Mike the Musicologist sent this over to me, asking if it counted as flames. I told him I thought it was worth noting, but didn’t think it was a flaming hyena. To which MtM responded “It’s your publication. You make the call.”
Inna Vernikov is a councilwoman from Brooklyn. She’s a Republican from a “conservative” district. She’s also Jewish. And she has a concealed carry permit.
Councilwoman Vernikov went to a “pro-Palestinian rally” at Brooklyn College yesterday.
Councilwoman Vernikov was carrying a “Smith & Wesson 9-millimeter pistol”.
She was “observing a pro-Palestine protest” when she was seen with the butt end of a firearm “protruding from the front portion of her pants”…
She couldn’t afford a decent IWB holster?
Cutting to the chase, the councilwoman has been charged with “criminal possession of a firearm”.
You see, even though she had a concealed carry permit, it seems like:
1. Being seen with the butt of the gun protruding from her pants isn’t “concealed carry”.
2. Quoth the tabloid of record, “Although Vernikov has a concealed carry permit, it is illegal in New York state to have a firearm at sensitive locations such as protests or school grounds.”
So why no flaming hyena? I question her judgement in not using a good, discreet holster. I halfway want to question her judgement in going to the rally armed in the first place (“Avoid stupid people in stupid places doing stupid things”) but she may have felt obligated to as a politican, and may have felt she needed to be armed for her protection.
And: I Am Not A Lawyer, But: I think the ban on having firearms at “sensitive locations” is very likely to get overturned if it ever goes to the appellate level. And as I’ve said before, it’s hard for me to sling imprecations at someone who’s committing a crime that I don’t believe should be a crime.