NYC - Councilwoman Vernikov arrested - Possession in "Sensitive Place"

[mshill]

Stupidest thing I have ever heard... wasn't arrested on the spot. Turned herself and the gun in at a later date with the gun inoperable. Cops don't press her on it. Total fail on the part of the NYPD. She's a liar and stupid to be carrying exposed.

[AlmostHeaven]

The state likely also had an interest in avoiding the litigation of a high-profile Second Amendment case, when already the Concealed Carry Improvement Act stands on an infirm foundation.

[Rickybillegas]

Originally Posted by mshill

Stupidest thing I have ever heard... wasn't arrested on the spot. Turned herself and the gun in at a later date with the gun inoperable. Cops don't press her on it. Total fail on the part of the NYPD. She's a liar and stupid to be carrying exposed.

The whole thing is kind of fishy and doesn't pass the smell test, but I think part of that is we don't have all the details. We (at last me) only know what we read in the press (which is at times notoriously inaccurate).

I have to think there's more to this story, especially what her motivations were
(was she trying to make a statement, or really in fear for her life, in which case an inoperable firearm is worthless) in being careless about her carrying, whether the firearm was really inoperable and the actual plea deal proceedings (which we will never know).

This is an interesting case jut based on it's media value, but has little or no implications in the real world to ordinary permit carriers in my opinion.

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by Rickybillegas

The whole thing is kind of fishy and doesn't pass the smell test, but I think part of that is we don't have all the details. We (at last me) only know what we read in the press (which is at times notoriously inaccurate).

I have to think there's more to this story, especially what her motivations were
(was she trying to make a statement, or really in fear for her life, in which case an inoperable firearm is worthless) in being careless about her carrying, whether the firearm was really inoperable and the actual plea deal proceedings (which we will never know).

This is an interesting case jut based on it's media value, but has little or no implications in the real world to ordinary permit carriers in my opinion.

The precedent could have some mildly beneficial effect on carriers who manage to avoid arrest at the actual sensitive place, but overall, I agree.

[Sgt Raven]

Originally Posted by mshill

She's a liar and stupid to be carrying exposed.

In the pics I have seen.
1) She is carrying IWB appendix with the white shirt over it.
2) She has her right hand/arm lifted over her head and it is starting to show.
3) The pic where the pistol is exposed and her top is behind the butt.


It was a poor choice of clothing she is wearing.
When she raised her hand/arm it pulled the top up exposing the pistol and ended up behind the butt.


My answer is simple.

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice"

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven

The precedent could have some mildly beneficial effect on carriers who manage to avoid arrest at the actual sensitive place, but overall, I agree.

There's no legal precedent involved here.

[AlmostHeaven]

I think that Councilwoman Inna Vernikov did not intend to deliberately expose her firearm, since she subsequently lost her concealed carry license. Thus, she has ended up in a worse situation than before, despite escaping criminal charges.

[riderr]

Originally Posted by Foothills

To me this reads as "Ghost of Caetano." I think some folks realized that trying to justify the prosecution of a member of a religious minority group that has been subjected to many hate crimes is going to be untenable for the state. Almost as bad as prosecuting a domestic violence victim with a restraining order that was violated.

It's not about the religion for sure. It's about the entitlement and connections to the right people.

[riderr]

Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven

I think that Councilwoman Inna Vernikov did not intend to deliberately expose her firearm, since she subsequently lost her concealed carry license. Thus, she has ended up in a worse situation than before, despite escaping criminal charges.

You call it properly concealed? In my view, she was showing off, for good or for bad.
https://nypost.com/2023/10/13/nyc-co...stine-protest/

[marcusrn]

I'd back her up and attend protests with her any day of the week. She also breaths fresh air into the old term "cantalopes".

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by riderr

You call it properly concealed? In my view, she was showing off, for good or for bad.
https://nypost.com/2023/10/13/nyc-co...stine-protest/

I do not believe Vernikov intended to get criminally charged and lose her concealed carry license. I do not hold strong opinions either way on whether she meant to have the pro-Palestinian protestors see her handgun.

[GiveMeMo2A]

Originally Posted by riderr

You call it properly concealed? In my view, she was showing off, for good or for bad.

I think the law should not care if the gun is exposed for less than 50% of the time. Clothing police that claim, I saw it, there for you are in violation, when they only state this post a lawful weapons pat down or being told, yes, I have a weapon, I think give a bad cop to much power to turn you into a felon.

Because of this, I wish people would step back from the, they weren?t carrying properly. You do you, boo. If you train, train people to always conceal, yes.

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by GiveMeMo2A

I think the law should not care if the gun is exposed for less than 50% of the time. Clothing police that claim, I saw it, there for you are in violation, when they only state this post a lawful weapons pat down or being told, yes, I have a weapon, I think give a bad cop to much power to turn you into a felon.

Because of this, I wish people would step back from the, they weren't carrying properly. You do you, boo. If you train, train people to always conceal, yes.

Indeed, open carry bans violate the Second Amendment, so gun rights advocates arguing with each other over whether a weapon qualifies as concealed only sabotages the movement at large.

[Rickybillegas]

Originally Posted by GiveMeMo2A

I think the law should not care if the gun is exposed for less than 50% of the time. Clothing police that claim, I saw it, there for you are in violation, when they only state this post a lawful weapons pat down or being told, yes, I have a weapon, I think give a bad cop to much power to turn you into a felon.

Because of this, I wish people would step back from the, they weren?t carrying properly. You do you, boo. If you train, train people to always conceal, yes.

From CALIFORNIA CARRY:

"What if other people see my gun?
Unintentional exposure is not a crime in California. True unforeseen circumstances causing one?s gun to become exposed should not be an issue, but in the highly sensitive atmosphere of California, it could lead to negative consequences. Carefully ensure your gun is concealed to avoid drawing the ire of an overly sensitive sheriff/chief."

I'm not sure if it's precisely codified or not in CA or NY, but I thought inadvertent or accidental revealing or printing is not necessarily a violation. And then even if so, it probably depends on who is doing the interpretation. That does not mean we should not be very careful.

But that is sort of irrelevant to her case in the sense that her exposure was not the big problem, but her violation of the sensitive place law.

[AlmostHeaven]

Originally Posted by Rickybillegas

From CALIFORNIA CARRY:

"What if other people see my gun?
Unintentional exposure is not a crime in California. True unforeseen circumstances causing one?s gun to become exposed should not be an issue, but in the highly sensitive atmosphere of California, it could lead to negative consequences. Carefully ensure your gun is concealed to avoid drawing the ire of an overly sensitive sheriff/chief."

I'm not sure if it's precisely codified or not in CA or NY, but I thought inadvertent or accidental revealing or printing is not necessarily a violation. And then even if so, it probably depends on who is doing the interpretation. That does not mean we should not be very careful.

But that is sort of irrelevant to her case in the sense that her exposure was not the big problem, but her violation of the sensitive place law.

I agree. The criminal charges solely covered the sensitive places laws and not the New York open carry prohibition.