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

a reply to: Sremmos80

Lemme say the same thing in a different way.

In order to get a job do you think a person should just sign a waiver and give up their GOD/CREATOR given rights ?

Just to get a job ?

HELL NO!.

In the military people do get to carry guns, and other things that go bang, and boom.

Bad example.

a reply to: neo96

My point is giving up rights voluntarily, military is the prime example, you give up many rights.
So, not a bad example at all, just one that flies in the face of what your stance is.

In order to get a job do you think a person should just sign a waiver and give up their GOD/CREATOR given rights ?

They don't have to take the job.
So there issue is with the clause in the contract, you think they could show she was the one that put it there?

a reply to: Sremmos80

Doesn't matter if its' voluntary or not.

No one, not even the state has the right to ask people to do that.

That is what they mean by inalienable rights.

Means HANDS OFF.

a reply to: neo96

Except when you choose to alienate them...
I'll ask again if it says anywhere that you can't choose to give them up.

Are the lawyers themselves made or is this just some manufactured outrage btw?

a reply to: Sremmos80

Your basically justifying discrimination.

I guess that is acceptable, after all their gun owners.

a reply to: neo96

How am I justifying discrimination? I am not saying that they should be able to full stop not hire people if they have guns.
Please, lets not twist things.
I am justifying someone AGREEING to something in a contract.
They are not forced to take the job.

I have asked you what will be three times now, does the Constitution protect you from voluntarily giving up rights?
As in does it not allow you to do so

a reply to: Sremmos80

True, you can willingly give up your rights... just not sure on this one. Being an ADA is a good career starter for lawyers and law students, it seems unfair to ask them to waive a fundamental right for that opportunity.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Well then would you be be alright with Singas saying if people wanted to get a job at her office.

LGBT's would have to give up their 'gayness' for the lack of a better word.

After all it's 'voluntary.

a reply to: Kali74

Sure, not arguing that point as much as being able to give up a right.

I think it is unnecessary to tell them they can't have a gun in their private life.

a reply to: neo96

Well now you are just clouding the issue with another.

I think gun ownership is a choice, your sexuality is not.
Hence being a protected class.

But if some one took a job that says they don't allow homosexuality in a contract and then feigned outrage after they got told they couldn't be gay, I would say it was on them.
In a purely hypothetical of course.

a reply to: Sremmos80

No.

It's the same ISSUE.

People either have their constitutional rights or they don't.

WHICH WAY IS IT ?

a reply to: neo96

I'm done talking to this wall.
I have said like 5 times they have it till they give it up and refuse to equate sexual orientation with owning a gun.

Answer me why some one cant willing give up a right.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Guess what ?

Some people are born liking guns.

SAME ISSUE.

a reply to: neo96

Cool avoiding the question again and more clouding

a reply to: neo96

And that's where you jump the shark. You really don't seem to understand nuance of anything... the Constitution, laws, whatever... making ridiculous, non-applicable correlations between two different cases only hurts you.

a reply to: Kali74

Nope.

Constitutional issues have many faces.

Gun rights, are the same thing as LGBT rights.

That is the way it is.

CONSISTENCY.

Remember, these ADAs had no problem serving a state that has denied gun rights to "lesser people", i.e. residents with no financial or political influence since the passage of the Sullivan Act of 1911.

And, there is nowhere to be found an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that even hints that prosecutors are among the privileged who may be armed. (according to some it only guarantees The National Guard's right to hunt ducks, or some such legal gibberish) Rather than be covered by the constitution they'd rather think of themselves as immune to it.

And, what if an Ass't DA sues and wins; how can they then claim that the denial of handguns to the public at large is consistent with the equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions? In other words, what would they cite as justification for their rights that don't apply to all lawful residents (who aren't persons otherwise prohibited), unless of course all prosecutors attend the police academy and become sworn peace officers?

So, any employee(s) who won such a lawsuit would be obligated to resign before Ms. Singas fired her, him or them. And the legal establishment would back IL DOUCHE (the Greek spelling _javascript:icon('') if she asserted that "rogue prosecutors loosed a scourge on the good people of Nassau County, particularly those who need the guidance of strong govt to keep them on the path of goodness".

These ADAs signed on to systematically deny the rights of ordinary schmoes like SUBWAY SURVIVOR INITIATIVE Founder Bernhard Goetz who was repeatedly denied a carry permit despite being beaten within an inch of his life) while celebs like former celebrity cokehead Don Imus and scatterbrained comedienne Joan Rivers, who were shuttled around in limos received their carry permits with no resistance at all.

I predict that the boss will regret having opened this can of squirms.

When former San Fran Mayor Dianne Feinstein briefly banned handguns in the city a check of pubic records revealed that she had failed to surrender not one but TWO S&W Mod. 36 "Chief Special" snub nosed revolvers. (for her and hubby.) When asked about it she said, "Oh, it's just a little thing!" Yeah, Dianne, but the law applied to cheap, dangerous "Saturday Night Specials", and big, powerful and dangerous guns too!

I'll bet five drachmas that Madeline Singas will be exposed for her hypocrisy when its revealed that perhaps her kids are driven to school by SWAT officers, and once it sinks in that a public announcement to crims that she's unarmed she'll arrive for work under police escort with drooping eyelids.

Until Ms. Sings shoots herself in the foot we should watch to see if other county DAs call this new rule, "A splendid idea!".

a reply to: neo96

Gun rights, are the same thing as LGBT rights.

How is the right to own a gun the same thing as the right to be human?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

How about ACTUALLY READING the 14th amendment ?

Is that too much to ask?

One can easily see how they are the SAME.

a reply to: neo96

Not an answer to my question

I asked you how they are the same

I get that you like guns - and I understand the importance of 2nd amendment to most of the people that are going to post in this thread

You said gun rights are the same as LGBT rights. I'd like to understand how you meant that