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

[LINY]

Seems like an otherwise perfectly law-abiding person, a councilwoman no less, who carried her firearm for the lawful purpose of self defense- and losing her pistol permit gives her standing. I hope she becomes the next Bruen

[darkwater34]

Unidentifiable

IANAL, but would this evidence hold up at all in a criminal case, what with the ease of photo editing ("photoshopping") and the source of the photo being from people that would have it in for her?



Forgive me, but I think I'm going to call that one "Clueless Carry". Some type of belt or other support is needed. That thing would fly out if she spun around fast and possibly take the pants with it.

Looks like a 5g Apple Phone to me.

[press1280]

I think her major issue is being on the campus armed.

The open carry may be more problematic for the state. If they try to push that any brief exposure leads to loss of permit, then they risk the courts striking it down. NY is better off simply issuing a small fine or slap on the wrist for this.
From the photos she was trying to conceal, maybe not well, but she could have had an OTWB if she really wanted to open carry.

[darkwater34]

This could put New York safe places law in jeopardy, if it were me in this situation I would even fight the small fine as being oppressive and unconstitutional.

[AlmostHeaven]

I hope she challenges the statute, but I expect she will plead down to a lesser charge.

[GetMeCoffee]

I think her major issue is being on the campus armed. ...

Got me thinking... It's hard to imagine any court supporting a situation where you have to give up one right in order to exercise another. In this case giving up your 2nd Amendment right to self defense in order to exercise your 1st Amendment right to assemble/protest. Arguably, the need for self defense is greater during a protest.

Since college campuses attract (even encourage) protests, then they should not be able to exclude 2A activity. Taken to an extreme, imagine a future where all protests occur on college campuses. Perhaps other public locations just aren't desirable or practical. If colleges can exclude arms, then you really are put in a spot of which right you'd like to exercise at a given time.

Footnote: Of course I get that adding guns to a protest can lead to mayhem, but firing a gun at someone because you disagree with them is criminal action. Forbidding the carrying of arms is simply prior restraint. Deal with the criminals, not the protected conduct.

[BigStiCK]

How does anyone know thats not a squirt gun? Or a Pez dispenser? Or a pager?

[AlmostHeaven]

New York requires individual registrations per lawfully possessed firearm, so the state would pretty easily have the ability to match the photographs with one of her weapons.

[tenemae]

Since college campuses attract (even encourage) protests, then they should not be able to exclude 2A activity.

I think this largely depends on if the college accepts any federal funding. If not, the college is arguable a private institution on private property and (probably) can write their own rules regarding conduct and trespass. If the college accepts federal funding, I believe it muddies the water to the point that the college isn't allowed to easily trespass people (in regards to the exercise of constitutional rights)

[WithinReason]

Got me thinking... It's hard to imagine any court supporting a situation where you have to give up one right in order to exercise another. In this case giving up your 2nd Amendment right to self defense in order to exercise your 1st Amendment right to assemble/protest. Arguably, the need for self defense is greater during a protest.

Since college campuses attract (even encourage) protests, then they should not be able to exclude 2A activity. Taken to an extreme, imagine a future where all protests occur on college campuses. Perhaps other public locations just aren't desirable or practical. If colleges can exclude arms, then you really are put in a spot of which right you'd like to exercise at a given time.

Footnote: Of course I get that adding guns to a protest can lead to mayhem, but firing a gun at someone because you disagree with them is criminal action. Forbidding the carrying of arms is simply prior restraint. Deal with the criminals, not the protected conduct.

I remember taking a Government class once and the professor taught that one reason we have a judicial branch of government is to sort out situations when different Constitutional amendments seem to be applied at cross-purposes...

[Doheny]

What a dumbass.

Yup, either really dumb or wanted to be caught for some reason.

[darkwater34]

Yup, either really dumb or wanted to be caught for some reason.

I believe if she was packing a firearm, it was for self preservation more than anything thing else because:
1. She is a representative of a public office
2. She is a person of Jewish Faith
3. The people who were rallying are violent people who would want to cause her great bodily harm.

And just maybe the very presence of her firearm kept those kind of people in check.

[Rickybillegas]

I believe if she was packing a firearm, it was for self preservation more than anything thing else because:
1. She is a representative of a public office
2. She is a person of Jewish Faith
3. The people who were rallying are violent people who would want to cause her great bodily harm.

And just maybe the very presence of her firearm kept those kind of people in check.

I agree, except the last point. I don't think she intended to expose her firearm. If she did, she's dumb. Anybody with a CCW knows 'concealed means concealed' or else there's a very good chance you will be seen and your license revoked, especially in a 'no guns' zone.

My opinion, she was well meaning and as you say, concerned about her safety at said venue and properly perceived the inherent danger.
She just made the mistake of not dressing properly with a short tight blouse that exposes when raising your arms.

[darkwater34]

But basically didn't Buren make open carry outside the home legal no permit needed.Maybe I misunderstood Buren.

[RickD427]

But basically didn't Buren make open carry outside the home legal no permit needed.Maybe I misunderstood Buren.

Unfortunately, I think that you misunderstand NYSRPA v Bruen.

Here is a link to the decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...3_new_m648.pdf

There's nothing in the decision that makes open carry outside of the home legal.

What the decision did accomplish was to prohibit New York from imposing a "Proper Cause" requirement for the issuance of a carry permit.

The decision did not invalidate the requirement for a permit.