Skip to comments.The strange birth of NY’s gun laws
Posted on 09/16/2012 10:50:22 AM PDT by marktwainEdited on 09/16/2012 10:56:35 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Recent months have seen a former Marine from Indiana, a Tea Party activist from California and a nurse from Tennessee all arrested and charged in New York City for possession of firearms they had legal permits to carry back home. All were nabbed when they naively sought to check the weapon with security.
These innocents fell afoul of the nations toughest gun laws. But few New Yorkers know how those laws came to be.
The father of New York gun control was Democratic city pol Big Tim Sullivan a state senator and Tammany Hall crook, a criminal overseer of the gangs of New York.
Ordinary citizens, on the other hand, were disarmed, which solved another problem: Gangsters had been bitterly complaining to Tammany that their victims sometimes shot back at them.
So gang violence didnt drop under the Sullivan Act and really took off after the passage of Prohibition in 1920. Spectacular gangland rubouts like the 1932 machine-gunning of Mad Dog Coll in a drugstore phone booth on 23rd Street became the norm.
It should be taught in high schools all over the nation. The history of "gun control" in America is a history of racism, corruption, and tyranny.
Fits right in with Dims wanting to disarm African-Americans who they wanted to oppress too.
There is nothing "strange" about 'em.
ALL gun laws are and have been created and enforced by criminals for one of two purposes.
They are: To disarm law abiding citizens so they cannot oppose those same criminals, or...
To disarm Negro persons specifically, for the benefit of the same criminal cabal.
Maybe that's why it's called the "Sullivan law", ya think??
I guess most younger people don't remember, or more likely, never knew that, but I'm plenty old enough (75). NYC's gun laws are clearly in violation of the 2nd Amendment according to the USSC's 2 recent recent decisions in the D.C vs Heller and Chicago vs McDonald. Both decisions affirmed the 2nd Amendment as the law of the land, and that it actually means what it clearly says rather than the spurious interpretation that our anti-gun, anti-Constitution critics claim that it means.
But neither the D.C, Chicago, NYC, nor many other big cities plus some entire states are abiding by those decisions. So what more can be done other than a full scale citizen's armed revolt against the laws enacted by the elected officials of those municipalities and states? That would be an open invitation to the feds to intervene with military force no matter which party happened to hold the Oval Office at the time, and there's no way that citizens armed with shotguns, deer rifles, and bottle bombs could withstand modern US military forces equipped with vastly superior weaponry and training. A president is duty bound to enforce USSC decisions by armed force if all else fails, as illustrated by Eisenhower's intervention in 1950's era Little Rock. But the day will never come when a Democrat President will do his/her duty on the 2nd Amendment issue.
Bottom line, unless we gun rights advocates can't win at the ballot box the 2nd A isn't worth the parchment it's written on. I hope all gun owners and all Americans everywhere who revere the Constitution will remember that on the 1st Tuesday in November.
***Big Tim Sullivan***
I find it funny that “Big Tim” later went insane and became known as “Mad Tim Sullivan”. He escaped from the asylum and was run over by a train.
Your comments are much appreciated, as usual.
Agreed. We are still working to restore the Constitution in the courts, and are making some progress.
“He escaped from the asylum and was run over by a train.”
Obviously, we need to ban trains!;)
Couple things wrong with this. (1) Grammatical--delete [can't]. "Unless" means "if not". You have inadvertantly negated the protasis.
(2) The 2ndA is a paper instrument. It's force rests upon arms and the willingness of the people to use them to preserve a free state.
Paper instruments are preferable, if they work. But the ultimate responsibility rests with armed Americans who value freedom, even if they are a political minority.
However, although I agree with part(2) of your post, I believe that an armed revolt against a current or future tyrannical US government would probably consist of little more than an ineptly led mob of lightly armed and mostly untrained civilians that would have very little, if any, chance of successfully engaging well trained and well armed professional soldiers in what I believe would be the highly unlikely event that an armed citizenry would actually turn out en masse to defend their 2nd Amendment rights at risk of life or limb in the course of an engagement with US armed forces.
I just hope and fervently pray that all future US governments will honor our Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, as well as all of our other God given rights. But sad to say, our current president's very obvious desire to join the European nations' rush to put even more and more dictatorial, authoritarian Marxist theory into practice in their economies and governments doesn't allow me much hope for a favorable outcome in the never ending battle to keep our Constitutionally guaranteed rights intact both for ourselves, and IMHO even more importantly, for our progeny.
BTW, thanks for correcting the mistakes I made in my mad rush to hurry up and finish my first post without inviting even more inexcusable verbal abuse from the light of my life who I swept away from her childhood hearth and home and into the joys of matrimony with my charming personality and extraordinarily good looks almost 53 years ago. Unfortunately, I won't be able to use the same lame excuse that I used to explain away the mistakes I made in my first post to explain away any that I may have made in this post. This could turn into a never ending series of posts correcting mistakes in previous posts, so I will end that process right here and now no matter what or how many mistakes I may have made in this post.