search
top

New York’s “Barbaric” Gun Laws

I think Professor Reynolds has hit on the perfect adjective to describe the gun laws in New York City, as he notes the Sullivan Law’s unsavory origins, and notes:

Corrupt and racist. And vigorously supported by Mayor Bloomberg. Barbaric indeed. New York needs to join the mainstream of states enacting sensible gun laws — laws that don’t oppress minorities or entrap honest citizens.

It’s becoming increasingly accepted, even among left-leaning academia, that the origins of many of our nations gun laws were based in racial anxieties, and a desire to disarm minorities. Similarly, Clayton Cramer has done research on California’s restrictions on concealed weapons, which had supporters of the bill engaging in epitaph-fueled racist comments on the Assembly floor.

As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t think this means that modern supporters of these measures have racist motivations, but they’ve been singularly unable to face the ugly history of many of these laws, nor face that even in modern circumstances, the laws can have a disproportionate affect on the ability of minorities to exercise their constitutional rights.

14 Responses to “New York’s “Barbaric” Gun Laws”

  1. By AG Holder’s logic it is racist to require one to have a government-issued photo ID in order exercise the right to keep and bear arms vote for the Democrat of one’s choice.

  2. ThirdpoweR says:

    According to Ladd Everitt though, the disparity is due to minorities just not wanting to own firearms.

    What would they say if the same ‘logic’ were applied to the disparity in education, voting, etc.

  3. mobo says:

    Yes, because a “disparate impact” is ABSOLUTE PROOF of racial discrimination. Unless of course we’re talking about the disparate impact of gun laws, in which case it’s just the opposite…..

    • See Hunter v. Underwood (1985). Racist intent (even if you can’t prove it for a particular provision, if part of a general racist intent at the time) plus racial disproportionate effects is enough to strike down a constitutional provision, much less a statute.

      The stuff that I am finding in my research on California’s CCW law gets better and better.

      • mobo says:

        Yeah that’s what I was sarcastically referring to. I personally reject almost outright the whole doctrine of disparate impact, especially with regard to employment law. But it is ironic how the people who rely on it the most to get their way are the very same people who suddenly deny its impact when gun laws are the subject.

  4. Pyrotek85 says:

    Now if only the ACLU would agree that it was an individual right and fight these oppressive laws with us.

  5. A Critic says:

    I don’t think this means that modern supporters of these measures have racist motivations,

    Expanding ones racist beliefs to include all races is still racist. As an old fashioned card carrying KKK member wanted/wants to treat black people and other minorities they wish to treat all people. They are racist, but it is the human race that they are opposed to.

  6. wfgodbold says:

    Epitaph ≠ epithet.

    Unless they were reading racist tombstone inscriptions, their comments weren’t epitaph fueled.

    :D

  7. mikee says:

    How very Alinsky of you to expect them to play by the rules they force upon others, and to try to force them to live by the rules they force upon others. I think you mistake current Democrat Party grandstanding about race for actual beliefs which determine their actions. Like any of their core beliefs, the following rules apply to Democrats:
    1. Rules are for the other side to follow.
    2. We make the rules.
    3. When the rules don’t help us, we make new rules. See Senator Lautenburg for an example.

    Perhaps you need to reset your hypocrisy meter to accept the incredibly high inputs from Democrats.

  8. Arnie says:

    Forgive me for being off subject, but I just read on Opposing Views that Newark Mayor Cory Booker is offering $1000 to anyone who turns in their neighbor for “illegal guns.” :-(

  9. Braden Lynch says:

    Way to go Mikee! Nice summary of the use of race tactics by the Democrats and liberals/progressives. They scream “Racist!”, if they do not get their way to shut down debate.

    I am fully tired of it. I hope that their overuse of the racial card finally runs out by the 2012 elections.

    I’m simply not a racist for voting against the POTUS because he is a failure and unAmerican in his views and policies. However, if you did vote for him because he would be our first “black” president, I am laughing at you. First off, that is the very definition of racism (acting according to someone’s skin color and not the content of their character or their actions) and second, he is bi-racial (not black, not white, but rather both).

    Holder’s attempt to throw down the race card to deflect our attention from Fast and Furious shows that he is an idiot.

    Let’s follow MLK’s dream and stop noticing the race of people.

top