By GRW Senior Staff Comments (0)
The 1930’s: National Gun Control Begins
(Continued from The History of Gun Control in America, Part One)
The 1930’s were a period ripe for the kind of opportunities the gun grabbers were patiently waiting for. They were to see their first major national victories in this decade, though on the other side of the fence, the 1930’s were also the first decade to see the National Rifle Association (NRA) get involved in the battle over gun control legislation. They were very nearly successful in the early part of the decade in getting a full repeal of New York’s Sullivan Law.
Due to some of the fervor and idealism of the 1920’s carrying over into the next decade, the Gun Control activism was still going strong, although it had abated somewhat when the reality of the failure of prohibition began to dawn on the populace as a whole, despite the continued preachings of it success of Baptist ministers. Concerns about what to do about the ever-increasing threat of organized crime turned to wrongheaded propositions, fueled by attempted political assassinations.
The near-repeal of the Sullivan Act came about as a result of the attempt to pass the Uniform Firearms Act in New York. Conceived in the 1920’s by, among others, Karl T. Frederick, a New York attorney and NRA member, and later the NRA president, this act banned possession of handguns by anyone who had been convicted of a violent crime, minors under 18, drug addicts, and habitual drunks, it required a permit to carry a concealed weapon in a vehicle, and it required dealers to be licensed, and it provided a 48-hour cooling off period between purchase a handgun and receiving it as a method to help prevent crimes of passion. Laws like this are common today and even accepted by many pro-gun people, but at the time they were relatively unheard of; indeed, this was the first appearance of them. In the 1920’s, the Uniform Firearms Act was catching on, being adopted in California, North Dakota, and New Hampshire, and spreading to Alabama, Indiana, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington in the 1930’s.
But in New York state, the Uniform Firearms Act met a hostile reception. New York City Police Commissioner George v. McLaughlin had attacked the wording of the law in 1926, attributing the law to gun manufacturers eager to protect their income. He also challenged its definition of a pistol as a firearm with a barrel shorter than twelve inches by saying that a criminal could easily obtain a handgun with a barrel thirteen inches in length, which the criminal probably couldn’t since handguns with barrels that long are almost non-existent and would be hardly concealable even if they could be found, which would make them a pretty poor choice for a burglar.
The Uniform Firearms Act was re-skinned and was introduced in New York in 1931 as the Hanley-Fake Act, which passed handily in both the Senate and the assembly. Next, it was due to be signed into law and replace the Sullivan Act by the current New York State Governor… Franklin D. Roosevelt.
At FDR’s March 1932 hearing on the bill, the current New York City Police Commissioner Edward P. Mulrooney had already succeeded in having New York City exempted from it. Now he fought vocally against it replacing the Sullivan Act anywhere in NY State, declaring that it would enable residents of New York City to avoid the harsher act by simply purchasing guns outside the city.
Testifying for the Hanley-Fake bill, Karl Frederick objected that the current law unfairly forced the honest citizen to be fingerprinted like a common criminal before he could purchase a gun; FDR replied that no one should feel a stigma in being fingerprinted. Facing vocal opposition from several court judges, including one who flatly stated that constituents in his district were simply evading the fingerprinting portion of the Sullivan Law due to the widespread consensus of its unfairness, FDR nevertheless bucked the clear sentiment favoring the law and vetoed its passage. Despite the obvious message to the contrary, he again urged that citizens should not be offended by the fingerprinting requirement of the Sullivan Act, and also denigrated the legitimate applications of handguns. Thus did the only real chance for a repeal of the Sullivan Act die with the failure to enact Hanley-Fake.
In July of 1933, Attorney-General Homer Cummings stated that existing gun controls were inadequate and that legislation on the matter was required. He soon appeared as the dominant force for enacting new Gun Control laws in the 1930’s. A staunch enemy of crime, he occasionally used wild exaggerations to make his point; he once famously claimed that the armed underworld was twice the size of the entire U. S. Armed Forces, which incidentally would have worked out to 1 in every 244 people being an armed gangster. Despite obvious evidence that Mr. Cummings had poor math and deductive reasoning skills, he felt confident enough to urge passage of a law which would place extreme regulation on anything deemed a “gangster” weapon; “machine guns” (fully automatic firearms), silencers, sawed-off shotguns, and all handguns. Gun owners can at least thank him for bringing the NRA into the fight with the demand for the banning of handguns.
The NRA at that time had barely 50,000 members, in sharp contrast to several groups arrayed against them, not the least of which was the General Federation of Women's Clubs, which boasted two million members. But when they notified their members, they sprang to action, a large percentage of them immediately writing to their legislators to make their determined opposition known.
The Federation of Women's Clubs did about the same with their two million members to promote the bill as the NRA did against it. The final result of this struggle was made clear in transcripts of the congressional debate over the final version of the bill which had eliminated provisions on handguns. Despite this minor victory, when the handgun portion of the bill was removed, the NRA actually capitulated and supported it in a strange and disheartening reversal of policy, stating that it was, “to keep gangsters from buying machine guns.” Little is recorded about the reasoning behind this reversal to gain much insight over why this happened.
In early 1934, when new President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s attempted assassination by Guissepe Zangara coincided with the aforementioned legal struggle and provided the push for new Gun Control legislation that the gun grabbers were looking for; the National Firearms Act was signed into law. It put a virtually confiscatory $200 tax (I say that with authority; that’s $3,735.21 in 2018 money) on the purchase of machine guns, silencers, sawed-off shotguns and rifles, and certain other “gangster-type” weapons.
Despite this victory, Cummings and his supporters were discouraged by the final version of the National Firearms Act and began working immediately in favor of registration of all guns. He also wrote Congress repeatedly, asking them to consider adding handguns to the National Firearms Act. Throughout the rest of the decade, Cummings introduced or inspired a string of similar bills, all calling for more strict Gun Control laws.
The second major act of Gun Control occurred in 1938, with the passage of the Federal Firearms Act. This Act was actually proposed as an alternative to one of Cummings' bills, which would have banned all mail order sales of handguns and registered all guns; the NRA apparently feared the former bill’s passage and endorsed the Federal Firearms Act. The major provisions of this act make it a federal offense for a felon to transport, ship, receive, or carry firearms or handgun ammunition across state borders, made it illegal to possess a firearm on which the serial number had been altered, and required dealers to keep records of gun sales. With this Act passed, the gun-grabbers rested on their laurels some sense of satisfaction, and the 1930’s era of pushing for serious gun control ended, as both sides rapidly began to turn their attention to the coming conflict in Europe.
The mid- 20th Century - 1940 to 1960
(World War 2, The Korean War, and The Vietnam War)
The mid-century period from 1940 to 1960 was relatively quiet for Gun Control, at least on a national level. Assuredly, the majority of this interruption in Gun Control efforts can be attributed to the re-arming influence of the trio of major conflicts that the United States found itself embroiled in. War has a way of making it seem unreasonable to a nation’s people to be without the presence of a firearm. Americans had no way of knowing whether their own country was about to be invaded or attacked as so many others had been, and the resulting healthy paranoia led to a great national desire for firearms ownership.
Likewise, the relative absence of organized crime activity in this period as compared to the two preceding decades, and with no attempts at major political assassination attempts occurring at this time, meant that there was no great social impetus for another major push for Gun Control. Any minor attempts in this regard, and there were a few, can be attributed to a desire to disarm subversive groups and individuals, and because the notion was raised that firearms registration would be a helpful method of taking an inventory of privately owned arms which might be useful for national defense.
(It’s unclear to me whether Gun Control advocates of this era expected German spies to dutifully step forward and identify themselves before registering their guns or not. Also, it seems to me that if the situation in the American homeland were so dire as to require that every civilian’s private guns were called into action, why would it matter if they were registered? Any gun would be useful, registered or not.)
Americans saw what was happening in 1940 in Britain, and the news from that beleaguered little island was enough to douse the fires of gun grabbing activism for a long period of time. No one was going to take American citizens’ guns away during such a time or push any for legislation curtailing their Second Amendment rights. Britain had had strong anti-gun laws for decades prior to the outbreak of the war, and when Germany threatened, they were so desperate for weapons that many of the Home Guardsmen had old 18th-century muskets, or they had nothing at all. Many drilled with swords, clubs, or makeshift weapons. Begging Americans for help, they received 7,000 guns from the private ownership of U.S. citizens.
In the rest of Europe, the situation was similar. In every country they invaded, the Nazis immediately demanded registration of firearms, or more often, simply took them away. It at least some countries it seems that Hitler had issued a proclamation ordering the immediate surrender of guns and prescribing harsh penalties for those failing to comply. Carl Bakal, in his book (which has proven to be very popular for decades with the anti-gun crowd) The Right To Bear Arms, asserts that all Hitler had to do was issue his proclamation and everyone in the invaded countries turned in their firearms. History does not bear this out.
(I personally have read a fair amount about the French, Polish and Greek resistance movements in particular, and this was certainly not the case in those countries. The heroic members of those movements harassed the Nazis incessantly throughout the war, diverting badly needed military resources from the front lines, particularly emboldened after the Allied invasion of June 1944.)
Consider the mindset of a patriot whose country was invaded at that time. Some of the population, say 3% or so in the case of the American Revolution, (I’m tipping my hat here to the III% movement) will always resist to the death any invasion of their homeland. If they were facing a death penalty for resisting, why should they fear the same for merely keeping their guns?
(I also find Bakal’s conclusion that privately owned guns were inconsequential against an armed invasion to be ridiculous. If this was so, why did the Nazis confiscate them from the people in every country they invaded? Why do totalitarian governments always take them away immediately as a matter of course?)
Given all of this, it’s rather easy to understand why Americans in 1940 were very stridently opposed to any anti-gun laws at the time. When the United States entered the war on December 7th, 1941, this sentiment became even more fervent, as one might expect. The NRA suddenly lost a large measure of the stigma that had been attached to it in the 1930’s, as the many training films and manuals that they had created and provided free of charge were re-purposed for military use. They loaned over 150 shooting ranges for government use. They drew up plans for Home Guard units much like the English had, and the NRA even recruited dogs and trainers for Coast Guard Beach Patrols through its many contacts.
No mention could be found while researching this article of any public acknowledgment of the NRA’s contribution to the war effort by President Roosevelt, but President Truman did finally have this to say for them on November 14th, 1945:
“The National Rifle Association, in the periods between our last four wars, has done much to encourage the improvement of small arms and marksmanship in the Regular services, as well as in the National Guard, Reserve units, and the civilian population. During the war just ended, the contributions of the association... have materially aided our war effort. I hope the splendid program which the National Rifle Association has followed during the past three-quarters of a century will be continued. It is a program which is good for a free America.”
This was high praise not only for the NRA but for civilian gun ownership in general. During this mid-century period, it seemed that the lessons of the benefits of a well-armed citizenry had finally been learned, and after World War 2 and the Korean Conflict, and with the new Cold War looming, it took until the late 1950’s before the anti-gun crowd once again began to gain any traction with public opinion.
Perhaps with the absence of war for a period of time comes a sense of complacency, and memories fade about the threat faced by the nation just a few years earlier. But my research into news articles of the time don’t reveal a great deal of interest by the media in Gun Control, nor was there any significant rise in violent crime nor any political assassinations. Yet many polls of the time show a marked rise in public opinion favoring gun permits, and even one poll showing 59% of all respondent favoring a total ban on handguns. The only cause I have found at all was possible concern over the eruption of violence in the American south over the civil rights issue.
(I am left to conclude from my research that these polls were either inaccurate, worded with leading questions, or were blatantly untrue. All five of the Gun Control bills introduced in the late fifties died in committee. I believe that there was not yet any great interest in anti-gun legislation at this time and that the polls were simply a fabrication or at least a gross exaggeration.)
The Turbulent 1960’s
(Or, We Can’t Trust You With Guns Because They Shot The President)
As one might expect, the turbulent 1960’s, a time of great social upheaval and questioning the norms of society, had its worst effects yet on gun rights. The multiple and sensational political assassinations and widespread urban violence of the time caused many to turn their attention to the firearms question and lay the finger of blame squarely on the gun as the culprit, rather than examining the underlying social issues causing the strife. A new wave of anti-gun fervor began with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, surely tied with the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese as the two most jarring and disturbing incidents in 20th century America.
And yet, the 1960’s began with a general feeling of harmony between pro-gun forces and gun opponents. Many on both sides believed that gun sales via mail were a problem. At this time, a prospective mail order gun buyer needed only to sign a statement that he was over 18 (or 21 if purchasing a handgun) and had not been convicted of a felony. No proof was needed. As the gun grabbers most often do, instead of trying to enforce an existing law with some certainty, a new push for legislation was made. Senator Thomas Dodd of Connecticut, concerned with the problems in mail order gun sales, co-authored the new S.1975 bill with support from the NRA; it merely required the addition of a notarized sworn statement to any mail order for a handgun.
The Kennedy assassination on November 22nd, 1963 kicked the 1960’s wave of anti-gun legislation into high gear. On November 27th, Dodd began with multiple amendments to his bill and coined the phase at this time of using a “tragic opportunity” to enhance it. The newly amended bill included all firearms, not just handguns, and the new affidavit to be added to any mail order now required the signature of the Chief of Police or Sheriff in the buyer’s town. The NRA soon requested and received the change that the buyer instead simply furnish the name and address of the law enforcement official, and that the seller must notify said official of the purchase. Even when the bill was further amended to include rifles and shotguns, it must be noted that the NRA still supported it — it was around this time that the NRA began to be accused of supporting some firearms legislative efforts, which was clearly not the case and this was even corroborated by Senator Dodd himself.
As public sentiment was growing in favor of more anti-gun legislation, many in the shooting community began to feel disenfranchised, fearing that very restrictive measures might soon be passed in the wave of emotion currently sweeping the nation in the wake of the Kennedy assassination. A rash of news articles supporting stricter gun laws swept through the media at this time, fueling their fears. One article in Newsweek pointed out that a .22 caliber pen gun was available via mail order (never mind that the actual pen gun displayed in the ad was useless as a weapon since it would only fire blanks).
Articles like this constantly attacked the "frontiersman” attitude of shooters who relied on the protection of the Second Amendment, saying that they, "...seem to miss the fact that the frontier is secure and the armed forces, National Guard and local police protect the nation…” (Really. So help me, I won’t even get started on trying to refute the stupidity of that statement....)
While this media frenzy was occurring and pressing for ever more strict anti-gun measures, Dodd’s bill actually gained little traction. Why this happened is difficult to ascertain, as it did have the backing of the NRA the arms industry and 78% of the population according to the (as mentioned before, unreliable) polls. S.1975 died at the end of the 88th Congress in 1964; Dodd replaced it with an identical bill in 1965, then withdrew it and replaced it with S.1592 at the request of the Johnson Administration.
Senate Bill 1592 would have completely outlawed all interstate mail order firearms sales and prevented importing any guns thought to be unsuitable for “sporting purposes” - meaning, handguns. Naturally, the shooting world and the NRA alike voiced a profound vocal opposition to the bill, but the Johnson Administration favored it and pushed its passage. The battle for this bill rang clear through the press in 1965 and 1966, until August of 1966, when Charles Whitman, a student at the University of Texas, shot 44 of his fellow students and killed 13 of them. The next day, seizing yet again upon a “tragic opportunity”, President Lyndon B. Johnson publicly called for gun registration and stricter gun laws.
As often follows these incidents, the media coverage overwhelmingly backed stricter gun legislation, and a poll taken at this time showed 68% of Americans favoring this. The only opposing opinion came from a National Review article by William Buckley, Jr., defending all of the usual reasons for keeping arms, and pointing out that no bill ever presented before Congress would have prevented Whitman from acquiring a gun.
Despite the massive boost from the media and the Whitman shooting, S.1592 made no more progress than did S.1975, but it did pave the way for further anti-gun legislation. Dodd introduced a third and similar bill, S.1, in 1967. This too made some headway with a push from the usual suspects in the media and the Johnson Administration but gained no significant ground until April 4th, 1968, when Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee.
This is part two in this series. Part three will focus on the history of gun control in the wake of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.
|Back to Part One||Forward to Part Three|
By GRW Senior Staff Comments (2)
Since 1911, politicians and activists have tried to pass laws restricting access to guns, thinking that this will somehow take them out of the hands of criminals.
(Author’s Note: What follows is a brief history of gun control in America. While attempting to write this article in an objective manner, it is inevitable that soon my freedom-loving bias will come out. My apologies in advance if my accounting of the many and varied attempts to curtail my constitutional right to defend myself and my family seem somehow colored by this strange predilection for survival.)
It is the contention of this article that the majority of gun control supporters in this country are under the mistaken assumption that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will somehow reduce crime. They seem to believe that banning guns somehow takes them out of criminals hands. In my research on the subject, I found that this is anything but the case.
It is my belief that there is also another faction of the gun grabbers, an upper echelon. The elites in our country, just some of them mind you, want to take guns away from people because they want control, pure and simple. They see themselves as being on a higher level, and that they are the only ones who should be entrusted with the responsibility of firearms.
I also believe that the vast majority of people are good and are capable of using firearms responsibly, that it is their right to do so, and that that right should not be removed unless an individual proves demonstrably that he or she is not to be trusted with them. With rights come responsibilities of course, and citizens who own and use firearms need to be properly trained. But the vast majority of people are capable of this and should be allowed to do so.
Furthermore, I believe the best defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, and for that purpose, I believe as many law-abiding citizens as possible should be armed and ready to defend themselves and their families. I think that with enough good people carrying firearms while going about their daily business unmolested by hyper-vigilant law enforcement officials, criminals will not find the intestinal fortitude to break the law in their presence.
Guns And The Birth of America
It is a well-known fact that there are more privately owned guns in the United States than in any other country in the world. Estimates vary widely of course, and it is not the intention of this document to attempt to cite an accurate number for them all. Gun ownership is a great tradition in this country; our War of Independence was won by them and several times in our history we've had to ensure our freedom with them.
Some say this is a bad thing; to them, guns are the danger, not the people wielding them. Take away the guns and you take away the violent crime, they'll tell you. Those of us with a better understanding of human nature know this is not true. Any attempts to take away guns only remove them from the hands of lawful people.
But America has a long history with guns. In the early days of our country, the frontier was won by them. They were necessary for the hunting of wild game and for survival against Indians or other attackers. In the Revolutionary War period, colonists sometimes had to protect themselves against the whims of British troops. Ever since this era, the mentality of being ready to protect oneself against all predators, non-human and human alike has been ingrained in the American psyche, including against a potentially aggressive and unjust government.
So for these reasons, and for the relaxation and joy of target shooting, guns were ever-present in the early days of America. Gun use and ownership was such a part of everyday life that to ban them was considered unthinkable.
This opinion was shared by the vast majority of America for well over a century, which no doubt coincided with the fact that most of America was still rural or wilderness, and guns were seen as very necessary for survival there. Even as the untamed portions of the nation began to be settled towards the onset of the First World War, in rural America firearms were viewed with almost equal necessity as in the past, for pest control and fresh game on the kitchen table, even though the constant threat to personal safety had passed. Since the vast majority of America was still rural at the turn of the last century, firearm ownership was as it had always been, an unchallenged necessity for most.
The Dawn of Gun Control
As the urban centers of the east began filling up with people, alarming crime rates began to show, particularly in New York City. Attempts to make some sense of what was happening began to attribute the crime to the prevalence of handguns everywhere, and a misguided mindset began to develop that reducing crime by controlling the availability of handguns might be possible. Some urbanites who were removed from the rural world of hunting, target shooting, and self-defense began to associate guns with crime and tragic accidents and began to question the reasons for gun ownership.
This is where the Gun Control argument began. If we simply remove the guns, they mistakenly reasoned, crimes that typically involve a gun won’t happen. This reasoning is flawed for two basic reasons, both of which should be obvious to most people reading this article, but I’ll reiterate them for the record.
- First, a gun is an inanimate object, and any attempt to control it would be futile and much better served by instead examining how to control the behavior of those who abuse the killing power of guns. Any question involving crime and firearms must focus on the individuals committing the vile acts, not merely all gun owners.
- Secondly, Gun Control can only be enacted via one avenue: legislation. Laws are passed to outlaw some firearms or at least infringe upon the rights of individuals to own or use them, but they are only laws. And when laws are passed, the majority of citizens observe them, and the criminal element does not, which takes them out of the hands of precisely the wrong group of people and further emboldens another precisely wrong group of people. Throughout the years, in any given time and place, the statistics almost always bear this out. As we move to the next section of this article, we’ll look at the first instance of the adoption of Gun Control measures, and then examine their long-term effects upon crime rates.
The Sullivan Act of 1911 - New York State
The first significant gun control law to be adopted in the United States was The Sullivan Act of 1911. This was merely a local NY State law, but it was a harbinger of things to come.
Named for its author, Timothy D. Sullivan, and influenced by New York County Coroner George P. Le Brun, the catalyst for the act was a growing sense of alarm from New York City about the growing crime rate and the wounding by gunshot of New York City's Mayor William Gaynor in November 1910. This incident turned a mere sense of concern overnight into a unified sentiment of NY State politicians against guns and sparked a push to adopt some form of anti-gun legislation which ended up with the passage of this poorly conceived bill.
With the Sullivan Act now in place, a New York State resident had to obtain a permit to purchase a handgun and another to own it. Originally, the non-refundable purchase permit was $.50, but within ten years this figure was raised to $20; this figure is equivalent to about $516 dollars in 2018. The purchaser had to endure an interview with police officers and had to convince them that he had “good reason” to own a handgun.
(At this point I’ll try really hard not to go off on a tangent about how arbitrary the judgments of police officers and other public officials may sometimes be, how prone to bias, racism, and unfair discrimination of many types a government employee of New York State in the year 1911 could have been. Really, I’ll try...oh, wait. Never mind.)
The gun purchaser also had to be fingerprinted and provide three personal references as to his good character and provide four photographs of himself. If, after all of this was provided and permission was granted by the whims of the powers that be, the owner was then authorized to keep the pistol in only one place, usually his residence. Recreational target shooters and hunters then had to apply for another special license to allow them to transport their handguns, and only if they were intended to be used for this purpose. When the owner died, the handgun would be confiscated by the state, with no recompense to the estate of the deceased.
One particular provision would come back to haunt the creators of the Sullivan Act: the ban on non-citizens carrying firearms of any type.
Originally the bill was praised roundly by the NY press. One NY Times editorial expressed hopes that “evil habits of pistol owning and carrying will gain a new odium, and will be abandoned by many — perhaps all outside the distinctly criminal class." Arguments against the bill were attributed to “greedy gun manufacturers and dealers”, with the Times stating ridiculously that there was "...no argument against the bill except that it will reduce sales and thereby profits." Timothy Sullivan himself upped the ante on the wrong-o-meter by proclaiming that the bill would save more souls than all the preachers in the city giving sermons for ten years.
Truth be told, there was surprisingly little opposition to the bill at first. This must be attributed to the fact that the bill received almost no publicity between its passage in February of 1911 and its signing into law that May. Prophetically, the one strong voice against the bill, State Senator Ferris, voiced a sentiment which would be heard again and again in other battles over gun control throughout the years when he said: “You can't force a criminal to get a license for a gun.”
(NY state Gun Grabbers didn't get it then, and they don't get it now.)
Upon the signing of the bill into law on May 30th, an uproar began, most likely as a result of the sudden publicity that the media finally decided to bestow upon it. When the question was asked of whether a person who already had a handgun would have to surrender it if he failed to receive a permit, and the answer was yes, outrage began to be seen among the populace.
On September 2, the day after the new law went into effect, Italian immigrant James Palermo was arrested leaving a hardware store with a brand new shotgun he had purchased; under the new law, foreigners were prohibited from carrying arms. Within the next few days, several incidents of this nature made their way into the newspapers, and public outrage quickly began to build.
On September 6, 1911, New York district attorney Charles Whitman stated that the section prohibiting keeping unlicensed pistols in the home was an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms. Emboldened by this, New York City lawyer Joseph Darling boastfully and publicly informed a police captain that he was in possession of an unregistered handgun. After his inevitable arrest for flouting the Sullivan Act, he stated:
"There are 500,000 persons with pistols in their homes and I want this law defined. I want to know what are my rights; what are the rights of any citizen... I have not procured a license because I think this law is unconstitutional."
Supporting Darling's cause was Justice Francis Pendleton of the state Supreme Court, who also said the law should not apply to guns kept in the home. He stated, “...any broader construction would bring the constitutionality of the law itself into question as an act exceeding the police power and interfering with the rights of citizens to take measures for self-protection." Darwin's case was settled on January 4th, 1912 in the state Appellate Court. Unfortunately, the majority of judges held that the law could restrict handguns in the home and held that the act was "regulatory, not prohibitive”. Two judges who broke with the mainstream view said that the law “prevents householders from defending themselves against marauders.”
Few comments were recorded favoring the law in the next few years. The Times reported no decrease in lawlessness, and Magistrate Joseph E. Corrigan famously declared: "The new anti-pistol carrying law is ridiculous… You can't pick up a paper nowadays without reading of a shooting scrape.” Reported figures show a 23% increase in shooting homicides from 1911 to 1912.
In addition, consternation rose that while criminals were still well armed, those who applied for permits were being turned down. In one case, a doctor who had previously been held up was refused a handgun permit. This was a common scenario at the time; there was no uniform standard for granting or refusing permits, and they were routinely refused at the whims of the police.
After 1914 the furor over the Sullivan Law abated and the law even earned some praise. In this year the number of homicides stabilized, and in an interview with the Times George P. Le Brun stated that “75% of all homicides are caused by the presence of a weapon” and, incredibly, that “guns are of little value for defensive purposes”.
(Statistics do show that the number of the number of homicides decreased substantially from 1914 to 1919, however in hindsight it seems likely that some other event in the year 1914 may have had something to do with this. Hmm...anyone know of anything important that might have happened in 1914? Bueller?)
When World War One broke out in Europe in 1914, employment opportunities arose for those who may have otherwise been involved in crime. Perhaps·some of those who would otherwise have been shooting New Yorkers were instead engaged in the more socially acceptable pastime of shooting Germans. This theory seems to bear some fruit, as by the 1920’s, murder rates were again soaring.
Today, the Sullivan Act is touted by fans of Gun Control for the recorded drop in handgun murder rates for a few years after its passing, disregarding the entire picture of shooting homicide incidence over a longer period of time. New York City is hardly a paragon of safety and non-violence since the passage of the Sullivan Act, and the fact that fewer people are killed with guns in New York seems irrelevant. If the goal of this bill is to prevent violent crime, it seems to have failed miserably, as New York City still seems to have quite a high murder rate. In addition to its ineffectiveness in reducing crime, there is no doubt that the Sullivan Act negatively affects the honest citizens seeking to own a handgun. Perhaps the greatest advocate of the Sullivan Act, the New York Times, even stated in 1924: ''A harsh critic would have some excuse for saying it is ignored by those who alone would make nefarious use of deadly weapons and is effective only in imposing inconvenience and expense on those whose one purpose in arming themselves would be legitimate defense of their persons and property.”
The 1920’s - Prohibition and Gun Control
Or, “Hey, That Banning Alcohol Thing Worked So Well, Let’s See How It Works On Guns”
As the urbanization of America continued, so too did the country see its crime rate begin to climb. In this decade, the same idealistic spirit for reform which fueled prohibition also took hold firmly on the side of Gun Control.
Most of the more extreme measures of this cause died quietly and with little support in the hands of lawmakers, but one rather pointless federal regulation did come to life. Echoing the clearly naive logic that many of that time still possessed, one Baptist minister proclaimed that “If nobody had a gun, nobody would need a gun.”
Captain Paul Curtis, Jr., responded rather poignantly in Field & Stream magazine, stating, "Truly we are in a dangerously Puritanical age when a few mollycoddles with good intentions, can try out their theories for the prevention of crime at the expense of every honest, red-blooded man in the land.”
The Wall Street Journal also publicly opposed any new Gun Control regulations, reminding that the experience with the Sullivan Law had shown Gun Control to be ineffective: “It sends to jail honest people, ignorant of the law, and it makes the armed miscreant safe in carrying a gun.…”
Several more pieces of legislation were proposed throughout the 1920’s, with the anti-gun forces enjoying at least one victory in 1924 when Sears & Roebuck announced that it was discontinuing the sale of all firearms: “We feel the moral side of all public questions is the right side, not only because we want to be right, but because it is good business."
Apparently good business was ultimately more important to Sears than right or wrong, as gun sales were discontinued for only a brief time when the Board of Directors discovered a slide in sales after the adoption of this policy.
Also that year, another victory for the Gun Control proponents was almost realized. HR 9093 was introduced to ban the sale of pistols through the mail and was passed by the House of Representatives. Since this would only have affected the U.S. Mail, the only effect of the bill would have been the nuisance of paying higher delivery charges for handguns via other carriers. Regardless, the bill was fiercely fought by both sides in Congress in that year because the anti-gun forces and pro-gun forces alike saw it for what it was, a first round in the new war on guns.
When HR 9093 was referred to committee by the Senate without debate, effectively killing the measure, Gun Control proponents were not discouraged. In 1926, New York City Chief City Magistrate William McAdoo proposed a federal law.which would have effectively banned all handgun sales. An ardent supporter of the Sullivan Law, he now wanted the nation to enact a similar measure. His bill proposed a $100 tax ($1424 in 2018 money) on the sale, gift, or barter of every handgun, and a tax of $1 on every round of handgun ammunition, with ammunition to be sold in quantities of fifty, one hundred, or one thousand.
(For those who don’t feel like doing the math, this would have meant a minimum mortgage payment, I mean investment, of $712 for a box of ammo in today’s money).
MacAdoo’s bill would have also decreed that any handgun already owned would be seized and destroyed. In the 1926 book, Outlawing the Pistol, author Lamar Berman supported legislation like that proposed by McAdoo. He argued that any Gun Control measures needed to be strictly on a federal level, and based his assertion on the presumption that prohibition had not been effective until enacted on that level.
We at gunrightswatch.com, who read our history books before the liberals started rewriting them, are of the opinion that all prohibition did was to turn a legal business into a black market one, and to turn otherwise law-abiding people into criminals, much like most Gun Control laws have the potential to do.
Whackadoo McAdoo, as one might guess, was an early proponent of prohibition. It does seem odd that with his early and close connection to the prohibition issue, he couldn’t see how poorly that particular endeavor worked for the betterment of the United States of America. He also was one of the first to suggest banning or at least placing greater restrictions on automobiles, which he somehow linked to a greater incidence of crime. Luckily for the rest of us, not one of McAdoo’s proposed bills were blessed with acceptance.
In 1927 a new bill, HR 4502, was crafted and proposed to do almost precisely what HR 9093 would have done — the banning of handguns via the U.S. Mail. Though both bills were virtually identical, HR 4502 passed easily in the House and Senate where HR 9093 had failed. It was signed into law on February 8th, 1927 by then President Calvin Coolidge, who reportedly signed it “to prevent the passage of any stricter measures.”
To this day it is still not possible to ship a handgun via U.S. Mail in most circumstances except through a Federal Firearms License holder, but this now seems irrelevant. Not one politician or talking head has dared to present the silly notion that this arbitrary ban has had any effect on reducing crime or any actual effect at all other than to have a minor consequence of costing the average citizen a little bit more for postage and to help illustrate the obsolescence of the U.S. Postal Service. This is the single most common effect of Gun Control legislation: to exact hardship upon honest, hard-working citizens while having no effect, or possibly an enabling effect upon the common criminal.
This is part one in this series. Part two will focus on the history of gun control after 1930.
By GRW Senior Staff Comments (1)
The Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance
The Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance is an ordinance aimed at sending a clear message to gun control advocates about the gun rights specifically enumerated in the US Constitution, and the idea appears to be catching on in the states of Oregon and Illinois.
It’s unclear where this movement started, but some sources point to Oregon. Oregon counties have been passing Second Amendment Preservation Ordinances since 2013. In Wallowa County, a man named Leo Castillo wrote the original ordinance and got it passed through his county’s board of commissioners. Wheeler County followed in 2015 and Curry County in 2016.
The statewide effort is being coordinated by Rob Taylor, a Coos County resident who leads the movement’s Committee to Preserve the Second Amendment.
Taylor, however, found that a different path to getting The Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance, or SAPO, passed would be necessary. Initially meeting stiff resistance from the Coos County board of commissioners when it was presented to them in 2015, Taylor then took the issue to the voters, who passed a ballot measure that allows the county to restrict funding for gun laws passed by state lawmakers.
Taking a page from the playbook of California sheriffs who refuse to enforce immigration laws, Taylor quickly realized that more right-leaning sheriffs in other parts of the nation could use the same strategy to ignore oppressive gun laws, as he envisioned legislation that could allow them to do just that. Since then, Taylor has helped several other counties file similar ballot measure proposals.
This single county ballot measure in 2015 has blossomed into a full-blown movement. Gun Rights Watch now dutifully maintains a series of maps of Oregon and Illinois which are updated routinely, showing the advancement of this ordinance, and a continuing march for gun rights across both states. We feel confident that many more states will follow, as news of the SAPO’s advance hits the news media more and more often.
Renewed Interest in 2018
This now brings us to reflect on how the SAPO has picked up steam this year, with the filing of bill IP 43, which is yet another “assault weapons” ban. before I explain how IP 43 has caused the SAPO movement to pick up steam, allow me to go off on a tangent for moment:
I put quotations around those 2 words because there is no such thing as an assault weapon. An assault weapon, as the meaning of which can be inferred from the language of the plethora of anti-gun bills that have been put forward and passed since the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, is any gun which you don’t like because it looks big and bad and scary. If it has a bump stock, can hold more than ten bullets, is painted black, or has a tacky skull embossed on the handle, someone will use that as an excuse to call it an assault weapon. An assault rifle is a real thing. An “assault weapon” is a non-descriptive, derogatory term that some liberal politician made up because someone’s gun looks big, bad and scary.
And by the way, being big and bad and scary is exactly what a gun is supposed to do. As any self-defense expert with some familiarity with firearms will tell you, the most protective thing about a gun is simply its appearance. A gun is most useful, and most often deters violent crimes, by merely displaying it. I’m fully convinced that guns prevent many more crimes simply by being visible, much more often in fact than actually firing one at a bad guy.
Okay, rant over.
IP 43 was filed on March 22 in Oregon. So far, instead of taking any “assault weapons” off the streets, it has instead renewed the interest in SAPO. Several counties have filed and even passed the ordinance by now; check our website or facebook page. I won’t try to tell you which ones have passed it in this post because the number changes rapidly.
Illinois apparently has taken up the cause of gun rights legislation with gusto now too. David Campbell, a print shop owner from southern Illinois, and Bryan Kibler, a prosecutor, have spearheaded a push to bring a version of SAPO to Illinois; the Illinois SAPO doesn't actually have any teeth, however, it's merely a statement that residents of Illinois county can make, and a message to the local sheriff of that county that they would prefer he didn't enforce federal gun laws. Their county of Effingham adopted the resolution on April 16th, and word spread quickly via conservative news sites and gun blogs. This started a chain reaction of Illinois counties fanning the flames of liberty by adopting the resolution and further popularizing this legislation; again, be sure to check the Gun Rights Watch website and Facebook page for our constantly updating map of the Illinois Gun Sanctuary Counties.
Coos County – First to Enact the Ordinance
Initially first enacted in Coos County, Oregon, the ordinance seems to have touched off a string of ballot initiatives in several counties to put the measure to a vote. Coos County voters signaled their overwhelming approval of the ordinance with a 60 percent majority and simultaneously showed their disapproval of Senate Bill 941, which was signed into law by Governor Brown on May 11,2015.
(SB 941, the Oregon Firearms Safety Act, is yet another unconstitutional law which adds the requirement of a background safety check for firearm purchases. Unfortunately, a Google search for "SB 941" showed me links to several news stories about SB 941 being proposed, placed on a ballot, or even passed in many other states besides Oregon.)
Douglas County Hearing
In Douglas County, the County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously on June 20th to place the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance on the ballot this November.
Following a public hearing where residents gave the expected mixture of opinions for and against the legislation, supporters of the measure spoke of the previously mentioned need to send a message about the gun rights that are stated clearly in the constitution, and gun control advocates and other opponents of the ordinance said that it would place sheriffs in the moral quandary of having to decide whether to enact the will of the people, or whether to follow blatantly unconstitutional state and federal gun laws. They also said that (drum roll please...repeat it with me now, in your best trance-inducing mantra) gun regulations are necessary to protect the children.
It seems to me that the children would be best protected by a trained parent with a firearm rather than left to the caprices of the state which seems to believe that taking the guns away from only the good, law-abiding people will somehow make the children safe (because bad guys don't obey laws, especially gun laws, remember? That's what makes them bad guys...).
And now, Columbia County
Columbia County, Illinois has been working to get the SAPO enacted since at least early 2016. Earlier this year, enough signatures were collected by petition filer Chris Brumbles, so the people of Columbia County, Oregon can now help their county pass a Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance like the people in Coos County did.
So, what is the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance?
This ordinance appears to be a resolution that is legally binding in some places, such as Oregon, and not so in others such as Illinois, depending upon the wording of the particular document. It would allow sheriffs in the counties where it passes the right to decide whether or not the citizens of their county need to observe state and federal gun laws if those laws are deemed by the county sheriff to violate the second amendment. This measure actually supersedes local and national gun laws in those places where it is binding, deferring instead to the language of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, as all US citizens should be rightfully allowed to do.
The principal purpose of the ordinance in all cases is to send the message about how the voters of a county feel about their Second Amendment rights, primarily to the sheriff of the county but also to the balance of the county government.
In addition to the right to keep and bear arms, this ordinance also allows the free manufacture, sale, and purchase of firearms, firearm accessories and ordinance. SAPO is intended to not only comply with and advocate the spirit of the Second Amendment, it also further affirms the Ninth Amendment of the US Constitution, which states that the ancillary firearm rights mentioned above shall never be denied or prohibited by the misinterpretation of any other amendments. It then also reaffirms the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution, reminding voters and legislators that any powers that the US Constitution doesn't reserve specifically for itself or specifically deny to states, are left by default to the states.
Also, SAPO mentions the Oregon state constitution, illustrating that the state document also reiterates the Second Amendment and the relevant parts of the Ninth Amendment where it pertains to gun rights.
Finally, SAPO declares that no county government shall authorize or appropriate anything which contradicts the rights outlined in the above mentioned amendments, such as more government bureaucracies designed to administrate registration requirements for firearms, or background checks.
Simply put, SAPO makes it clear that there should be no firearm registration or background checks, as the framers of the US Constitution intended.
The Future of the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance
To summarize, it seems clear that an honest-to-goodness movement is now underway, at least in Oregon and Illinois. What remains to be seen is whether the SAPO can be brought to the other 48 states of our great nation. So far, internet searches for the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinances only turn up news articles from the two aforementioned states, but we at Gun Rights Watch are hopeful that more states will jump on the bandwagon.
By GRW - Senior Staff Comments (0)
A Look Inside the Mind of a Gun Control Nut
Liberals like to call pro-gun people "Gun Nuts". Since my opinion is that not wanting to own a firearm and get trained in its use to protect one's self and one's family, and wanting to remove that right from law-abiding citizens is a more "nutty" state of mind, my response is to refer to the gun grabbers as Gun Control Nuts.
When a Gun Control Nut talks about proposing any particular piece of gun control legislation, they will usually recite some statistic or reference a news story indicating a number of deaths by guns to use as the rationale for their anti-gun fervor. For instance, recently I was told, "14 teenagers and 3 teachers were murdered in Florida with an AR-15 assault weapon. A few months ago, 58 people were murdered in Las Vegas with an AR-15. 49 were killed with a type of AR-15 in an Orlando nightclub. 20 tiny elementary school children and six teachers were killed in Newtown with an AR-15. Do you think this is okay? That we should continue to do nothing?"
Well, of course we shouldn't do nothing. Obviously something needs to be done.
I particularly enjoy watching the vein bulge on their collective foreheads when I tell them what I know we must do:
We should arm ourselves!
Firearms Save Lives as Well as Take Lives
By now, most people have heard the phrase, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Well, it's true more often than not. Of course, the average US citizen rarely hears about a robbery or mass murder being stopped by a law-abiding gun owner, mostly because it just doesn't often make for sensationalist news headlines, which is what the mainstream media seems to be looking for to attract an audience; that, and the last thing our far-left leaning media would like you to hear is something good about gun owners.
Actually, the media sometimes adds to the chaos by sensationalizing the crimes and making the perps into pseudo-celebrities with 24-7 news coverage of a particularly grisly shooting spree. Occasionally, they may even inspire more violence by revealing how some lunatic was able to pull off a high casualty rampage. Consider that the item pictured below never existed until USA Today came up with the graphic, inspiring some mechanically minded soul to fabricate it:
And, the bigger statistic that one never hears because it's near impossible to quantify is how many crimes are avoided simply by someone producing and displaying a gun at the right time and place, without a shot being fired. "What's that, no one shot, not even the perp? And no crime? We don't want to present that as news", they would say. "That's not news at all."
But of course they would be wrong. It would be huge news if an accurate statistic were available.
Consider this: Millions of Americans legally carry firearms every day, and most would cite self-defense as their primary reason. These guns sometimes are used for self-defense, and any discussions about firearms legislation must recognize the lives saved by legal gun owners as well as the lives lost to gun violence.
As previously stated, the number of defensive gun uses is a very controversial figure, prone to misrepresentation and impossible to accurately determine. But one study conducted by the The National Academies’ Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council was left to conclude that "Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence". They announced that almost all of their national survey estimates indicated that defensive gun uses by crime victims (make that would-be crime victims) are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals during the same time period.
Another study makes an estimate, granted though it may be that this is not completely verifiable, that there are 1,029,615 DGU's, or Defensive Uses of Guns, each year for "self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere", meaning not in the line of work for police work, military service or security guard work. They then concluded that there were an estimated 162,000 cases per year where someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they had not had a gun for protection.
And again, these numbers are estimates. But consider how many DGU's may never be reported. Some people may be traumatized by the event and not wish to relive it by giving testimony to the police. Some people may want to avoid harassment by police that they consider to be against private gun ownership. And some may just be people who feel persecuted by or are wanted by the police, or may simply have not gotten around the registering their guns in an area where gun registration is mandatory. Or they may not want to have their weapon confiscated to be used as evidence. I hear that there's a lot of those last two going around in Connecticut lately.
The Genie's Not Going Back In The Bottle
This, it seems to me, is the crux of the argument for the gun control crowd, and the most obvious flaw in their rationale: Guns are bad, and we must protect ourselves from them -- by legislating them away.
I've got news for you, liberals.
The genie is out of the bottle, the cat is out of the bag, and the hinges on Pandora's Box are broken. Guns were invented long ago, and they have spread to every corner of the globe, even, or perhaps especially, the gun-free zones. If we could somehow magically make them all go away, only that would actually end gun violence. But we can't. They're here to stay, and we need to deal with that.
Legislating away gun rights does nothing but embolden the criminals, who will have guns anyway. Scumbags do not avoid gun-free zones because someone put up a sign; in fact, they're attracted to those places. The bad guy thinks, "Great, no one there will have a gun to protect himself from me, so I can go in there and do whatever I want."
Not A Gun Nut, I'm a Freedom Nut
In the near future I may be, and fully expect to be, accused by liberals of being a "gun nut". I assure you, I'm not anything of the kind, any more than a guy who wants to make a hole is a "drill nut", or a guy who wants to build a house is a "hammer nut". I am, I suppose, what you could more accurately call a "freedom nut", or even a "not wanting to get murdered by a scumbag" nut. A gun is a tool, nothing more. But it's a very important tool; it's the tool by which our freedom can be secured, by which the Second Amendment guarantees the rights mentioned in the other nine amendments.
I'm not a gun rights advocate because of a love of guns per se, I'm a gun rights advocate because I love having rights, and at times guns are the most effective means of protecting my rights, whether it be the right to keep on breathing if I'm physically attacked, or whether it be to protect myself from an aggressive government who may want to take any of my other rights away.
It is our right to self-defense, as defined in the Constitution of the United States of America, that makes me a proud supporter of responsible gun ownership and the Second Amendment. Guns can be used for good purposes, and the Second Amendment is the one amendment that guarantees all of the others.
We would consider it unprofessional and irresponsible for a public safety researcher to study only the negative effects of bicycle accidents without also considering the positive health effects of the exercise bicycle users get. If public safety researchers wish to remain credible and be perceived as unbiased by the general public as well as with millions of gun rights supporters, they should endeavor to describe the very real benefits of legal and responsible gun ownership in addition to the harms caused by criminal gun usage. Government statistics that discuss only gun crimes without mentioning the use of guns to stop crimes are at the very least incomplete, and possibly intentionally disingenuous.
I support rational public policy based on objective research, but also tempered with a sympathetic understanding of individual rights, including the right of basic self-defense. If we are going to engage in gun violence research, and I believe that this is a necessary thing to do and that it will bear out some the arguments toward responsible gun ownership put forth in this article, then let’s do it the right way, by recognizing both the potential positives and negatives of civilian firearm ownership.
And lastly, let me say it again and add to it:
We should arm ourselves!
We should know how to use the damned things and store them safely!
And, we should fight for the rights of others who want to do the same!