I don't get the basic argument for city firearms bans.

[flypadre]

Could anyone explain the basic premise and logic behind the gun restrictions in places like New York and Washington DC? I've been trying to understand the legal arguments that paved the way for cities like these to have such strict firearms laws. Was there one basic argument that these cities used to pass the laws?
This article http://theweek.com/article/index/255963/home-on-the-range-with-new-yorks-gun-owners got me thinking about this.
The owner of the gun range in Manhattan says that it is a "privilege" to own a gun in New York City. How was some legislator able to argue privilege from

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[mike01824]

Guns kill people, duh. Its for the children.

 

[Boarder277]

if you could figure out that question, i think we'd all be living in a much, much different state and country

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

 

[Infinite Jester]

In NYC it goes back to the old Tammany Hall days.

 

[flypadre]

I am assuming that the Tammany Hall reference suggests that at the heart of it all is corruption. Ok, but at some point some argument would have to have been put forward to give at least a hint of legitimacy regarding these laws.

 

[Jason Flare]

It's easy to pass idiotic gun laws in a big city because the majority of people aren't paying attention. After the laws are passed the pols. use those masses as evidence that a majority of Americans favor strict gun laws.

 

[garandman]

Could anyone explain the basic premise and logic behind the gun restrictions in places like New York and Washington DC? I've been trying to understand the legal arguments that paved the way for cities like these to have such strict firearms laws. Was there one basic argument that these cities used to pass the laws?
This article http://theweek.com/article/index/255963/home-on-the-range-with-new-yorks-gun-owners got me thinking about this.
The owner of the gun range in Manhattan says that it is a "privilege" to own a gun in New York City. How was some legislator able to argue privilege from

And if we knew from your profile where you lived, we could offer some context?

 

[Twigg]

<snip>How was some legislator able to argue <snip>

Because gun control isn't about guns; it's about "control".

Government cannot have complete control until they disarm the citizens.

 

[rchap36]

Could anyone explain the basic premise and logic behind the gun restrictions in places like New York and Washington DC? I've been trying to understand the legal arguments that paved the way for cities like these to have such strict firearms laws. Was there one basic argument that these cities used to pass the laws?
This article http://theweek.com/article/index/255963/home-on-the-range-with-new-yorks-gun-owners got me thinking about this.
The owner of the gun range in Manhattan says that it is a "privilege" to own a gun in New York City. How was some legislator able to argue privilege from

It all started in the late 1800's when towns started to ban guns

 

[MisterHappy]

I am assuming that the Tammany Hall reference suggests that at the heart of it all is corruption. Ok, but at some point some argument would have to have been put forward to give at least a hint of legitimacy regarding these laws.

Not to be a wise ass, but why?

People want to be lead; to be protected; to be safe and secure. "This will make you safe!" - done. The details, the unintended consequences, are not relevant.

 

[flypadre]

Not to be a wise ass, but why?

Well I guess if they never end up in court I see your point, but some do. When these cases get heard judges expect lawyers to present arguments. Thats why in my opinion.

Also for the post asking where I am from, I live in MA.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Well I guess if they never end up in court I see your point, but some do. When these cases get heard judges expect lawyers to present arguments. Thats why in my opinion.

Also for the post asking where I am from, I live in MA.

And those lawyers will, even if they have to pull made-up law out of their ass!

Here's a good example:
- Read this page on the infamous FRB/EOPS unsigned/undated letter claiming that any legal pre-ban had to be IN MA on 9/13/1994 in the possession of a MA licensed person.
http://www.goal.org/newspages/eops_error_letter_to_ffl.html

- Then I can tell you that the Deputy General Counsel of EOPS stands 110% firmly behind the wording in that letter even thou no such words exist in the MGLs referred to in the letter. If that isn't pulling made-up law out of her ass, nothing is.

So yes, lawyers can make shit up, throw it at the courtroom wall and hope it will stick!

 

[MisterHappy]

When the law is in your favor, argue the law
When the facts are in your favor, argue the facts
When neither is in your favor, yell, and pound on the table. Or make stuff up.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Could anyone explain the basic premise and logic behind the gun restrictions in places like New York and Washington DC?

It stems from a particular philosophy regarding the relationship of the individual to society, as well as the desire by some to segregate society into "special people" who can be protected by force of arms, and "ordinary folks" who cannot be so protected. Very frequently the decision makers fall into the "special" category and are making laws to cover "everyone else". (for example, Chicago Aldermen were allowed to own and carry handguns during the ban in effect in that city)

 

[Infinite Jester]

I am assuming that the Tammany Hall reference suggests that at the heart of it all is corruption. Ok, but at some point some argument would have to have been put forward to give at least a hint of legitimacy regarding these laws.

Back during these days, you had politicians who were literally pulled out of the criminal underclass. They were truly thugs who got elected through means of extortion and threat of violence. They would send out their "community organizers" (sound familiar?) and persuade people to vote for said thug. After these guys were elected, their gangs were promised free reign on the populace. Its a little tough to intimidate people who had a means of protection. These laws still stand in places like NYC to this day.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Back during these days, you had politicians who were literally pulled out of the criminal underclass. They were truly thugs who got elected through means of extortion and threat of violence. They would send out their "community organizers" (sound familiar?) and persuade people to vote for said thug. After these guys were elected, their gangs were promised free reign on the populace. Its a little tough to intimidate people who had a means of protection. These laws still stand in places like NYC to this day.

So? What has changed vs. current elections. Seriously, unions get behind "their guy" and trash their opponents, "buy" elections, "Community Organizers" bus in illegals and non-residents to vote, voters are paid and told who to vote for, vote multiple times, etc. And "favored" organizations get special treatment.

They just do it differently these days and control the media so that the truth will never be known. It may be a little less obvious than breaking kneecaps but the end result is the same.

 

[wahsben]

So? What has changed vs. current elections. Seriously, unions get behind "their guy" and trash their opponents, "buy" elections, "Community Organizers" bus in illegals and non-residents to vote, voters are paid and told who to vote for, vote multiple times, etc. And "favored" organizations get special treatment.

They just do it differently these days and control the media so that the truth will never be known. It may be a little less obvious than breaking kneecaps but the end result is the same.

Yup. The mob has just become a little more discrete in their actions.