January 7, 2008
All He Can Be In the Army, But Not the NYPD
Should a soldier who served in Afghanistan be able to join the police force? Well, not in New York City, when the soldier in question has a previous gun possession convictions The New York Times looks at a machine gun-wielding active duty soldier who can't apply to the NYPD when he returns home.
Specialist Osvaldo Hernandez is a paratrooper with the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, set to be honorably discharged after his 15-month tour of duty. Regardless of respect in a combat zone, he is disqualified from New York's Finest after undercover cops found an unregistered pistol under his driver's seat in 2003 - a Class D felony.
Hernandez, who had no prior criminal record, says a friend recently gave him the .380-caliber semiautomatic pistol, which he kept for protection in his Queens neighborhood. While serving a year at Rikers, he was mentored by an Army Ranger and decided to enlist. As for his conduct as a soldier, the Times notes his "Army supervisors say he is reliable, honest and brave."
However, though the NYPD often favors military veteran status when recruiting officers (even waiving the 60 college credit requirement), felony convictions cannot be overlooked, even when NYPD recruiting is at a low. Given the police departments scrutiny and potential for criminals to launder their past, police departments almost always avoid hiring people with felony records. In addition, felony convictions also mean one is restricted from possessing firearms.
In the end, it's a personal Catch-22. Getting caught with a gun resulted in Hernandez joining the military and finding a purpose in his life. That same event seems to prevent him from attaining those goals when he returns, after wielding a variety of weapons for 15 months serving his country in a combat zone.
And the NYPD messageboard NYPD Rant has a variety of thoughts on the matter.
|
It's astonishing that the poll shows, thus far, that he shouldn't be allowed to serve because of the gun charge.
The NYC gun laws are incredibly unconstitutional, and hurt innocent people like Mr. Hernandez. The strict gun laws serve the real criminals in this city as they know they can run amok, relatively, since law-abiding citizens can't even have tasers to protect their homes or property.
This is nothing new. Anyone who is a convicted felon will not get a job as a cop regardless of their past or honor to their country. How many convicted felons who served in Vietnam (instead of going to jail)got jobs as cops?
Keeping a gun for a friend or not, he's a convicted felon if we let him be a cop, this leaves the door open for any convicted felon to be a police officer.
i agree with you Bottomless Chips, the poll surprised me. i don't like the nypd but this guy has served his country & deserves an exception.
so much for all the hypocrites who talk about supporting the troops.
Why does the NYPD hates veterans so much?
This guy seems to be a good man who made a big mistake, paid the price, and is leading a good life. He deserves all the credit he's getting. But (no reflection on him personally), I do find it reassuring that the NYPD's standards are somewhat higher than the Army's.
*The NYC gun laws are incredibly unconstitutional...*
Yes. Please explain.
As for serving the country, while I do not support the war in Iraq, I do support the troops, period.
Regardless of his service, I will reiterate:
***if we let him be a cop, this leaves the door open for any convicted felon to be a police officer.***
I find it funny that people would preclude this guy from being a cop because of a gun charge that didn't involve anyone but him (meaning it wasn't used in a crime, but simply was in his possesion). I know lots of people from rougher neighborhoods that used to always carry out of necessity.
This guy goes into the service, gets an honorable discharge..does his duty, and now he can't be a cop.
Unbelievable.
It's not like he got caught with a registered handgun and got arrested. Having an unlicensed handgun is a felony, as it should be. The gun laws in NYC are not un-constitutional at all. They are quite sensible, actually, they are just strict. I do feel pity for this guy, especially because he is a vet, did his time, and got his act together, but rules are rules. He should just stay in the military, it's a decent career.
If the NYPD hired him, and he was involved in a shotting or an incident of some kind, imagine the outcry when the front page of the Post announces he was a felon?
I don't want to sound too condescending when I say: Read the Second Amendment.
He didn't use the firearm in the commission of a crime. He had possesion of a firearm which I admit is a crime, but hardly a felony. What next possession of a knife is a felony? Lock up all chefs NOW!
He at least can probably shoot straight unlike 99% of the NYPD.
*I don't want to sound too condescending when I say: Read the Second Amendment.*
You're an idiot!
Read the First Amendment: Are you allowed to scream *fire* in a theater?
Read the 2nd Amend....
Here is a taste:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
What part of a "militia" was he helping exist by having a gun under his seat? And isn't the term "regulated" another way to say laws? And the framers of the BoR and the constitution wanted those laws goverened locally. IE gun laws in Queens fit the needs of Queens not Montana.
I enjoy shooting and wish it was easier to do as a NYC resident. But the idea of NYC adopting Virginia's gun laws is absurd and scary.
The question is, can people change? Can they be forgiven. Call Spitzer and get him a pardon if you think so.
I like the idea of giving this guy a chance, but some mistakes haunt you for life. Maybe that should be the morale of his story
The Second Ammendment stresses the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. It doesn't enshrine the g-d given right to walk around NYC with an illegal, unregistered handgun. You can have a firearm in NYC, you just have to go through the process, and you can't (with some exceptions for the few people who have concealed carry permits) walked around with a loaded weapon. This is reasonable. It is unreasonable to assume the Second Ammendment is a blanket law to walk around with an arsenal. Also, remember when the constitution was written, 'arms' were flintlocks. It's a huge difference that people don't often take into consideration.
No, you can't yell 'fire' as you infringe on the safety of others. And that's the reasoning that wouldn't allow your neighbor to have a atom bomb in his garage; there's present danger in that.
However, you should be able to have a gun in your home or car (property) without having to undergo an expensive permit and exclusionary permit policy.
Cities and states can make laws for anything they want, but any law that is seemingly unconstitutional (poll taxes, Jim Crow laws) should be challenged and brought forth to the courts. The DC gun laws are under fire now (punny) and have been brought to the courts, I believe.
No, you can't yell 'fire' as you infringe on the safety of others. And that's the reasoning that wouldn't allow your neighbor to have a atom bomb in his garage; there's present danger in that.
However, you should be able to have a gun in your home or car (property) without having to undergo an expensive permit and exclusionary permit policy.
Cities and states can make laws for anything they want, but any law that is seemingly unconstitutional (poll taxes, Jim Crow laws) should be challenged and brought forth to the courts. The DC gun laws are under fire now (punny) and have been brought to the courts, I believe.
WE are the Militia.
No, unfortunately we're not the militia. We have an army, and police, something that didn't exist in colonial times. Sure, if the Queen of England sends a ship full of brigands and Hessians to invade Brooklyn, I'll be right out there fighting. However, until then we have no need for a militia. The constitution is a document that was meant to be constantly changed for the good of the people. It's a shame that it has been enshrined and completely misused to defend certain special interest group, like the gun lobby.
Tell that to the Korean shopkeepers during the LA riots.
*However, you should be able to have a gun in your home or car (property) without having to undergo an expensive permit and exclusionary permit policy.*
I disagree. There is no evidence anywhere that carrying a legal hand gun curbs violence in any particular town or city.
The gun was an illegal, unlicensed loaded semi automatic hand gun under the seat of his car. Show me where in the constitution that this is allowed?
The very reason a gun must be licensed anywhere is because times have changed. We're not walking around with muskets as we're not printing newspapers on a 300 year-old printers.
As for gun laws being challenged that's good. That is why this country is great. However, an illegal hang gun is illegal. The police and the public, at the time of his arrest, didn't know what he intended to do with the illegal weapon... Maybe he laying that he was "holding it for a friend" his so-called friend would have never stepped to the plate and admitted it was his... So, Herdandez is charged and convicted of a Felony.
If you allow him to become a cop, it will open doors for any felon to apply to become a cop; rapists, child molestors, drug dealers etc.
Stay in the military, it seems to be a more honorable job than being a cop.
*Tell that to the Korean shopkeepers during the LA riots.*
Owning a shotgun or rifle does not require a permit or license (except in NYC).
I also feel that, in addition to specifying militia, emphasis should be placed on the phrase "well regulated" that leads off the 2nd Amendment, Bottomless Chips. I take that to mean that the government is allowed to regulate gun ownership and usage.
FrankMartin and Emily Dickinson,
It's important to note that I don't interpret the 2nd in a way that allows people to roam the streets, strapped with guns all over. I fall somewhere in between the two extremes. And my opinion is not swayed by the gun lobby or radicals.
If we want to amend the Constitution that's fine. But until we do, the 2nd minces no words. We are the militia. To make the argument that the police in this city is our militia is incredibly flawed as they are an arm of the state and local government. Yes, we fund them through taxes, but when you see them encroach on people's 1st Amendment rights countless times at protests and rallies, could you really make a case that they are working for us as opposed to the Keriks and Giulianis of our system?
With this being clear, we should be able to bear arms, and no public establishment should deny me that right. Yes, there are extenuating circumstances--bringing a gun into a publicly funded courthouse, prison, or school--and the right to own a gun should begin at our arbitrarily decided age of 18. However, private establishments would be allowed to ban gun-toters just as they should be allowed to exclude blacks and womens**. So if you wanted to go to Macy's and knew Macy's didn't allow guns, you would leave it at home. And would you really want to be carrying your gun around NYC if the laws were more open? No. It would sit at home, safely, and be used only to protect your property, probably. So this vision of New Yorkers strapped like they're ready to go to war while walking the streets is absurd.
** This sounds awful, and hurts to type out. However, I'm against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but only on the basis that it forced private property and its owners' hands. Of course if I opened a restaurant I would let blacks, womens, gay, transgenders and whomever else in; but a government mandate shouldn't make me do that. And for those establishments that ban minorities, look at Augusta Country Club as a great example. The government hasn't forced equality or pushed morality on them. It's been women's rights groups and such that have been pressuring them every year and will eventually be what forces their hand. That's why I have so much appreciation for the Freedom Riders.
blah blah blah...
hernandez broke the law. he's out. stay in the army!
edEx,
To your first point, many academics disagree and here's the theory which I alluded to in my post, I believe: Gun laws serve the criminals, not the law-abiding citizens. If we knew that banks kept their loot protected by unarmed guards, the incentive to use an "illegal" gun to rob them is much greater than the risk. Now, since we have armed guards, the risk goes up, the incentive stays constant and ultimately it comes down to whether or not you're crazy to risk your life. Before you had a minute chance of getting shot or killed, now your odds have risen exponentially.
We can use this example for our homes, too. This ninja robber or the various home invasions in Brooklyn we've heard about this past summer and fall, if the criminals have no idea whether or not a house is locked and loaded, they'll think twice.
Now, there are some flaws with open gun policies. When prohibition was repealed, the number of alcoholics rose, but at least those people were free to decide whether or not they'd kill their liver, not the government. With more guns, there will be some lives lost that wouldn't be under a zero tolerance gun society. However, I argue that many innocent ones would be saved.
Also, the black market for guns immediately takes a hit and hurts the gun underworld which I doubt is filled with saints.
To your second point, I never said that it was specifically outlined in the Constitution when it comes to carrying a gun under the seat of your car. Don't be absurd.
Bottomless Chips:
I second the notion that your problem seems to be that you feel that the regulations are strong, but again emphasize that the 2nd Amendement very purposely uses the words "well regulated". The current gun laws are how New York has chosen to regulate.
Also, in regard to legalizing guns in order to keep them off the black market, illegal guns have to come from somewhere. The purpose of governing the sale (and production) of guns is to limit the source of those guns to begin with. It might not have an immediate impact in the availability of black market guns, but shouldn't it be part of a long term solution?
Outter Burrougher:
The black market takes a hit because they lose the current segment of the population that buys from them, the type who is law-abiding but is frightened off by the tough gun-control regulation in NYC. The estimate figure of gun owners in that segment is not a number I have on hand, but would assume to be decent in size.
Anecdotally, I believe this segment to be mostly black, and living in the poorer neighborhoods.
In the long-term, they lose their power due to more law-abiding people owning guns and the risk not being worth the cost to own and use a gun for their nefarious purposes.
If they're buying guns on the black market, they are, by definition not "law-abiding". I think you mean people who are good, but desperate (is that right?). I sympathize with people who are afraid and feel that they need a gun to protect themselves, and I'm not expert enough in the city's regulations to comment directly to their limitations on law-abiding citizens with no history of mental illness, who can pass a screening and background check before being allowed to purchase a piece of equipment whose purpose (when put bluntly) is to scare, injure or kill (be it animals, criminals, attackers or other).
I think the criminal-minded lose their power when we are able to stop the supply of guns to them and that part of the solution for that is strictly controlling the wholesale and retail of guns from the factories, from the stores, from the gun shows.
You really just have to wait until the Supreme Court decides the DC case. The only question being decided is how the "well-regulated militia" clause ties into the whole thing.
The District Court ruled that it was merely a justification for the meat of the amendment and has no legal meaning, similar to the Preamble.
Even if the DC ban is overturned, it would not mean the end of all gun control, since those questions are not being addressed by the Court in this case.
OB,
If someone buys pot, I guess they're not "law-abiding", but you know what I mean.
Someone who has no violent past who wants to own a gun.
And as for this:I think the criminal-minded lose their power when we are able to stop the supply of guns to them and that part of the solution for that is strictly controlling the wholesale and retail of guns from the factories, from the stores, from the gun shows.
This is an awful idea. Look at the tyrannical approach to our "war on drugs." Prohibition of anything doesn't work, nor do "sin taxes." The next thing you know, the city will be trying to regulate our diets, oh wait...
You are basically advocating a multi-billion dollar, fascist policy that we couldn't afford and would produce unfavorable results.
NYC (and perhaps even NYS) law prohibits a person convicted of any felony from being a police officer. This isn't even up to the NYPD -- there's no wiggle room, unlike with lesser things like misdemeanors or violations. And some would argue there is even too much wiggle room these days for those lesser crimes.
It's also against the law in NYS for convicted felons to own or otherwise be in possession of firearms. So how would you expect this future police officer to do his job if it's also against the law for him to carry a gun? Should we pass custom-built laws for this kid and any other "reformed" felons?
Both the Army and NYPD are hurting for recruits, and have resorted to scraping the bottom of the barrel. This kid got lucky that the Army took him -- he should just work on a career there, and stop making a fuss.
Both the Army and NYPD are hurting for recruits, and have resorted to scraping the bottom of the barrel. This kid got lucky that the Army took him -- he should just work on a career there, and stop making a fuss.
Wow. So you're under the thought that his crime was serious? Put yourself in his shoes; imagine where he's from for a second.
Bottomless Chips:
well stated.
I disagree. If you need a gun that badly for protection or sport, pay for a permit and a license.
regardless of where he comes from, he is a convicted felon. There are convicted felons who do not come from bad hoods... i knew a kid from college who wanted to become an FBI agent. He didn't because stupidly one night he drove drunk and crashed. (thankfully, not killing anyone...). He had an outstanding warrant for an unpaid parking ticket and was arrested, charged and convicted of a felony.
He's now in the Navy doing intelligence overseas and making some good money (about 80K plus benefits). He also contracts on the side for private firms working with the Navy.
Hernandez, should stay in the military and work with what he has. Making this into a big thing is not in his best interests.
Why does the NYPD hates Veterans?
is it because they have better toys? why is it always a pissing match?
what percentage of the NYPD are Veterans?
I love our Vets.
as a side note, I'm sure many in this smart group know the origins of Gun Control laws.
till then, from my......
nypd gets no love...EVER...
BC:
I think you're reading to much into what I wrote, but either way, we're going to have to agree that we seem to have a fundamental difference regarding our feelings on gun control.
As for addressing your specific points: I don't feel that a violent past should be the only reason not to allow someone to have a gun. Mental illness, history of drunk driving (though part of me feels that this constitutes a violent past), and others should be part of that. I also think that all sales should have to be documented and that the person or store receiving them can't have been flagged in the system as being unable to purchase or deal weapons. Having a database that combines pre-existing data is not excessive.
I'm not talking about a total ban. I'm talking about strict control. Why should a gun be easier to get than vicodin?
OB,
I'm fine with background checks, in theory. Whether or not they're done in a fair manner is another story.
It's the $400 permits, and the strict laws once you own one that I resent.
The title of this post and its premise are total non-sequiturs. Being a cop and a soldier are two completely different universes. Wearing an uniform and having a gun are (or should be) basically the only things in common.
"He can wait tables at the 2nd ave deli, but not join the NYPD" makes the same exact sense.
*strict laws*
I know shooting a guy over yer "bitch" is too strict... damn laws! ;P
I may be wrong but I think both took an Oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States.
$400?? I think it's more than that now.
The renewal rate is less but for the initial app it's over $400.
$400?? I think it's more than that now.
The renewal rate is less but for the initial app it's over $400.
That number might be lower and wrong. But it goes to prove my point that I'm against the permit fees, as it's basically a poor tax to the inner-city blacks, the ones who really might need a gun to defend themselves.
A man pulling in $20,000/year raising a family couldn't afford the gun and $400+ dollars of these permit fees tacked on.
*I'm against the permit fees, as it's basically a poor tax to the inner-city blacks, the ones who really might need a gun to defend themselves.*
Your comment above is racist.
I guess we can say that no whites or hispanics live in these poor neighborhoods, only blacks?
Permit fees are everywhere. Do you think in Texas you can just buy a gun and walk around with it?
get over it! this isn't about gun rights... it's about a stupid kid who was carrying an illegal fire arm and convicted of a felony and now he says "he found jesus" and wants to join the nypd...
i say nay and stay in the army... deal with it... the world is not your toilet.
Need a weapon for home protection? forget the handgun. Take a hunter safety course, get a NYS hunting license (don't need to hunt) & get a nice pump 12ga. No problem.
BUT, rememeber proper gun safety, esp. with kids in the house or visiting. The sound of racking a 12 will get the dirtbag off and running faster than anyhting you could shoot at them.
But the Red Ryder BB gun (or just about any air rifle) will still be illegal.
Dadoc
And, bog forbid, you get caught with any of those items listed in the lowest level of NYPL weapons possession (kinda funny, guess I gotta get rid of my wrist-rocket & "Kung-Fu" stars):
ยง 265.01 Criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.
A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth
degree when:
(1) He possesses any firearm, electronic dart gun, electronic stun
gun, gravity knife, switchblade knife, pilum ballistic knife, metal
knuckle knife, cane sword, billy, blackjack, bludgeon, metal knuckles,
chuka stick, sand bag, sandclub, wrist-brace type slingshot or
slungshot, shirken or "Kung Fu star"; or
(2) He possesses any dagger, dangerous knife, dirk, razor, stiletto,
imitation pistol, or any other dangerous or deadly instrument or weapon
with intent to use the same unlawfully against another; or
(3) He or she knowingly has in his or her possession a rifle, shotgun
or firearm in or upon a building or grounds, used for educational
purposes, of any school, college or university, except the forestry
lands, wherever located, owned and maintained by the State University of
New York college of environmental science and forestry, or upon a school
bus as defined in section one hundred forty-two of the vehicle and
traffic law, without the written authorization of such educational
institution; or
(4) He possesses a rifle or shotgun and has been convicted of a felony
or serious offense; or
(5) He possesses any dangerous or deadly weapon and is not a citizen
of the United States; or
(6) He is a person who has been certified not suitable to possess a
rifle or shotgun, as defined in subdivision sixteen of section 265.00,
and refuses to yield possession of such rifle or shotgun upon the demand
of a police officer. Whenever a person is certified not suitable to
possess a rifle or shotgun, a member of the police department to which
such certification is made, or of the state police, shall forthwith
seize any rifle or shotgun possessed by such person. A rifle or shotgun
seized as herein provided shall not be destroyed, but shall be delivered
to the headquarters of such police department, or state police, and
there retained until the aforesaid certificate has been rescinded by the
director or physician in charge, or other disposition of such rifle or
shotgun has been ordered or authorized by a court of competent
jurisdiction.
(7) He knowingly possesses a bullet containing an explosive substance
designed to detonate upon impact.
(8) He possesses any armor piercing ammunition with intent to use the
same unlawfully against another.
Criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree is a class A
misdemeanor.