“Nassau County DA’s office forbids prosecutors from having handguns (even at home),” UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh writes in The Washington Post. And from the response he received when seeking details, such bans are “consistent with other … offices in the New York City metropolitan area.”
The ban is actually spelled out in the job application form:
Arrogant Acting DA Madeline Singas presumes a lot of authority, doesn’t she? That what happens when a population includes a critical mass of useful idiots to advance her bid for further rule. The thing is, it’s not like “law and order” Republican Kate Murray, bragging about her “multi-pronged plan to address gun violence” — which includes support for “the Assault Weapons ban” — deserves anything from gun rights supporters but contempt. In this case, gun owners literally have no reason to vote for either candidate.
As for the DA gun ban, while the initial impulse may be to laugh at the hoist-on-their-own-petard plight of anyone who is willingly a part of such tyranny, if allowed to stand you can bet the gun-grabbers will expand it to other government jobs, and turn their sights on the private sector if they can figure out how. When “progressives” ridicule gun owners parroting the tactical “no one wants to take your guns” talking point, they are doing what they do best — lying.
Of course they do. They just can’t find a sure way to go after them all at once, so they’re willing to take whatever pieces they can con people into giving up under the fraudulent “common sense gun safety” slogan. Once that’s achieved, they move on to the next objective, all the while loudly complaining about how “gun extremists” are so uncompromising.
There’s an interesting story about Nassau County and its treatment of an “ordinary” gun owner to show what kind of “justice” can be expected there. Actually, “interesting” may not be the right word –it’s been more of a horror story.
For simply trying to ask anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy a question, Gabriel Razzano had his firearms confiscated and his pistol license revoked. An American citizen — with no criminal charges against him, no convictions, no mental health diagnoses, no adjudication of any kind — was stripped of his Second Amendment rights because he exercised those promised in the First.
I related that in 2008. As I noted in a follow-up last year, even though the court ordered the return of his long guns, “after years of litigation, Razzano is still ‘ineligible’ for a Nassau County pistol license, and thus under the SAFE Act, is subject to having all of his ‘weapons’ confiscated, including hunting rifles and shotguns for self-defense in his home.”
If the gun-grabbers would confine their evil nonsense to each other, it would be easy to dismiss the DA gun prohibition with a “serves ‘em right” shrug. But occupation-based gun bans create an opportunity for a dangerous slippery slope.
And while Prof. Volokh cites credible reasons why the DA ban might not pass legal muster, what’s unclear is if anyone besides an affected prosecutor would have standing to challenge the rule – or if all those who do have standing also have powerful career and political incentives not to rock the boat and infuriate their employer.