The quality of mercy is not strain'd... It blesseth him that gives and him that takes. Shakespeare, The Merchant Of Venice
My brother committed suicide with a gun. When New York City's murder rate was 4 times its current level -- guns were often involved, and they're still involved in many of the city's crimes. It's no surprise I'm an advocate of gun control, and a knee-jerk opponent of the National Rifle Association (NRA).
It's extraordinary that I find myself concurring with the NRA about 2 tourists recently arrested in NYC. Ryan Jerome is from Indiana, and Meredith Graves from Tennessee. Each had permits from his or her home state to carry concealed weapons. Ryan was visiting the Empire State Building, and Meredith the 9/11 Memorial, when each became aware that NYC does not permit the carrying of concealed weapons. In each incident, they found a security officer, informed the officer about the gun, and voluntarily offered to hand it in. Each faces prosecution and potentially years in prison for illegal gun possession -- because NYC doesn't recognize out-of-state gun permits and the prosecutor won't use his discretion to drop the charges.
Ryan, currently a jeweler, is a third generation Marine honorably discharged in 2005. Meredith is a fourth year medical student. Neither has a prior criminal record, and there are no allegations of criminal intent or threatening behavior regarding their gun possession. They appear to be two law-abiding citizens whose honesty has resulted in their prosecution.
NY County District Attorney Cyrus Vance should either: explain why these two are being prosecuted, or use his prosecutorial discretion to dismiss the charges. Here's why:
It appears the cases are proceeding against Ryan and Meredith as part of a zero-tolerance policy on illegal weapons -- enforced on everyone, equally and automatically. In reality, NY's prosecutorial establishment often decides not to prosecute when it believes it's not in the public interest to do so. The earlier-mentioned gun amnesties are one example.
Another example is the decision to drop prosecution of then-NYS Governor Spitzer. The relevant prosecutor announced: "on multiple occasions, Mr. Spitzer arranged for women to travel from one state to another state to engage in prostitution." Despite clear evidence available from an FBI investigation, the prosecutor "concluded that the public interest would not be further advanced by filing criminal charges in this matter."
Unlike Ryan and Meredith, Spitzer had mens rea (guilty knowledge). His actions were intentional (not inadvertent), with full knowledge of the law as a former NYS Attorney General.
Further, Ryan and Meredith voluntarily contacted the authorities. Spitzer didn't voluntarily come forward to disclose his conduct. He was caught during an FBI investigation.
Vance should use the discretion granted to his office to drop prosecution of Ryan and Meredith. It's not in the public interest. If prosecutorial discretion could be invoked to not charge Spitzer (Harvard Law graduate, former prosecutor, heir to one of NY's richest families) who knowingly transported prostitutes across state lines while Governor -- Vance can (and should) decide not to prosecute two people who accidentally violated NYC's gun control laws.
To paraphrase former U.S. Attorney General Reno -- the prosecutor's job is not to win as many cases as possible, but to do justice in every case the prosecutor handles. The published facts in this case demand that Vance dismiss these charges at the earliest opportunity.
Unless, of course, Vance's point is that we now officially have two standards of justice in this country: One for the rich, powerful and well-connected; another for the remaining 99% (including people like Ryan who -- unlike Spitzer -- honorably served his country as a Marine, without causing public embarrassment).
More generally, NYC should have clear rules about when out-of-state visitors with inadvertently-illegal weapons will be prosecuted (e.g., prior criminal record) and when they qualify for amnesty (e.g., no criminal record, voluntary weapon handover).
About the Author: Steven Strauss was founding Managing Director of the Center for Economic Transformation at the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). He is an Advanced Leadership Fellow at Harvard University for 2011-2012. He has a Ph.D. in Management from Yale University and over 20 years private sector work experience. You can follow him on twitter at: @Steven_Strauss.
Follow Steven Strauss on Twitter: www.twitter.com/steven_strauss
Mr. Strauss, I really wish that were true, but as cases like the ones you cite show, it isn't. New York's gun laws ARE meant to prevent honest citizens from being armed. That's what they do. They disarm lawful responsible citizens while rich well connected politicians and celebrities can get CCW permits and/or armed bodyguards with ease.
I thank you for taking the right side on these particular cases, but I'm afraid your anti-gun bias appears to be preventing you from drawing a logical conclusion. New York shows no mercy to honest citizens who mistakenly break the law and are caught for trying to do the right thing specifically because their laws and anti-gun culture promote this type of zero-tolerance hate against gun owners in general.
I hope continued scrutiny toward New York's gun laws will cause you to see the light.
in the 1770's, we'd still be part of England.
The crime rate has gone up in England, they've take away the guns and with it the ability for one to defend themselves in their own home. Those that defend themselves, end up going to prison longer than the criminals. From my point of view, anyone that is in favor of gun control, is in favor of making it easier for criminals to victimized those that have been disarmed. Has anyone ever considered that criminals don't and won't turn in their illegal guns but only the innocent ones? Civilians have killed more criminals than all the police departments, and are better shots. Criminals won't wait while you call 911.
Very few people were ever allowed hand guns in the first place, and every excuse was thrown at the individual to prevent ownership.
Even for a shotgun you had be of good character, no criminal record, secure storage and 'a valid reason' to want the gun. Home defense was a non-starter as a reason and would see a prompt refusal.
As you rightly say, it's the criminals who have the guns now.
If you want to get picky about it, the CCW permit holders do not think that are abouve the law. In all actuallity, the CCW permit holders are THE safest segment of society, even safer than the police. And at last checking, defending one self is not against the law, it is part of the law.
The world's most deadly weapon? Those would be nuclear bombs right? Just look at the devistation that just one bomb did on Hiroshima Japan. Are you inferring that a gun is more destructive than that?
I think you project WAY too much with delusions.
Their actions did not do anything for public safety. The public has not been safe in NYC for a very long time. Their giving up their arms only made them easier to victimize.
We agree that procecuting these two upstanding citizens (non-criminals to use your words) will provide ammunition for the anti-gun-control community. But, NYC has made it a crime to carry a weapon. Ignorance of the law is no excuse in NYC or anywhere else. It is good to know that you recognize that this stupid law will victimize tourists just like it victimizes thousands of NYC residents every day. It is ironic that you would give these two a pass but not your fellow citizens. Perhaps those who do not live in NYC will recognize that they are not safe on your streets; have no legal means to protect their lives, liberty or property when they visit you and decide to stay away.
"Prosecutions of non-criminals provide support to foes of gun control. They provide poster children for why states should be forced to recognize each other's gun permits..."
Go ahead, Cy, make our day :-)
Thank you for reading the article and taking the time to comment.
Eventhough we are different sides of the ongoing gun control debate, I would very much like to thank you for your well thought out and realistic view point on this particular matter. It shows good wisdom and an intellect that goes beyond personal opinions.
Again, Thank you.