You may recall our recent Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day post on New York State Homeland Security Commissioner Jerome Hauer. A reporter reported that Mr. Hauer drew his GLOCK and used its laser to enhance a Powerpoint presentation at a “highly secure state emergency operations center below State Police headquarters.” The kicker: the Commish’s laser lasered several members of a Swedish delegation. Let’s hope Mr. Hauer’s Homeland Security team members are better at damage control than the boss. “Spokesmen for Hauer and the governor’s office had declined to answer questions about the incident for weeks before the story was finally published,” capitalnewyork.com reports. “In an interview with Capital this weekend on a separate topic, Hauer [finally] denied the report.” Ready? So . . .
“This was an unloaded gun because I was taking it to the gun shop to get a different sight on it,” Hauer said.
Wait. So it’s OK to take an unloaded gun into State Police Headquarters? Well no, it’s not, obviously. But the original news report on this kerfuffle mentioned the fact that the GLOCK in question was a loaded gun, and we all know that loaded guns are totally different from unloaded guns in terms of dangerousness. Especially when you’re lasering people’s heads with the muzzle. And we all trust the New York State Homeland Security Commissioner’s word on the state of his firearm. Don’t we?
The commissioner said he never aimed the gun at the Swedish officials’ heads. According to the Times-Union report, “three Swedish emergency managers in the delegation were rattled when the gun’s laser tracked across one of their heads before Hauer found the map of New York, at which he wanted to point.”
The report also said that Hauer “carries the loaded 9-millimeter Glock in a holster into state buildings, an apparent violation of state law barring state employees from bringing weapons to the workplace, several witnesses say.”
Politicians, eh? He never “aimed” the gun at their heads. Which is not to say the laser didn’t skate across their heads unintentionally. And while he’s prevaricating, Mr. Hauer would like it to be known that the piece in question was totally not a GLOCK.
“I do own a Glock but it is in Virginia. It is too big to carry in a pocket and it has no laser. I have never carried it because of its size. I carry an H&K P 2000. The gun that was in my pocket was an unloaded S&W 9mm. I have permits to carry and received verbal authorization to carry it on state property when I was hired and again many months ago.”
Would it be indelicate to ask Mr. Hauer to show us his New York State carry permit? And then, if he has one, to check and see if it was issued before the date of this incident? Not that we might use the information to arrest him for carrying an illegal firearm or, say, brandishing. While we’re at it, I wonder if the Police have any information on whether or not the Smith & Wesson 9mm in question has been registered with the state, as required by law.
As for the verbal authorization to carry on state property, who knew such a thing was even possible? I don’t know about you, but that’s exactly the kind of thing I’d get in writing, just in case I needed to liven-up a Powerpoint presentation in the bowels of a State Police building. Just sayin’ . . .
“Verbal authorization”?
Good enough for them, but not for us plebes, apparently…
Just another example of how the connected and in-power want to use gun control to further consolidate their position. Do. Not. Let. Them have a monopoly on force.
Verbal authorization my a$$. Although, my faith may be restored a little bit if a NYPD cop had enough morality/testicular fortitude to use this example as probable cause to “stop-and-frisk” Hauer the next time he enters the building, and arrest him for carrying said firearm where he is NOT authorized to have it…and for breaking the SAFE act ( because you know DAMN well he does).
But his mom said it was OK. . .
As the old saying goes….
If it isn’t in writing it didn’t happen.
Unless you have friends in the right places.
Of course he has permission. He gave it to himself. Then he investigated himself after this unfortunate incident and completely absolved himself of any wrongdoing.
If the IRS can investigate itself, why can’t Hauer?
This^
You’re all fired, until I conduct an investigation. Which I just finished. You’re all rehired with raises.
We’re governed and surrounded by losers, hypocrites, elitists and crooks. God bless America.
“I knew it, I’m surrounded by a$$holes!”
Keep firing, a$$holes!
Love that movie.
I lased ACROSS his head, not ON it!
I don’t think much more needs to be said than this.
I’ll be sure to remember that verbal authorization thing next time I’m in NYC. I’m sure the NYPD will go merrily on their way after I clear up the misunderstanding… oh wait? I have to be part of the political ruling class or one of their buddies? That can’t be true.. with NYC progressives saying they are for “equality” and all.
That’s the true meaning of Deblasio’s Tale of two Cities BS.
Yup.. could you imagine the instant uproar if the NYPD had equally applied stop-and-frisk all over the city?
while we’re on that, can anyone explain to me why NYC “conservatives” support stop and frisk? it seems like every time I see someone criticizing what’s obviously an unconstitutional practice, out comes the NYC “conservative” rambling on about how liberals want to end S&F, which will send NYC hurdling back into an abyss of crime – as if it’s doing so great right now.
what’s the deal here? why would any conservative support S&F?
maybe them ‘conservatives’ are just ‘liberals’ who ain’t been S&F’d yet.
+1 on a classic nirvana gem
NY Conservatives are suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
@ Jeff: Generally speaking, NYC “conservative” politicians are a bit
differentstatist (see: Peter King) compared to other conservatives around the country. But if you want to get down to brass tax, stop and frisk didn’t really affect the middle and upper class liberals or conservatives in the city. There are other aspects as well in regards to thecitizenrysubjects.It’s hard to explain for people that haven’t lived there but NYC is a very fractured city, even among it’s ethnically/religious/racially self-segregated neighborhoods. On one block you can have homes worth a million dollars with a view of the ocean and 1/2 mile down the road you can have a group of public housing apartment buildings (“the projects”) where crime is off the charts. The more working class parts of the city usually have projects somewhere within its neighborhood boarders. Back in the 50’s, NY politicians and city planners thought that the way to “raise up” the low income people was to place public housing in more middle working class areas. Of course that approach didn’t really turn out well, so many working class people (both liberal and conservative) that lived in these areas were introduced to a more up close and personal crime problem. There is a lot of racism in the minds of both liberals and conservatives in the city that stems from these actions. Now enter the NYC progressive. The NYC prog is a bit of a different animal than the NYC liberal or conservative. Many tend to live in higher income areas with low crime, some even pay little rent due to city rent control. They rarely leave their 5 to 10 block area and when they do it’s to something that might resemble a job (if their not living off their parents previous hard work) or to the shopping districts. They really don’t have any idea of what goes on outside their little sphere. They know their life is fine by them and they can’t understand why people don’t want to live exactly like them and the only reason why people don’t live exactly like them is whatever reason their gods (politicians/news reporters) tell them is the reason. They know everything and they want to let you know that they know everything. Of course there is more to the three groups and there are other ethnically, religiously, and racially divided political groups but it would take a book to explain.
The above may seem like endless rambling, but to understand S&F support among the various politically divided groups you have to understand where these subsets of people get some of their bias and preconceived notions. So, if you look at S&F stats, most S&F encounters are between police and minorities (youtube is filled with examples). More specifically, S&F takes place in low income and high crime areas where minorities make up the bulk majority of the population. Conservatives and liberals in areas where low income areas are only a few blocks away were fine accepting S&F because they were tired of hearing about a friend or family member that was pulled out of their car in broad daylight and beat to within an inch of their lives (I know a person who had this happen to his wife in the late 1990’s). NYC progressives have an easier time speaking out against S&F because they rarely see crime on a personal level and are more than happy to trust and rely on agents of the state to “do the right thing”. Many are more than fine with allowing similar intrusions, when entering the subway for example, because it keeps them safe (in their minds at least). Furthermore, New Yorkers as a whole have accepted that the limitation of rights is a worthy sacrifice for the illusion of safety (especially after 9/11). I could go on about how the older generations that remember the really dark days of crime (pre-1995) and don’t want to return to those days or younger generations want to live in a progressive utopia, but the basis of all of this rights-limiting acceptance is and will always be fear. People in the city are afraid and they have been brainwashed to believe their right to defend themselves is antiquated and “not the answer”.
I have written authorization. It’s called the second amendment of the USA Constitution. 🙂
Ha ha, the joke’s on you. New York never signed the Constitution.
Hamilton signed for New York.
Hamilton’s signature meant nothing as far as New York was concerned, since he didn’t count as a delegation by himself. New York did ratify the Constitution, however, and the Bill of Rights.
@Rick F, I’d like you to google the word “sarcasm.”
I know a place where The Constitution doesn’t mean jack-squat! New York!
And to that I say, FUAC! You are GONE in November.
Do as I say not as I do Nazi mentality of HLS
I wonder if this Glock sucker had more then 10 rounds which is against state law (5 rounds in NYShitty)
A verbal authorization isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.
Oh, wait …
Complete BOZO.
What a crock of crap if I ever saw one.
Verbal authorization?? and the Swedes were all delusional huh??
Crock of Crap, a politicos favorite dish to serve to us. Many happily ask for seconds.
Laws are for the little people.
What do you have against the vertically challenged?
None of his excuses mean a thing. If everything he said is true he demonstrated that he is not responsible enough to carry a gun. He broke all four rules. If Cuomo doesn’t sack him then he shows himself to be a hypocrite that really doesn’t give a sh*t about preventing “gun violence.”
It was obvious this whole Homeland Security farrago wasn’t going to do anything good when they gave it that Nazi-like moniker (or is it Soviet-style?). Homeland, motherland, Mother Russia, verbal authorization from the politburo, whatever. They might as well have cut to the chase and called it the Ministry of Peace.
Why are you people obsessing about what one bureaucrat may or may not have done accidentally on purpose with a gun? Don’t you know we’ve always been at war with Eastasia?
Eurasia, you thought criminal. Eastasia is our ally.
🙂
I guess I’ll be getting that long-anticipated visit from the Ministry of Love any time now…
Said best by Charles Durning in “Best Little Whorehouse in Texas”… http://youtu.be/Kl8ajhu_e5Y
Well I am SHOCKED! Shocked I tell you!
As the kids say, NOT.
There are 2 rule/law books, theirs and the public’s.
“and received verbal authorization” From who? His mother? As far as I can find there is no one that can give a “verbal authorization” to commit felonies. Other than mommy, of course!
Arrest him immediately. Fire him and take away his state pension for his position. If Cuomo wants to set a good example for gun control in New York he will do it by prosecuting this guy to the fullest extent of the law. If he doesn’t act, then we obviously see that Cuomo is full of crap and only interested in politics. Not like that would be news to anyone IN New York…
That Glock in Virginia confuses me. I’d like to know his state of primary residence, because NY has no mechanism to grant a permit of any kind to ANY nonresident. I know the laws don’t apply here but just curious. You also need a permit from the Albany Chief of Police to bring a handgun into that city.
I had never heard of such a thing with Albany; I am curious if that section (193-2) has ever been applied because it is completely at odds with the NY penal code.
Relax! He only breaks the laws that don’t apply to him…
At what point will it be acceptable for us common folk to ignore laws since the elected officials who wrote them and those hired to enforce them ignore them every day?
Right up to when you get caught by LE.
These are the same guys that run in convoys up the parkway at 90mph ignoring all traffic laws.
Aside from that what sloppy handling of a pistol, if I had a laser sight sweep my head I’d be pretty pissed off to.
If you forget the laser at your power point at least take the sight off the gun first before pressing it into service!
Stop and frisk was hilarious, try that on Wall Street and see how long it would last. But as long as they hassle poor people no one in power cares. Let them eat cake?
If he lasered my head with a Glock I’d make him eat the damned thing, international incident or not.
HK snob, nuff said, he made sure to let us all know he carries and HK normally.
Form a PAC, hire a lobbyist, contact Peter King’s Office, or another member of congress willing to show outrage, and force the hand of the other side to act in accordance with their own laws. It takes money, organization and guts. Ever wonder why the NRA is not all over this? Picking their battles or working behind the scenes … hmmm? What is TTAG prepared to do???
A little Googling brings up a number of issues for this jackass, per the Albany Times Union
Apologies to other jackasses I may have maligned by the comparison.
Very questionable departmental financial dealings, fired the auditor looking into his shenanigans, intimidating state troopers pulling him over going 60 down I-87…in the breakdown lane to get around traffic. “I know your boss…”
I respected Mario Cuomo. But Junior? OMG. So the fact that this $ &&/!@” is one of his appointees? No surprise.
Is just me? But there seems to be a trend with these clowns in public office that think the law doesn’t apply to them.
That is all
I have verbal and written authorization from Thomas Jefferson.
Mr. Bauer is a complete knucklehead and an elitist tool. A very pathetic specimen indeed.
I’m going to go ahead and second this opinion. Very apt and strangely poetic.
Didn’t gregory also have verbal authorization? For us plebs thats worth the paper its not printed on, Randy
The punk needs sent to Club Gitmo for his own protection before he shoots his eye out.
Many people in today’s world carry Firearms. Some of us do it legally, and go out of our way to meet legal requirements and pay the government for permission to exercise the fundamental human right to self-defense. Others do it illegally, and are the main reason why some people choose to arm themselves when they venture away from their homes. In this opinion, I’ll examine some concerns of proponents and opponents of allowing the law-abiding public to carry Firearms, and see where they naturally lead us.
Having never lived outside of Firearm ownership, I have a tough time imagining what it must be like to do so. Firearms simply aren’t scary things to me — they are interesting, enjoyable, and very useful tools as well as objects of beauty. But I realize that some people are scared of Firearms for various reasons, and many people who are not frightened of Firearms are disturbed by the idea that some people carry them. I must point out that some people will always carry Firearms, regardless of the law. These are not good people; they are criminals who break laws for a living. They are just as unfazed by anti-firearm laws as they are by anti-murder, anti-rape, and anti-theft laws.
No matter which side of the argument you find yourself on, remember that those who wish to legally carry concealed Firearms are people who do not want to be victims of such miscreants. They are just regular folks like you and me, people with families who would like to legally carry an effective means of defense on their person, just in case they encounter some of the bad folks in a situation where confrontation can’t be avoided. That’s all. They don’t want to shoot anyone, and most pray that never happens… they just want a chance.
I came across the following quote-unquote, credited to one Scotty Reitz, that puts it well: “If some cretin intends to use violence on me, I want to have some input into the decision on whether or not I live or die. Having a firearm on me gives me a bit of choice in the matter.”
The Assumptions:
Let’s look at some assumptions that many people make about Firearm owners, and especially those Firearm owners who choose to carry.
Gun People Think They’re Rambo:
We really don’t. People who carry Firearms legally don’t wish to use them on others — ever. Sometimes they have to, but only when there is no other option, and choosing the safety of yourself or other victims over the well-being of someone seeking to do you harm is a no-brainer.
You Have to be Paranoid to Carry a Gun:
Not so; in fact, the opposite may be true. Firearm owners who carry typically stay away from bad neighborhoods and situations in which conflict is likely… but if circumstances begin to look suspicious, those who go armed can be even more at ease than the unarmed masses. So in essence, we have less to fear than people who go unheeled.
It’ll be the Wild West All Over Again! They’re Going to Shoot us All:
Um, no. This misconception has been disproven time and time again. In localities where free citizens are allowed to carry Firearms, crime goes down. The vast majority of Firearm owners never have to use their Firearms for defense, and those that do draw their Firearms usually do not have to fire them. The last thing we want is to have to shoot someone.
Only the Government Can be Trusted With Guns:
This really is how some people think — that the government, which is composed of ordinary people like you and me, is the only entity that can be trusted to have and use firearms. Nothing could be farther from the truth; history shows that governments are the worst abusers of rights and pose a larger threat to our well-being than criminals in the private sector.
The Police Will Protect me:
Even if you set aside the previous point because you believe in the inherent goodness of those who rule, consider how many police officers are likely to be present should you become threatened by a mugger or rapist: zero. The only folks around will probably be you and the bad guy{s}. In that scenario, should the bad guys be the only ones who are armed? I think not. After all, when seconds count, the police are minutes away. Many of people have died during the response time of responding LEO’s…..!
The Facts:
Here’s some truth about Firearms owners and Firearms toters.
We Just Want to be Safe:
That’s all it is, really… we want to remain secure against those who may seek to do us harm, and a convenient Firearms is a great tool to help achieve that. And get this: those who carry Firearms help to protect those who do not carry Firearms, even when Firearms-toters are not around, because criminals don’t know who’s armed and who isn’t, which makes them a lot more hesitant to victimize people. Think about it: if everyone were armed, many types of crime would almost cease to exist, because an armed citizen is not a victim.
Vigilance, not Paranoia:
People who choose to carry guns do so not because they live in fear, but because they want to take responsibility for their own safety and that of other innocents. History has shown that nothing short of enduring vigilance can keep us safe in an unsafe world. After all, many notorious mass murders have been committed in “Safe- Gun Free Zones” in places such as restaurants, movie theaters, schools, etc. Keeping such places Free of Lawful Firearms is an open invitation to criminals, but the presence of responsible, law-abiding citizens with Firearms offers a feasible deterrent to mass murder.
We Don’t Want to Shoot Anyone:
It’s true; we do not want to have to drop the hammer on anyone. I can’t think of a much more traumatic experience than having to take a life, unless it’s suffering as a helpless victim under the cruel attentions of a criminal such as a rapist or murderer. No, I don’t ever want to pull a trigger in anger, but if it comes down to a choice between me and a bad guy, I’ll do everything I can to ensure that the bad guy loses.
It’s a Dangerous World:
If this world wasn’t dangerous, we wouldn’t have any debate about Firearms. But it most certainly is, and one must choose whether to live in denial that anything bad can happen, or accept reality and prepare oneself as best you can to protect yourself and your loved ones from whatever threat may arise.
Armed Citizens Make Unarmed People Safer:
I touched on this earlier, but it bears repetition: any portion of armed, non-criminal citizenry creates a measure of security for everyone else. When the bad guys have to guess at who does or doesn’t have a gun, it makes crime a less attractive career choice. On the other hand, in areas where the law-abiding can’t arm themselves {such as in schools or big cities with strict anti-gun laws in gun free zones}, criminals can and do operate boldly.
Use Your Bill of Rights – or Lose Them:
Like many, I believe it’s wrong to have to beg permission, submit to scrutiny, and/or bribe the government in order to exercise a right that is not granted by government. That said, I have done so, and I hope that every able-bodied adult will do the same. Because the more of us there are who exercise these civil rights, the harder it will be for the government to steal these and other rights in the future….!
Carrying a Firearm is Inconvenient and Uncomfortable:
It’s true – toting a gun is a pain. A gun can poke, dig, gouge, protrude, aggravate, and otherwise just be a hassle to keep on your person – especially when you are legally obligated to keep it hidden at all times. But that’s something I’m willing to put up with, just in case someone ever points a gun at me and my family again. Yes, I did say, “again.” It happens, on public streets in broad daylight. One must choose whether to be prepared to resist, or to submit as a lamb to the slaughter.
Your Right to Choose a Firearm:
In the end, it’s really about choice. Firearm owners basically wish to be secure in our persons, and if things get ugly, we hope for a chance. Criminals do not like a fair fight, and will usually attack without warning, so being armed is not a get-out-of-crime-free card — it’s simply an edge. And for some, it can be a great equalizer. Criminals love to victimize the weak, and most women would have a hard time physically defending against an attack from a man, but having a Firearm makes a woman just as powerful as any bad guy with a Firearm.
In fact, here’s a quote from a woman who regularly carries a firearm:
“Although the stereotype is that Firearm owners are after some sort of a ‘power rush,’ I never have felt super-powerful or invincible when carrying a Firearm, nor anything remotely like that. Instead, in a low-key sort of way, I simply feel confident that I am equipped to handle an unpleasant or even deadly situation if I really need to do so. Because I know I could cope with the worst that could happen, I am free to go about my regular business without a lot of that low-level, back-of-the-mind feeling of vulnerability that most women experience on some level in their daily lives (especially when traveling though big cities, or in deserted areas after dark). When I first began carrying, I really liked having that feeling of calm confidence which came from being prepared to cope with the worst life could possibly throw at me, and I wanted to keep feeling it.
As you can tell, we “ the good guys” who carry Firearms do so for many reasons, and believe strongly that it would be wrong to deny any citizen the right to keep and bear arms in order to defend against any potential threat. We don’t want to kill, but neither do we wish to be killed.
Carrying a Firearm is not for everyone; that choice is your own to make, and I hope this opinion helps with that decision…..!
4
“Others do it illegally, and are the main reason why some people choose to arm themselves when they venture away from their homes.”
Actually lots of Americans, a whole lot, carry “illegally” because they refuse to crawl on their knees to the government and be victims of criminals. I was one for years, till I worked for a man who entrusted his, substantial, bank deposits to my care, only then did I get a carry permit. Was quick, cheap and minimally invasive here in PA. Have renewed ever since.
Me thinks you should get a narrower brush when tarring Americans with “opinions”.
“Verbal authorization.” I wonder how that defense would work in court for an ordinary citizen. You know, a serf.
With the NY government every one is equal, some are just more equal.
What’s up, I log on to your blos namesd “%title%”on regular basis. your humoristics style is awesome, keep doin wht you’re doing! And you can look our website about %anchor%