Court Officers 2A rights being violated!!


PDA






Sig 226 .40
December 9, 2009, 02:05 PM
Yesterday, NYS Court Officers got slapped in the face..our Chief, Jewel Williams, has demanded that we register ALL of our firearms. Including any and all rifles and shotguns. Our Unions have stepped up to stop this illegal order. Per agency regs, we all have provided copies of our CCW permits. The issue is the providing of our other gun info. She has obviously forgotten what the US and NYS constitutions actually mean. Its totally inconcievable that the very entity that is in place to protect our rights and libertys is trying to infringe upon them!! These are the officers that ensure that our judges go home safe every night. This has to be stopped!!! more to follow as it develops....

If you enjoyed reading about "Court Officers 2A rights being violated!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
kermit315
December 9, 2009, 02:08 PM
I thought all guns were registered in NYS?

jn1965
December 9, 2009, 02:12 PM
Only pistols. Long guns are not registered.

Norinco982lover
December 9, 2009, 02:28 PM
That is crazy... fight it!

Sig 226 .40
December 9, 2009, 02:51 PM
Negative..handguns Yes, rifles and shotguns in the NYC area Yes...rifles and shotguns North of Westchester County...NO. Upstate, I can go into any gunshop and after a NICS check...the rifle or shotgun I pay for is mine. There is no longgun registry in upstae NY.

kermit315
December 9, 2009, 03:07 PM
Good luck fighting it......that just sucks.

REOIV
December 9, 2009, 03:15 PM
I just hope the McDonald case goes through and NYC can eat a big steaming bowl of...

NavyLCDR
December 9, 2009, 03:48 PM
I have a hard time digging up sympathy. Why should the 2A rights of court officers be any more important than those of everyday citizens? Why should there be any more outrage over this than any other action taken by NYS or a NY judge to infringe upon the rights of every other citizen?

Yes, I understand that she is attempting to require you to do something not required of every NY resident, but New York state requires every other citizen to do things against the 2A that most US citizens in other states don't have to do.

Golden_006
December 9, 2009, 04:02 PM
Yeah I agree with Navy. Why should you get special treatment? The State and local gov't is the main violator of my Constitutional rights so you get no sympathy here. If you're going to plead 2A, then I should get the same rights also.

MisterMike
December 9, 2009, 04:29 PM
Yeah I agree with Navy. Why should you get special treatment? The State and local gov't is the main violator of my Constitutional rights so you get no sympathy here. If you're going to plead 2A, then I should get the same rights also.

Since when is demanding that one's Constitutional rights be observed considered "special treatment"? We should stick together to fight each and every encroachment on our rights.

Tim the student
December 9, 2009, 04:31 PM
Why should the 2A rights of court officers be any more important than those of everyday citizens?

I don't think anyone is saying they are.

Why should there be any more outrage over this than any other action taken by NYS or a NY judge to infringe upon the rights of every other citizen?

I don't think there is any more or less outrage about this than any of the other stuff.

New York state requires every other citizen to do things against the 2A that most US citizens in other states don't have to do.

So, how does this makes it acceptable?

Yeah I agree with Navy. Why should you get special treatment?

What special treatment are you referring to?

sheepdog
December 9, 2009, 04:34 PM
...blesses us all....and every loss hurts us all...I hope they make her eat her officious, domineering, illegal menu....none of her official business what weapons they own except the ones they carry in the course of their employment...

NavyLCDR
December 9, 2009, 04:39 PM
All I am trying to say is that I feel no more outrage over this than over any other unconstitutional gun control. How about this:

US Military 2A rights being violated!!

1. Can't possess a firerarm on base.
2. Prohibited from lawfully carrying a firearm in uniform whether on base or not (except for the rare firearm issued for official duty and then that is only when actually performing those specific duties) either concealed or openly, with or without a permit.
3. If assigned to government quarters, most installations require Commanding Officer's permission to keep personal firearms in quarters AND registering ALL firearms with base security.
4. Prohibited from possessing any firearms or ammunition in single Sailor's and Soldier's barracks.
5. Likely to face CO's punitive action if a firearms related incident occurs, whether or not the individual actually was doing anything illegal (IE: Cop doesn't like a military member lawfully open carrying a firearm so he calls the base on him.)
6. US Army General in charge of all Alaska Army forces forbidding the concealed carry of firearms by any Army personnel stationed in Alaska, on or off duty, in uniform or not (that order was in effect last year and I have not heard of it being rescinded).

damien
December 9, 2009, 05:39 PM
What is the rationalization for the Judge's order? Did she express one? I have a difficult time undetstanding what she believes this is the solution for. If someone already has a registered handgun (and you all do since you are court officers), why does she want to know if you have a long gun? It isn't like you are going to conceal it and sneak it into court, after all. Any idea what the logic is behind this order? She worried you are going to get irritated with her and start sniping at her from 500 yards out? :scrutiny:

Tim the student
December 9, 2009, 05:44 PM
All I am trying to say is that I feel no more outrage over this than over any other unconstitutional gun control.

Ok, my bad. I got your position now, but I hope you can see how your post confused me.

Steve in PA
December 9, 2009, 06:34 PM
Being in the military is a horse of a different color.

TexasRifleman
December 9, 2009, 06:48 PM
Ok, my bad. I got your position now, but I hope you can see how your post confused me.

The thing is that it's groups like the union here that are a part of the problem. They sit quietly as OTHER classes of citizens are denied their rights. Only when their OWN members are threatened do they jump into the fight.

If they had been taking the right side of the argument all along it likely never would have gotten this far.

divemedic
December 9, 2009, 06:48 PM
Being in the military is a horse of a different color.

Because being in the military means that you have no rights under COTUS?

cassandrasdaddy
December 9, 2009, 06:51 PM
no draft? you enter military service knowing that you will sacrifice some rights

TexasRifleman
December 9, 2009, 06:54 PM
Because being in the military means that you have no rights under COTUS?

Somewhat correct. You do in fact sign away some rights and agree to live under the UCMJ instead.

divemedic
December 9, 2009, 06:58 PM
Wrong. The UCMJ is subordinate to the COTUS. How can it be any other way? COTUS created the Congress, which created the UCMJ.

ChaoSS
December 9, 2009, 07:07 PM
The military is different. You virtually sign away your life when you enlist, at least for the period of your enlistment. They own your body and soul.

For non military, I think it is important to fight any and all infringements upon the 2A. This is not asking for special treatment for Court Officers, only that they don't receive special treatment in the wrong way.

TexasRifleman
December 9, 2009, 07:09 PM
Wrong. The UCMJ is subordinate to the COTUS. How can it be any other way? COTUS created the Congress, which created the UCMJ.

If that's the case then someone should challenge the Clinton ban on firearms under the Second Amendment yes?

It's not nearly that simple from what I've read. The military restricts the First Amendment on a fairly regular basis.

Lots of examples of restricting rights under UCMJ in the articles I've read on this.

DOD 1300.17
DODs 1334.10 & 1325.6
Article 138

So it seems to be pretty muddy to me anyway. I don't know much about it but there seems to be a lot of concern over the subject.

Anyway, probably not the right thread for that.

Here is an article that I read a while back about this "Military Honor and Decency act of 1996" that a lot of people say restricts First Amendment rights in a big way.
http://www.robsworld.org/dishonor.html

NavyLCDR
December 9, 2009, 07:57 PM
The thing is that it's groups like the union here that are a part of the problem. They sit quietly as OTHER classes of citizens are denied their rights. Only when their OWN members are threatened do they jump into the fight.

If they had been taking the right side of the argument all along it likely never would have gotten this far.

EXACTLY! The union screams, OMG! Look at this horrible infringement! And I say, Well, duh, it happened to the rest of the residents of New York decades ago.

gc70
December 9, 2009, 08:47 PM
US Military 2A rights being violated!!

This is precisely why you should be outraged over the situation with the NYS court officers. It is fundamentally unfair that the firearms rights of members of the military are infringed - solely due to their employment - when they are off base and off duty. The same type of infringement based on employment is being perpetrated on the officers of the NYS courts.

Sig 226 .40
December 10, 2009, 01:01 AM
You took the words out of my mouth gc70..thank you! I did NOT come on here seeking sympathy like a few misguided folks inferred. I posted this to inform others of this violation occuring and that privacy rights are being invaded.
NavyLt...I'm sorry for you that you may not have realized the ramifications of joining our military services before you took your Oath. Please don't preach to me about the woes of serving our Nation..I am a soon to retire senior NCO in the reserves. I did my share of active time under the Clinton regime. YOU however do realize that you are the property of the US government. Simply put..expendable. Cannon fodder. I am not the property of NY state. You get a bad OER for insubordination. We(per our Rules and Procedures) have to obey any order that we may disagree with. And grieve it later. If we do disobey the unlawful order, We get a counseling statement, 2 weeks suspension without pay AND we lose our pay increment for the following year with an Unsatisfactory Eval. due to the suspension.
We officers are livid over this order due to the fact that we are sworn to uphold the laws of the state, and both the state and US Constitutions. Essentially we would be insubordinate for upholding the law. All the while that our rights are being trampled upon.

Sig 226 .40
December 10, 2009, 01:17 AM
Court officers aren't looking for special treatment..As TEX put it..we are the OTHER class apparently. Because the rest of the state doesn't have to register rifles and shotguns. we are looking to be treated as fairly as the laws that we uphold will allow. Like every other citizen in this state.

NavyLCDR
December 10, 2009, 01:42 AM
I guess my point is that there are just some occupations and locations where persons can expect to have their firearms rights trampled - NYS, NYC, DC, Chicago, **********, MD, members of the military, etc. and what is happening is nothing that cannot be considered to be expected in those locations or occupations. I just took your headline "Court Officers 2A rights being violated!!" to be kind of sensationalistic, like it was OMG! The end is here! type of deal. Just the way I read it is all.

I am not saying there should not be action against this, I am just saying what do you expect from NYS, just like what do you expect from **********, what do you expect from serving in the military.... it's just the nature of the beast and it is something we all need to work to try to overturn and overcome.

Autolycus
December 10, 2009, 04:44 AM
One would have to ask where all the LEO support was for a national reciprocity bill and for concealed carry in some states such as Illinois. Or in cities such as NYC, Chicago, and may issue locales.

Double Naught Spy
December 10, 2009, 07:46 AM
These are the officers that ensure that our judges go home safe every night.

It does sound like the "We're special" card is being played here. I didn't know that court officers only protected the elite judges. I thought court officers had wider duties than just protecting judges.

Yesterday, NYS Court Officers got slapped in the face..our Chief, Jewel Williams, has demanded that we register ALL of our firearms. Including any and all rifles and shotguns. Our Unions have stepped up to stop this illegal order.

You didn't make clear whether registering all firearms meant department issue or personal weapons. If department issue, then there is no violation at all. If you meant personal weapons, your Chief has no authority over your personal life outside of the workplace and hence any demands made are invalid. Your rights aren't being violated just because a person without authority makes a demand.

If I am wrong and you are somehow under the guise of the Chief even when you are not on the clock, I would be curious to know how you got yourself in such a position.

Its totally inconcievable that the very entity that is in place to protect our rights and libertys is trying to infringe upon them!!

You are right. It is inconceivable. The Chief isn't a judge and hence isn't an entity in place to protect your rights and liberties. The Chief is simply part of the state government hierarchy that employs you.

everallm
December 10, 2009, 07:59 AM
Folks,

Irrespective of my personal opinions on the "special" status or otherwise of others, when it comes to 2A we would best all hang together or we will surely hang separately.

ezypikns
December 10, 2009, 09:34 AM
maybe this gentleman's comment should be the one that guides us here.


Irrespective of my personal opinions on the "special" status or otherwise of others, when it comes to 2A we would best all hang together or we will surely hang separately.

NavyLCDR
December 10, 2009, 09:42 AM
Well, it would seem as if their union pretty much has this covered. Glad to see they are getting something out of their union dues.

Speedo66
December 10, 2009, 11:35 PM
What is the rationalization for the Judge's order? Did she express one? I have a difficult time undetstanding what she believes this is the solution for. If someone already has a registered handgun (and you all do since you are court officers), why does she want to know if you have a long gun? It isn't like you are going to conceal it and sneak it into court, after all. Any idea what the logic is behind this order? She worried you are going to get irritated with her and start sniping at her from 500 yards out? :scrutiny:

Jewel Williams is not a judge, she's a political hack who was made chief, the fact that her uncle was a judge in the Appellate Division may have helped. She quickly went from giving tours of the courts to major, bypassing those with more seniority and much more ability and experience.

Welcome to NY politics.

Court officers, and court clerks in the NY Metro area, are NYS Peace Officers, and do not require a permit to carry concealed.

What long guns they choose to possess is their own business, and since NYS outside of NYC does not require anyone to register long arms, there is certainly no reason for them to have to do so. No long guns are used for work, these are all private weapons.

Art Eatman
December 11, 2009, 12:37 AM
This is wandering way too much. Sig, start a new thread about the outcome, the results, whichever way it works out.

If you enjoyed reading about "Court Officers 2A rights being violated!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!