Witless for the Prosecution: New York DA Forces Staff to Forgo Second Amendment Rights

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: xuenchen

Jesus H chirst, seriously?

You want to say she is blackmailed now...

It's for another topic.

But yes, she is under blackmail for some past land swindles.

Now get back to this Democrat D.A. that is breaking the law.

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: neo96
Sounds like the perfect time for a lawsuit.

She can not prevent these people from practicing their 2nd amendment rights. I would flaunt it legally in her face until she fired me and then sue her ass. F# her.

I am so sick of these smug idiots trying to legislate what is best for me.

She isn't legislating, she is dictating.

a reply to: johnwick

Agreed, she has no business in their private lives.

She is campaigning now. Madeline Singas, Acting District Attorney of Nassau Country in New York. From what I've read, she's a hellcat on crooked government contracts, drugs and violence. For the whole, she seems to be doing good in Nassau County. Someone just needs to call her attention to the obvious contradiction she has made in her oath to uphold the constitution and then make sure she does uphold it.

Madeline launched a probe into Nassau County’s contracting system following allegations of corruption, favoritism, and misuse of taxpayer funds. Her report found the contracting system had serious flaws, calling it “a recipe for corruption.”
*SNIP*
Madeline has helped convict dozens of corrupt government employees, including elected officials, who betrayed the public trust by misusing taxpayer dollars. Madeline is pushing for strict rules to prevent county officials from using taxpayer money for political purposes, like political mailings disguised as "newsletters."
*SNIP*
Madeline has also personally prosecuted some of Nassau County’s most notorious, violent criminals. She has kept women, children, and the elderly safe from physical and sexual violence - both inside and outside their homes. From the crime scene to the courtroom, Madeline has built the cases that have locked up the gang members who bring violence, guns and drugs into our communities. With 24 years as a law enforcement officer, Madeline will continue standing shoulder-to-shoulder with our police officers to keep our families safe.
*SNIP*
Battling The Heroin Epidemic

Madeline takes a tough and aggressive approach to fighting Nassau County’s heroin epidemic. As Acting DA, Madeline has cracked down hard on the dealers who are bringing violence, drugs and addiction into our neighborhoods. Madeline has pushed for tougher laws against dealers, implemented innovative educational programs in our schools and expanded treatment for non-violent offenders to get them clean and off the streets.

The people of Nassau County have a chance to vote in someone who will uphold the constitution. Unfortunately, it looks like she's the sweetheart of county position so she'll get elected no matter what.

isn't there a law stating that people outside of law enforcement cant carry guns into government buildings anyways?

including schools, town halls, post offices..

that said she could tell people not to carry outside of work all she likes but she wouldn't be able to enforce it

a reply to: PaperMetel

Ya most government buildings don't allow most people to carry armed unless they are on duty and there to police the building.

The issue is what happens to them when they leave those 'gun free zones'.

I guess they just gotta dial 9-11, and wait for the police to come save them.

She may not have come up with the policy but... it's still wrong. I understand the ban on limiting speech (political activities) for certain government positions but I don't see the logic in them not being allowed ownership of guns or even being able to have a permit.

After a quick search I couldn't find a logical argument for this rule. Seems unconstitutional to me.

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: neo96
Sounds like the perfect time for a lawsuit.

She can not prevent these people from practicing their 2nd amendment rights. I would flaunt it legally in her face until she fired me and then sue her ass. F# her.

I am so sick of these smug idiots trying to legislate what is best for me.

She isn't legislating, she is dictating.

Yeah, I realize that.

My last line was not referring to the OP. More like the smug idiots that pass legislation to limit the size of my soft drink and limit me to 7 rounds in my rifle. I am in NY btw.
Relax, I think we are on the same side.

I don't think it matters if this person is a Democrat or Republican. She is violating the Constitution which makes her an enemy of the people regardless of politics.

a reply to: Kali74

Ya I couldn't find much on it either, but not to many sites covering it.

Agree on face value that it is wrong though.

Did she really say they couldn't have guns at home??
If so then that's obviously wrong, though I support gun control in general.

Yes really.

www.nassaucountyny.gov...

Page 4 of 4.

Verboten

[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.

originally posted by: CB328
Did she really say they couldn't have guns at home??
If so then that's obviously wrong, though I support gun control in general.

No not a ban on guns, a ban on handguns. It is in their terms of employment when they apply for the job. DA Job Form

So I do not know the legality of it. If you agree to not own a hand gun as terms of your employment I am not sure if that is breaking any law. You also have to sign and agreement to not practice your first amendment rights and engage in political activity. Now that is something that is legal in certain jobs.

The problem with the Second Amendment is that it allows for guns

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

it also throws in

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

By running with well regulated and not infringed at the same time the Founders pretty much just caused confusion. Of course in the day we were to have no standing army and you did not have weapons that 10 years old could pick up and slaughter a crowd with. So pretty much when it comes to legalities with guns we kind of make it up as we go.

a reply to: MrSpad

Well if they agree to it when they take he jon, then I guess it really isn't as bad as it sounds.

a reply to: MrSpad

Forgetting the rest of the Bill of Rights, and the 14th amendment ? And there is no problem with the second amendment.

It's was clearly spelled out. It was talking about two separate,but equal things there.

Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The militia, and the right of the people both being necessary to the security of a FREE state.

Shall not be infringed.

If people didn't have firearms there could be no militias. One can not exist without the other, and neither could the security of a FREE state.

Then we move on to the 4th.

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The DA's office so epically violated this with the NO handgun permits, and possession. That's not to mention the privacy violation.


Moving on:

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

As any good lawyer would say, and clearly knows someone has to be charged with a crime. Those attorneys were not.

Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

The right to a trial by jury, and a crime 'committed' be proven in a court of law.

Hope the irony isn't lost here. I mean lawyers being denied their rights because of things they have never personally done.

Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Throwing this one in just because guns in general, and handguns cost more than twenty bucks.

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Basically means the powers granted to 'regulate' can NOT be interpreted to deny, or limit those rights that were just listed.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Gun ownership was not prohibited in by the US Constitution. It explicitly laid out EVERYONE's right to keep, and bear arms.

Now if those violations were not enough to tell people how wrong Singas, and the DA's office is maybe the 14th amendment will.

Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

All persons born here or naturalized here even lawyers have the right to keep, and bear arms.

No state shall make or enforce any law that denies,disparages,abridges ANY persons life,liberty, or property, without due process.

Oh the irony is astounding as we are talking about lawyers.

www.law.cornell.edu...

There was no confusion from the founders. It's all laid out there.

People can't be held accountable for crimes they do not do without due process. In courts of law with a jury of their peers, and a crime be proven. They further went on to say that people can't be held for the same crime twice.

Making it up as we go along is the problem here.

The State, and anyone working for it has zero power to make any limitations on the right of shall not be infringed.

It can't get any more simple.

All they have to do is read the constitution they supposedly took a oath to 'defend'.


www.law.cornell.edu...

a reply to: neo96

And if you willingly choose to give up a right, like signing a contract, then it ventures into that grey area.

Or is the story that these people didn't know they would be giving up that right voluntarily?

a reply to: Sremmos80

The DA's office doesn't have the power to do that.

As the Constitution is the highest LAW in this lands.

Its the same deal as with Kim Davis.

The DA has to hire gun owners if they don't like it ?

Tough luck.

a reply to: neo96

Does it say that you can't willing give up your rights?
Just like the military, you sign them away when you sign up.

You can waive your right to a speedy trial in court
Ect.

So if they know going into it and accept the job, is there really that much to be mad about?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: neo96

And if you willingly choose to give up a right, like signing a contract, then it ventures into that grey area.

Or is the story that these people didn't know they would be giving up that right voluntarily?

And that makes you wonder.

The people applying for a DA job *ARE* lawyers !!!