Prohibited gun purchaser, 1939 version ...

[spin]

From Arizona's 1939 Code:



http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/prohibitted_persons/index.php

"Sensible" gun control laws often come down to keeping "those people" from owning firearms. True yesterday and today.

[proteus_lives]

1. Very true.

The racist roots of gun control should always be brought into the light.

[damntexdem]

2. Bullshit!

That was not gun control, it was genocide and theft enhancement.

Gun control happened in places like frontier cattle towns, where incoming cowboys had to give up their guns before they could go into town and go to the saloon.

[paulsby]

3. the way you can ignore facts in front of your eyes with such impunity is impressive

i hear they have a job offering at the intelligent design institute for you

[jazzhound]

5. BINGO!!!

"Gun control" (as a solution to violence) = "Creation Science"

[spin]

4. Today's version of the 1939 law? ...

Minorities Banned From Owning Guns Say Illinois State Rifle Association

Imagine being denied the right to buy a gun, just because you looked too tough or someone thought you looked like a criminal. That’s the argument being made by the Illinois State Rifle Association, which is now challenging a law sponsored by Rep. Harry Osterman (D-14). This law (HB6123) makes it a crime to sell a firearm to a so-called “street gang member.”

As a result, the ISRA is aiming back that, while the law is attempting to curb criminal violence, it could be used to keep African Americans or Hispanics from owning a gun, even if they pass a background check. The group is claiming the law promotes racial profiling, so if a young man or woman wars clothing that is in keeping with their ethnic group’s fashion, the seller can determine that perhaps they’re a drug dealer or gang member and deny them. You be the judge whether this is fair or not?
http://www.firearmstruth.com/2010/minorities-banned-from-owning-guns-say-illinois-state-rifle-association/comment-page-1

CHICAGO, March 15 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following was released
today by the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA):

Law-abiding African Americans and Hispanics would take it on the chin
under a bill now moving through the Illinois General Assembly. Sponsored
by Rep. Harry Osterman (D-14), HB6123
<http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=6123&GAID=10&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=52103&SessionID=76&GA=96>
would prohibit any person or entity from selling a firearm to a
so-called "street gang member." This prohibition applies even if the
individual has passed a Brady Law FBI background check. Making a
prohibited sale would result in Class 1 felony charges and possible jail
time for the seller. Although the ISRA supports genuine efforts to curb
criminal violence, the organization is strongly opposed to HB6123 as the
bill's provisions are arbitrary and pose an unreasonable intrusion on
the rights of law-abiding Illinois citizens.

"HB6123 promotes racial profiling at its worst," commented ISRA
Executive Director, Richard Pearson. "Popular culture has branded urban
minorities with the 'gangsta' stereotype that is pervasive well beyond
the confines of actual criminal enterprises. Today's fashion, music,
slang and lifestyle are all heavily influenced by the urban experience.
Given that the provisions of HB6123 establish no test for determining
'street gang' membership, and given the harsh penalties for violating
the proposed law, it is understandable that retailers would shy away
from selling firearms to persons whose speech, dress, mannerisms, or
taste in music reflect the urban lifestyle."

"Several Chicago nightclubs stirred considerable controversy recently
when they denied entry to young men wearing baggy pants and cornrows in
their hair," continued Pearson. "The nightclub owners justified these
actions by claiming that baggy pants and certain hair styles are
indicative of gang membership -- despite the fact that the young men had
done nothing improper. While the popular press bristled over the
nightclubs' actions, the press has ignored HB6123 although the bill
would bless, and even require firearm retailers to discriminate against
individuals based on their appearance. This sort of cultural profiling
is vile enough when persons are denied entry into a private club, but
denying one's constitutional rights based solely on their appearance
flies in the face of the principles under which our nation was founded.
Of course, if a gang member wished to purchase a firearm, all he would
have to do is don a Brooks Brothers' suit and speak the King's English
and he'd be good to go."
http://icarry.org/article504.html?PHPSESSID=965a01d25788407e152b063866359624

The full text of the bill can be viewed at:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=76&GA=96&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=6123&GAID=10&LegID=&SpecSess=&Session=

[benEzra]

6. So, is New York's Sullivan Law "gun control" in your book, or not?

Bullshit! That was not gun control, it was genocide and theft enhancement.

Gun control happened in places like frontier cattle towns, where incoming cowboys had to give up their guns before they could go into town and go to the saloon.

So, is New York's Sullivan Law "gun control" in your book, or not? Because it was passed to disarm immigrants, and to allow Tammany Hall crooks to disarm the bodyguards of their rivals.

Here is how the New York Times justified the proposals that eventually became the Sullivan Law:

CONCEALED PISTOLS

Editorial, New York Times, January, 27, 1905

Among the best British traditions perpetuated and cherished in America is that of using natures weapons in the act of self-defense. That it is sincerely cherished is shown in the recent introduction at Albany of a bill by Assemblyman Tompkins to amend the Penal Code of this State relative to the carrying of loaded firearms concealed about the person. The amending section reads as follows:

Sec. 411-A Any person other than a peace officer who shall in any public street, highway or place in any city in this State having a population of upward of 100,000 persons by the last State census have or carry concealed upon his person any loaded pistol, revolver, or other firearm, without thereto fore, in the manner now provided by law, having been authorized to carry the same, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Such a measure would prove corrective and salutary in a city filled with immigrants and evil communications, floating from the shores of Italy and Austria-Hungary. New York police reports frequently testify to the fact that the Italian and other south Continental gentry here are acquainted with the pocket pistol, and while drunk or merrymaking will use it quite as handily as the stiletto, and with more deadly effect. It is hoped that this treacherous and distinctly outlandish mode of settling disputes may not spread to corrupt the native good manners of the community. The case of a Columbia student who flourished and fired a pistol at his persecutors instead of using his "bare fist", as his presumably British-American descent would prescribe, is fresh in the public memory. The act now proposed and championed by Mr. Tompkins will diminish the number of homicides.

Laws based on xenophobia don't often turn out well.

Down here in the South, the elitism was mostly based on racism rather than national origin, accounting for why the South had stricter gun controls than most of the nation until very recently:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/cd-reg.html

Here in NC, anyone wanting to purchase a handgun still has to appear in person and receive written permission from the (usually white) Sheriff, who can deny anyone who has a clean record but is not of "good moral character." Guess what that meant in 1955. I can vouch for the fact that it is an intimidating process--and I am a middle-class, college-educated, bespectacled white guy whose parents used to babysit our local sheriff when said sheriff was a toddler in diapers. Of course, intimidation of nonwhites was the whole point.

FWIW, if all the gun-control activists wanted was to require people entering a bar (not a restaurant) to check their guns at the door, instead of fighting to ban the most popular guns and most lawful uses, then the gun control lobby would be a lot less controversial.

[proteus_lives]

7. Wow. The damntexdem definition of denial.

It's both sad and impressive that you can type that.

[SteveM]

8. Want a complete run-down on the racist roots of gun-control?...

Try:

www.georgiacarry.org

Search locally for the brief submitted on behalf of Heller. Gun control "happened" in the South so that slaves and former slaves could not arm themselves against night-riders, the Klan, and even state "militia." One of the chief reasons for passage of the 14th Amendment (1868) was recognition of the need for former-slaves to arm and defend themselves, hence the incorporation clause which bars states from denying the "privileges and immunities" of U.S. citizens; in particular, the Second Amendment.

You should keep in mind that as with all prohibitions, the laws banning blacks (and others) from owning firearms were widely-violated.