There are not many Republicans (45/6 according to a quick search) in the New York City Council. Still, New York City Council Member Inna Vernikov (R-Brooklyn) is getting a lot of attention, if not quite in positive ways.
She was in the news in the summer when some jerk came up to her in a public place, kissed her, and walked away. She (rightly) was like "What the actual ..." and there is a clip of it that was posted.
The NYT article (linked in a City & State article, one of a few useful online news sources for city and state news as seen by my side panel) provides a bit of context:
Ms. Vernikov, a lawyer who was born in Ukraine, describes herself in her City Council biography as “a leading voice against antisemitism.” She posted a video of herself at the Brooklyn College rally, which was organized by the group Students for Justice in Palestine, saying that the protesters supported Hamas.
“If you’re here today standing with these people, you’re nothing short of a terrorist without the bombs,” Ms. Vernikov said in the video.
There has been a mixture of Palestine-themed responses to the events, a few (which have received significant attention and have greatly upset some Jews) are a tad offensive. They might not only ignore the wrongs of Hamas but even simply provide support to the resistance of Israel that comes off as blatant support of Hamas terrorism.
Others (quite understandably given some of the one-sided support of Israel, including its non-proportional response, which is of course totally unsurprising) are more about supporting the Palestinians. It is unclear without carefully looking at the details where in the spectrum the rally that upset her sits, but students are not always known for finesse.
Okay, her response is questionable but unsurprising. There will be pushback on both sides and she is a Republican. The problem is suggested by this screenshot:
There is a New York state law passed last year that bans the possession of firearms at protests and rallies – even with a concealed carry permit (which she has). A former public defender is cited in the C&S piece noting that a typical minority arrested would be liable to be in trouble, including possibly for "menacing" since the gun is quite apparent. The gun actually doesn't seem very "concealed" to me. We are not an open-carry state.
The councilwoman's colleague, Tiffany Cabán, noted that as a former public defender, the fact IV only got a desk appearance ticket when she turned herself in is rather notable. The people she dealt with did not get them. The NYT reports the police said she was not "menacing" anyone, so that should not be a problem. Given her position, a conviction is not likely.
The law (as compelled by Supreme Court doctrine) limits itself to "sensitive places" when banning bringing a gun to a protest. There is some debate over exactly where she was standing (the sensitive place being the school). This flags another reason why a criminal charge is unlikely. Often the issue is not the conviction. It is the arrest and all that comes with that.
She might get in trouble in-house on an ethics charge. I doubt she is going to be expelled for this. I don't think she deserves that for a one-off myself, but it is not a trivial matter, especially in these times:
New York City Council Minority Leader Joe Borelli: “There’s a responsibility that comes with owning a firearm, and she’ll have to address these charges with the court,” Borelli told The New York Times. “I know she is sorry about what happened.”
Well, I'm "sorry" for a lot of things, but sometimes that isn't enough. The core issue here is that guns at rallies are trouble. The First Amendment speaks of "peaceful" assembly. A gun is inherently not peaceful.
A gun is menacing as a result, putting aside the exact reach of that term in a criminal sense. It is unclear why she felt a need to get a concealed carry permit in the first place. Seems like theater to me but I grant some strange didn't come up and kiss me. Not that a gun would have helped much there.
I personally think there is a constitutional right to own a gun. Public places are a special situation. This applies in general. For instance, public accommodations warrant civil rights laws that include equal engagement, even if that clashes with your religious beliefs.
A truly private place is different. The right to own a gun is not limited to your home. But, once you take them into crowded public places, well, it's clearly a different matter. The Heller decision written by Scalia included "sensitive places" as an area where regulation is clearly possible.
The opinion his pal Thomas wrote called into question just how much you can regulate public places. But, the overall point holds, this time with a clear need to balance constitutional rights (see also, how fair public trials and the First Amendment requires sensitive balancing).
There is also a matter of judgment. For instance, one reporter asked Gov. Hochul about Palestinians and her answer was that they should follow the rules set forth by Israel. It was a one-sided answer. That's bad judgment. The Israel/Palestinian Conflict has a lot of that. Both sides might not have the same amount of power in various respects. But, there are some "both sides" here. That concept is often abused without being totally incorrect.
The presence of guns at protests is a thing. Some people blatantly carry large scary-looking guns at a few protests as a sort of theater, though clearly a form of menacing theater. It is a bad thing. Guns in public places cause trouble. This is a red flag with "stand your ground" type laws, even as people try to nitpick things to death. They change the dynamic and invite problems. Legally innocent does not mean someone isn't dead.
The councilwoman here did not go that far. But, her actions were irresponsible. I hope they help lead her to lose her office in November though unless she is in a narrowly divided district, not likely. Still, something this misguided is that level.
It is just plain stupid.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!