Prosecutors Against Gun Violence Submits Amicus Brief Supporting New York-Style Gun Control

racist gun control laws prosecutors against gun violence

Images courtesy Ferris State University and Prosecutors Against Gun Violence.

Prosecutors Against Gun Violence proudly announced the filing of their amicus brief this week in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v City of New York case at the U.S. Supreme Court. In the brief, the prosecutors use arguments recycled from the Jim Crow era that were used to keep poor, ‘undesirables’ disarmed through a patchwork of state and local regulations.

Follow this link to read the brief.

The PAGV brief begins by dazzling readers with the group’s supposed bona fides.

…PAGV serves more than 62 million residents of 36 urban areas in 22 states across the country.

And PAGV is of the opinion that gun control laws that violate the Second Amendment and are rooted in racism “suit public safety needs.”

Here’s an excerpt

Commensurate with the weight of this responsibility, states retain “great latitude under their police powers to legislate as to the protection of the lives, limb, health, comfort and quiet of all persons.” Medtronic, 518 U.S. at 475 (quotation omitted); accord Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 270 (2006). State and local lawmakers discharge this duty by “carefully and thoughtfully creat[ing] their own framework of standards . . . to suit public safety needs.”3 These homegrown standards reflect “the great diversity in geography, population, culture, and tradition” of lawmakers’ constituents.4 They are not only “decisions by state and local authorities about how to best ensure public safety,”5 but also reflect “the will of their citizens” and symbolize “the core democratic principle that . . . elected representatives make those laws.”6

Back in the 1890s, state and local authorities “carefully and thoughtfully creat[ed] their own framework of standards … to suit public safety needs.”  These were called “Black Codes” at the time, and later “Jim Crow Laws.”

These “homegrown standards” also “reflected the great diversity in geography, population, culture and tradition of lawmakers’ constituents.”

From “Jim Crow Laws” at History.com:

At the start of the 1880s, big cities in the south were not wholly beholden to Jim Crow laws and black Americans found more leeway in them.

This led to substantial black populations moving to the cities and, as the decade progressed, white city dwellers demanded more laws to limit opportunities for African Americans.

Jim Crow laws spread around the south with even more force than previously. Public parks were forbidden for African Americans to enter, and theaters and restaurants were segregated.

Courtesy Ferris State University.

JIM CROW LAWS EXPAND
The turn of the century saw states across the south ratcheting up Jim Crow laws, affecting every section of daily life.

Segregated waiting rooms in professional offices were required, as well as water fountains, restrooms, building entrances, elevators, cemeteries, even amusement-park cashier windows.

Laws forbade African Americans from living in white neighborhoods. Segregation was enforced for public pools, phone booths, hospitals, asylums, jails and residential homes for the elderly and handicapped.

Some states required separate textbooks black and white students. New Orleans mandated the segregation of prostitutes according to race. In Atlanta, African Americans in court were given a different Bible from whites to swear on. Marriage and cohabitation between whites and blacks was strictly forbidden in most southern states.

Indeed, later in the brief, the PAGV attorneys continue digging the Jim Crow hole even deeper:

PAGV, along with New York law enforcement, strongly believe in the importance of vesting discretion with local decision-makers to regulate firearms, including requiring applicants to show a “proper cause,” “good reason,” or “justifiable need” to be allowed to carry concealed weapons in public.

“Good reason” and “proper cause” sound a lot like the literacy tests and poll taxes required of African-Americans who wanted to vote in the early 1900s.

From Clayton Cramer’s “The Racist Roots of Gun Control“:

The end of slavery in 1865 did not eliminate the problems of racist gun control laws; the various Black Codes adopted after the Civil War required blacks to obtain a license before carrying or possessing firearms or Bowie knives; these are sufficiently well-known that any reasonably complete history of the Reconstruction period mentions them. These restrictive gun laws played a part in the efforts of the Republicans to get the Fourteenth Amendment ratified, because it was difficult for night riders to generate the correct level of terror in a victim who was returning fire. [28] It does appear, however, that the requirement to treat blacks and whites equally before the law led to the adoption of restrictive firearms laws in the South that were equal in the letter of the law, but unequally enforced. It is clear that the vagrancy statutes adopted at roughly the same time, in 1866, were intended to be used against blacks, even though the language was race-neutral. [29]…

Gun control advocates today are not so foolish as to openly promote racist laws, and so the question might be asked what relevance the racist past of gun control laws has. One concern is that the motivations for disarming blacks in the past are really not so different from the motivations for disarming law-abiding citizens today. In the last century, the official rhetoric in support of such laws was that “they” were too violent, too untrustworthy, to be allowed weapons. Today, the same elitist rhetoric regards law-abiding Americans in the same way, as child-like creatures in need of guidance from the government. In the last century, while never openly admitted, one of the goals of disarming blacks was to make them more willing to accept various forms of economic oppression, including the sharecropping system, in which free blacks were reduced to an economic state not dramatically superior to the conditions of slavery.

Indeed, gun control advocates like Prosecutors Against Gun Violence would never openly promote racist laws today. Yet they’re only too happy to proudly advocate laws that have the same effect of disarming blacks that the Jim Crow laws had a hundred years ago.

Shame on these modern-day advocates for racist restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

Why don’t they instead pursue changes “to more fully take advantage of the ideals voiced in the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

comments

  1. avatar johnny go lightly says:

    LMAO….Kim Foxx is pictured as a member apparently ! Nothing but the best ….

    1. avatar Johnny Go Lightly says:

      Recommend you add the two maps at end of the brief to this post. They show clearly how the anti’s have made the entire city, all 5 counties, a gun free zone by defining “sensitive places and child care facilities”. The left knows how to play the game so much better than freedom lovers.

  2. avatar dwb says:

    curious. and here I thought NYSRPA was merely about transport. Making NYSRPA about discretionary licensing seems to me to be a strategic error on their part, because the scope could be limited to transport of an unloaded gun. But I dont interrupt my enemies while they are making a mistake…

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “curious. and here I thought NYSRPA was merely about transport.”

      Why, yes. Yes, it is.

      These ‘jokers’ are trying to make a case as to how it fits neatly into their (twisted and sick) world-view.

      They are oblivious to the kilometer-high tsunami that’s going to bitch-slap them in about a year’s time…

  3. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Prosecutors Against Gun Violence Submits Amicus Brief Supporting New York-Style Gun Control”

    Well, they do like their cheesecake…

  4. avatar Michael says:

    No long winded law is ever a good law. If violaters can be prosecuted, can prosecutors be…?-30-

  5. avatar enuf says:

    I do in fact favor more and better gun laws. They should all begin kinda’ like this…..

    “THE PURPOSE OF THIS LAW IS TO AFFIRM THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES MEANS WHAT IT SAYS AND SAYS WHAT IT MEANS. DUE TO PRIOR ERRORS IN LAW MAKING, THIS FACT HAS BEEN CONFUSED AND INFRINGED UPON BY THE FOLLOWING LAWS.

    THEREFORE, THE FOLLOWING INFRINGEMENTS ARE HEREBY CLARIFIED TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ARE REPEALED IMMEDIATELY AND COMPLETELY.”

    After which whatever new gun law they are passing would list some previous law being repealed.

    That’s the way it ought to go.

    Though it’d be nice if they included an apology too 🙂

  6. avatar former water walker says:

    Funny thing today’s Dumbocrats think they aren’t the same lowlifes from the 19th century. They’re not..they’re WORSE. Self-righteous scum.

    1. avatar James A. "Jim" Farmer says:

      Not only that but they remain just as deceitful crooked immoral treasonous and socialist as their predecessors: Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ), Ted Kennedy, Thomas Dodd, etc! No to mention both the
      Earl Warren and Warren Burger Supreme Courts!

      1. avatar James A. "Jim" Farmer says:

        Continuing on this constitutes “class warfare/people control” which is being financed by powerful treasonous socialist billionaires, political elitists, those who are attempting
        to subvert, socialize, and destroy our republic, and also have links to tax exempt left wing foundations!

        https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/WhctKJVRHBsjMRDggrpzrlDZXTsXZtKLPJngplzQhHNMPRZQGLLvTgDFKGhnGdLngHSHfZV

  7. avatar GlockMeAmadeus says:

    Doctors, lawyers and educators are represented by professional guilds that almost universally want to ban and/or restrict guns.

    The professional ruling class has had enough of the plebe guns. They are OK with their Beretta duck guns and the Colt Python they inherited from dad, but these peon guns and carry laws gotta go.

    They are our best and brightest!

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      perhaps you should have ended that with a question mark?…..

  8. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

    This was actually submitted to SCOTUS?

    “PAGV, along with New York law enforcement, strongly believe in the importance of vesting discretion with local decision-makers to regulate firearms, including requiring applicants to show a “proper cause,” “good reason,” or “justifiable need” to be allowed to carry concealed weapons in public.”

    I have an image of Justice Thomas reading this and laughing so loudly the other associates can’t help but hear him in their chambers.

    (I know I’m falling for the error of counting chickens before they hatch, but day-um, do I ever have a good feeling about this case… *snicker* 😉 )

    1. avatar dwb says:

      No, now I think they identified the wrong case

  9. avatar tdiinva says:

    This is an odd argument about a law that restricts a NYC’s resident’s right to bring a firearm to a locale that thinks he has a right to have it.

  10. avatar dwb says:

    After some research this is #not# for the us supreme court case. This is for the NYC carry case on appeal at the 2nd circuit.

    Please correct the post!

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      I believe he is correct, TTAG.

      Although “NEW YORK STATE RIFLE and PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ROBERT NASH, and BRANDON KOCH” is listed, “19-156 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit” is listed as the case…

      https://prosecutorsagv.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/amicus-brief-2019.05-filed.pdf

      1. avatar dwb says:

        Petitioners in the Supreme Court case are:
        NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ROMOLO COLANTONE, EFRAIN ALVAREZ, and JOSE ANTHONY IRIZARRY

        See here:
        http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/62499/20180904122332608_NYSRPA%20cert%20petition%209-04-18%20FINAL.pdf

        New York State Rifle and Pistol are the petitioners for a lot of cases… but only one is at the Supreme Court so far.

  11. avatar Thixotropic says:

    There is NO SUCH THING AS ‘GUN VIOLENCE’.

    There is only Criminal Violence.

    I point this out immediately to anyone who wants to discuss ‘Gun Control’ and it immediately places the initiative with me and on my side of the argument.

    Guns are tools and one HELL of a lot less deadly than automobiles or the Medical Profession, both of which kill many times more people than criminals or accidents with firearms.

    Firearms are TOOLS. Nothing more.

    1. avatar Wheel Gun Guy says:

    2. avatar robert cosenza says:

      we don,t need gun control we need criminal and democrat control.shane said it better then i ever could.a gun is a tool no better,or worst then the person using it.who does the ny city police commissioner think he is.all the do nothing democrat run cities/states like ny california chicago baltimore all run by do nothing democrats.i live in ny {bklyn}and you have to pay 90.00 dollars for ist time fingerprinting[handgun permit}and 340.00 every 3 yrs,talk about a holdup without a gun.its a dispickable place 1 police plaza. go trump

    3. avatar WhiteDevil says:

      Firearms are weapons. Weapons are a subclassifications of tool, mind you. But, it would be disingenuous of us to treat them as anything other than weapons. We should call things by their real names. Anything else is delusional and only serves to weaken our efforts.

  12. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

    The;y are psychologically and pathologically terrified by firearms. They believe the same way about motorcycles also. (Although they will not admit it.) If the government will take away the object, then there will not be any problems from those who had possession of them before. No guns, no violence. No motorcycles, no biker gangs terrorizing citizens.
    Bikers will not give up their independent streak and the black market will quickly replace the firearms that were confiscated!

  13. avatar Bubba5 says:

    You may know PAGV as their sister organization with duplicate membership, Cucks Against Freedom.

    How does one swear an oath to uphold the law then openly fight to not uphold the law? No accountability.

  14. avatar GS650G says:

    If they feel so strongly about disarmament they are free to go first.

    1. avatar Hush says:

      GS650G “they” most likely don’t have any guns since Unrepentant Libertarian stated, “The;y are psychologically and pathologically terrified by firearms.” Can’t imagine THEY owning any/many!
      And therein lies the problem with the antis. Just because they don’t like guns, they don’t want you to have any either.

  15. avatar FedUp says:

    A persecututors group supports making more people into criminals?

    Wow, am I surprised…

    (/sarcasm)

  16. avatar Leigh says:

    They are all for it until it impacts too many young black and brown men

    1. No, that is exactly why they are for it.

  17. avatar Mad says:

    Democrats appear to getting nervous I live in gun hating Oregon the politicians are really ramping up the push to disarm us we’ll see we also have Patriots here going to be real Interesting when they make the fatal mistake of gun confiscation.they think we’re the only ones that are going to die

  18. avatar J says:

    1000 foot buffer around facilities catering to children. They did forgot the map scales on both maps thou. WoW. That is a great way to enforce gun control in New York with a 1000 foot buffer. You can not have any firearm near a gun free zone. Illinois has struck down that 250 foot buffer of parks and other areas that prohibited firearms recently.

  19. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Can you tell me when they open at a Comedy Club? Another case of legal positivism, they’re making up laws based on what they think a situation is rather than on the codification already on the books.

  20. avatar Chris Morton says:

    More like “Prosecutors Against Black People Having Guns”.

    The history of gun control in North America is the history of violent White supremacism and the efforts of its proponents to create for themselves a safe working environment.

  21. So many comments here and yet so few of them recognized that the Amicus brief was filed in a different case in a different court than was stated in the article.

    Which just goes to prove that most people barely read the headlines, let alone the articles.

    1. avatar dwb says:

      And the fact that the post has not been updated also says something. Surely they have received emails as well as comments.

  22. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Prosecutors who think their job is to make policy (with “dis retion”) not to enforce policy.

    What could possibly go wrong.

  23. “Good reason” and “proper cause” sound a lot like the literacy tests and poll taxes required of African-Americans who wanted to vote in the early 1900s.

    What was the problem with literacy tests and poll taxes? Were they not common sense, sensible regulations on voting?

  24. avatar TFred says:

    It would be one of my greatest life-long memories the moment I learned that Clarence Thomas authored the majority opinion for this case.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email