Commentary on New York Centered Hysterics

First, Assemblywoman Michelle Schimel:

“What’s good for Nevada isn’t good for New York,” said Schimel, a Democrat, adding, “We have rules specific to New York for a reason.”

Jacob notes:

Yep, and that reason is because the Irish and Jewish mobsters running Tammany Hall in the late 19th/early 20th century did not want to compete with new Italian mafiosi immigrants who were moving into NYC at the time. So “Big” Tim Sullivan created the current “may issue” system of discretionary pistol licensing to keep anyone Tammany Hall deemed undesirable (i.e. average citizens) from legally having handguns for self-defense against criminals, including the criminals running Tammany.

4 thoughts on “Commentary on New York Centered Hysterics”

  1. Ive heard alot of people for or against this thing, but I haven’t heard anyone bring up the constitution in their arguments.

    Unless i missed something (and i very well may have, ive spent some time off in the hills as late) isn’t this proposal in violation of the 10th amendment, just as proposals for national drivers licenses would be?

    Were not drivers licenses, instead, forced to to reach full reciprocity, the same way CCL states are handling it now, through state by state agreement? This was a pain in the ass, Im sure, but it was essential to ensure that the law, and the constitution were upheld.

    Im all for the end goal here, but I don’t think pissing on the constitution and creating a precedence for the federal government to enforce its will through mandates over the states, in contradiction of that states own laws, is exactly the best idea for getting there.

    If theres some detail of the bill that i missed that offers a way to do this without destroying states rights and installing FedGov as the ultimate authority over what the states are allowed, and forced, to permit within their own borders, Id sure like to hear it.

    Until then supporting such a bill is not only a waste of political credit, as in fighting hard for it we might burn bridges to support the passage of a law that is easily overturned, its bad idea, because it might not be overturned, and used as an example of how to regulate firearms in the future.

  2. I dont know how i managed that, i seemed to have had both articles open at once, and had intended to comment that on the earlier National Carry followup, and not here. My apologies.

Comments are closed.