The press haven’t pressed the police on it, but “New York’s Finest” have been playing silly buggers with the crime rate for decades, reducing crime stats, rather than crime itself. It’s a particularly galling fraud given that New York City Mayor and gun grabber Michael Bloomberg points to his patch as proof that anti-pistol policies create a safer city. Flash forward to today and the media is no longer asleep at the switch. Ish. “Some of Manhattan’s wealthiest neighborhoods are exploding in a wave of violent crime that hearkens back to the bad old days when people feared going out at night, according to NYPD data obtained by The Post . . .
Chelsea, Gramercy Park, TriBeCa, SoHo and Midtown South all posted a frightening rise in rapes in the first three months of 2013 compared with the same period in 2012. Felony assaults in the usually peaceful West Village nearly tripled, the new crime statistics show . . .
Increases in rapes, felony assault and grand larceny sent Village crime stats rocketing 28.7 percent during the Jan. 1-to-April 7 reporting period, the figures show.
The 13th Precinct (Gramercy) and the 1st Precinct (TriBeCa, SoHo and the Financial District) each reported five rapes since January, up from two each in the same period a year ago.
Chelsea’s 10th Precinct recorded four rapes, up from none a year ago, and saw a 61.5 percent hike in felony assaults, from 13 to 21.
The West Village’s 6th Precinct reported 44 felony assaults so far this year — up from 16 — for a 175 percent spike, while grand larceny jumped 36.6 percent to 351 incidents, against 257. There were two rapes, compared with one a year ago.
Now you could say that the percentage increases are misleading. That the absolute numbers and the overall percentage (of the population) affected is low. But then I’d refer you to the top of this article and ask what the real stats are. And pull the “if an armed civilian stops just one rape it’s worth it” card.
Given that these are some tony neighborhoods, what’s the bet that Hizzoner will instruct the Police Chief to redeploy troops—sorry, police into these ‘hoods to protect the city’s political and financial elite—leaving other areas with less “juice” with less police presence.
At the same time, I’d like to see how many pistol permit holders live in these areas and how that number has increased. Not their names or exact addresses, but the total number and borough location. I imagine that would be instructive, on some level. [h/t b0bb33z3r]
Bah, Remington, (spits)
You had me at “Some of Manhattan’s wealthiest neighborhoods are exploding in a wave of violent crime that hearkens back to the bad old days when people feared going out at night…”
So then, let’s also applaud this because the class warfare talking point is being manifested right in front of us. Those damn wealthy richie rich folks! They deserve to be terrorized! Grr. Argh. Occupy! 99%! We want what you have! *facepalm*
This is not the America I want to pass onto my children. That particular America has been hijacked by statists, progressives, and other Constitutionally-retarded miscreants.
“Two A&T staff members”
This is what stuck out to me. Why does everyone think they are working for Homeland Security and need to be on the look out for “Terrorists”?
Just some more anti-gun morons acting as if they know everything about guns when they actually know jacksh!t.
Ah crap guys, my sympathy button is broken again.
Or maybe it just never works for pretentious trust fund babies.
Seems to me the SCOTUS should be interpreting the Constitution as a form of guidance (permission/prohibition) to the States instead of letting the States sort it out, THEN ruling on the Constitutionality of what they’ve done. This SCOTUS kind of has it backwards. They should be telling the Elected Law Makers what they can and cannot do in accordance with the Constitution, THEN let the States sort it out. So, I am of the opinion that this would be better even than a Constitutional Review of individual laws, make it easier for Law Makers to formulate workable Laws instead of screwy, wild-hair-up-their-butts, idiot laws, and even save some money to the Taxpayers…OH!…NOW I see! The LAST thing the Fed wants to do is save Taxpayer money! Then there would be less rationale for raising Taxes and borrowing Trillions from the Communist Red Chinese….well, then, “Nevermind!”
In the present Federal Government, they are all on the same side, and it ain’t the same side us ordinary Citizens are on.
Its a good amendment I think it will kill the gun control bill period.
Yeah…you’re right, Chuck. Far better that only New York criminals have guns.
Douche.
Something needs to be done about the gun violence in NYC
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Off-Duty-Police-Officer-East-Flatbush-Brooklyn-Kill-Self-Husband-Child-203019541.html
Caveat: I have tried to contact this group about membership and support, and have never received a reply.
I picked up a used 597 (non-HB, but with the same color and model of stock) at Gander Mountain for $75 a few years ago. It is more accurate than my 10/22 by a hair. I have not had the problem with jamming that people seem to have (although when it does jam, it’s probably Remmy Golden), even with Remington OEM 30-round mags. Great gun that my kids love to shoot. Great service from Remington, too, who put more free parts and labor into it than I paid for it. I’m not getting rid of it in a fit of pique, but I am sorely disappointed they’re staying in enemy territory. But not the least bit surprised.
There’s at least one error here. MA allows out of state travelers to carry their firearms through the state unloaded and locked in the trunk as long as they have a valid permit from their home state for that firearm.
Is it disturbing to anyone else that the laws written in the books, for which we are responsible for following to the letter, are impossible to interpret until AFTER you’ve accidentally broken them and then have to see what a lawyer says? Why not just make it plain and simple english…clear as day with all provisions taken care of…these lawmakers are paid a lot of money…they could at least make it so the average joe can interpret it. For example, the 1995 School Zone act…it’s not exactly clear about what one can and can’t do…for example, I don’t live within 1000 feet of a school zone, but every path to and from my home is… I’ve been told by the town police that if i’m not on property i’m fine carrying…but what with the AG say? It should be black and white…
Taco Ninja,
Early in our nation’s history, we used the basics of English Common Law and adhered to the most basic premise, “An it harm none, do what ye will”.
In other words do anything you want (and be legal) as long as it doesn’t harm anyone. Want to paint your home orange? You are good to go. Want to have a rock garden? Have at it. Want to own a bazooka? That’s fine as long as you don’t shoot anyone with it.
Somewhere along the way, “We the People” allowed the politicians, attorneys, and communists (is there any difference among them?) to conflate, complicate, and obfuscate our “laws” to the point that no one knows them all, everyone is guilty of something, and no one understands them. Even worse, the powers that be are now openly throwing away the most basic tenants of several hundred years of common law such as habeus corpus and due process.
It is a sad time indeed. I am not sure what is necessary going forward.
It’s not like anyone knows how SCOTUS would rule if it took on the case. The Heller and McDonald cases were far less controversial. Handguns had been completely banned only in Chicago, DC, and a few smaller Illinois towns. There was no statewide ban anywhere in the US. So, for all the boost those cases gave to the 2nd Amendment, very few jurisdictions needed to change their laws as a result. Perhaps their greatest value was in preventing future bans and changing the tone of the debate.
Now, with carrying, some two-thirds of the US population live in “shall issue” States, but the other third doesn’t. A ruling that carry permits must be “shall issue” would thus be much, much broader in scope. New York City residents would be able to carry in a heavily pedestrian urban environment. Are there really votes in SCOTUS for such a ruling, given that Heller and McDonald were 5-4 decisions? Maybe, but if not, they might either rule against or find a way to “split the difference” in some fairly drastic way.
So, maybe it’s OK, for now at least.
I clicked on the review just to see who else is avoiding Remington.
They are on my NO-BUY list. (Based on a few of the above comments, I don’t feel like I’d be missing much by not having a 597 in my collection anyway.)
It shouldn’t matter one bit where you are or what your doing, your Second Amendment rights go with you everywhere. Those seeking to limit those rights are only seeking the power and control over you. Schumer wants to make sure government has control of the sheep and they aren’t armed. Cloth Sword Tees
I recommend some of the comments to Kopel’s post critiquing his use of the rules of statutory construction. This isn’t to say M-T is a good idea, or that, assuming something like M-T will pass the language shouldn’t be cleaned up, just that Kopel may be panicking a bit.
So…does traveling through Massachusetts with a firearm for which you have no permit — as require by state law — constitute intent to commit a crime?
Kopel raises some interesting points — but the one above is utter nonsense and he knows it. He should look up an obscure part of the Constitution called The Supremacy Clause.
Expect another run on powder vendors in 3.. 2… 1…
Any way to zoom in on the photo to see if he had his finger on the trigger?
There were no reason for the gun to be upholstered in public. There was no identifiable threat at that second.
Fellow patriots, When kings and governments usurp our natural Rights, it is time
to rebel against the tyranny!
When I shipped out of New York for Germany, in 1977, I vowed to never return.
Too bad that some states usurp the Rights of citizens, which I served for 20 years, to defend!
Oath of Enlistment
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
I keep and bear arms, even retired, for that oath! Oaths NEVER expire!
I donated $100 to his legal defense fund.
The only thing we can do is fight each and every one of these gun rights vioations.