a specified right?

In NY? Employers can't reach that far in TN.

[10-Ring]

I
In NY? Employers can't reach that far in TN.

I believe that they already have though I could be mistaken.  Seems it was a hospital or some other medical entity in the Chattanooga area.  I'm not a tobacco user but I fully support someone else's right to use tobacco so long as I'm not inhaling their smoke or getting spit on.

[JReedEsq]

This is absolutely ridiculous. DA's have more reason to arm themselves than people in nearly any other line of work. I am quite certian that I know at least a few Government lawyers that consistently vote Democratic, yet have firearms and HCPs.

[homeagain]

I believe that they already have though I could be mistaken.  Seems it was a hospital or some other medical entity in the Chattanooga area.  I'm not a tobacco user but I fully support someone else's right to use tobacco so long as I'm not inhaling their smoke or getting spit on.

Interesting. I know employers can legally incent employees through health plan premium cost reductions for participation in wellness programs, but I'm pretty sure they can't legally outright ban tobacco use and terminate (solely) for such if used 'off work/premise':

TCA 50-1-304(e)(1) No employee shall be discharged or terminated solely for participating or engaging in the use of an agricultural product not regulated by the alcoholic beverage commission that is not otherwise proscribed by law, if the employee participates or engages in the use in a manner that complies with all applicable employer policies regarding the use during times at which the employee is working.

[btq96r]

This is absolutely ridiculous. DA's have more reason to arm themselves than people in nearly any other line of work. I am quite certian that I know at least a few Government lawyers that consistently vote Democratic, yet have firearms and HCPs.

 

On the surface, I know this is true, and I agree that DA's have more reason (as assessed by risk anyway) to want to be armed.  I know I'd want a sidearm on me or in my bag if I was doing the job.  But if in reality their being armed is an exemption or special privilege/permission that comes with the job and is otherwise denied to the citizens they serve, my sympathy isn't there.

 

Now, trying to bar them from owning a firearm outright, even if they're in compliance with every law on the books is just asinine and won't stand up under any challenge I'd imagine.

[K191145]

This is absolutely ridiculous. DA's have more reason to arm themselves than people in nearly any other line of work. [b]I am quite certian that I know at least a few Government lawyers that consistently vote Democratic, yet have firearms and HCPs.[/b]

 

If they are looking for someone to blame then they can look in the mirror for voting for the traitors who make such laws. I can't see how that can be done even in New York. I know the hassle and money it takes just to own a gun is probably not worth it to many but DA's have the same rights as any other private citizen, no more no less.

Just once I would like to see a group like the DA's in Long Island strike and throw the system in chaos there. Sometimes that is what it takes. Also lawyers refuse to take their place but there's not enough with the guts to do that.

[300winmag]

In some states, DA's can be armed while they work just like a police officer.  They are taken to the range for LEO firearms qualification however often they are required to qualify.  Are they not armed by their jobs in Tennessee?  I guess they are obviously not armed in New York while working.

Edited September 30, 2015 by 300winmag

[94user]

I'd like to know why the DA made this rule. :shrug:

[peejman]

Employers can ban employees from smoking cigarettes even at home on their off time. Maybe that’s because smoking isn’t a specified right?

... as a condition of their employment, which isn't a right either.

[homeagain]

... as a condition of their employment, which isn't a right either.

TCA 50-1-304(e)(1) No employee shall be discharged or terminated solely for participating or engaging in the use of an agricultural product not regulated by the alcoholic beverage commission that is not otherwise proscribed by law, if the employee participates or engages in the use in a manner that complies with all applicable employer policies regarding the use during times at which the employee is working.

This seems to make it a right regarding private, non work-related use of tobacco in TN for an 'employee.' I suppose there may be wiggle room in that statute for pre-employment. I do wonder what the legal situation would be if Chattanooga Memorial hired a non tobacco user that later took up the habit, and then subsequently terminated employment solely based on tobacco use. Edited September 30, 2015 by homeagain

[peejman]

TCA 50-1-304(e)(1) No employee shall be discharged or terminated solely for participating or engaging in the use of an agricultural product not regulated by the alcoholic beverage commission that is not otherwise proscribed by law, if the employee participates or engages in the use in a manner that complies with all applicable employer policies regarding the use during times at which the employee is working.

This seems to make it a right regarding private, non work-related use of tobacco in TN for an 'employee.' I suppose there may be wiggle room in that statute for pre-employment. I do wonder what the legal situation would be if Chattanooga Memorial hired a non tobacco user that later took up the habit, and then subsequently terminated employment solely based on tobacco use.

 

 

Interesting that a company would form a policy in direct violation of state law, but there's miles of wiggle room there, particularly since it says "solely". 

 

The Constitution grants rights, state laws do not (if anything, they infringe on them, but that's a whole 'nother discussion).   TN is an "at will" employment state.  You can be fired at any time for (almost) any reason.  Violate their tobacco policy and get fired for being 2 minutes late, or annoying your boss, or offending someone, or...    My guess is it would be on the plaintiff to prove that they were fired "solely" for personal time tobacco use.  I presume that would be quite difficult. 

Edited September 30, 2015 by peejman

[94user]

The constitution does not grant any rights. It recognizes and protects the basic natural rights every person should have.  PJ is right, if you got fired for violating a policy against tobacco use, being too fat or whatever can be covered up by the "at will' employment laws of Tennessee. Any employer in Tennessee that does not show cause for termination cannot deny unemployment benefits either.  But what has this to do with a public official openly stating his / her policy that is clearly a violation of constitutionally  affirmed rights have to do with anything? 

[Oh Shoot]

The constitution does not grant any rights. It recognizes and protects the basic natural rights every person should have.  PJ is right, if you got fired for violating a policy against tobacco use, being too fat or whatever can be covered up by the "at will' employment laws of Tennessee. Any employer in Tennessee that does not show cause for termination cannot deny unemployment benefits either.  But what has this to do with a public official openly stating his / her policy that is clearly a violation of constitutionally  affirmed rights have to do with anything? 

 

Yep. Again, SCOTUS in McDonald vs Chicago said that no local entity can totally ban gun ownership, including handguns, period. What could be more plain?

 

Perhaps we can just ignore it, just like their take on same sex marriage, eh?

 

- OS

[ou812]

She has had a change of mind!  Now they can have them at home but not at work!