The Criminal Steering of Gun Control

by Ron Borsch

World history tells us of tyrants and dictators that have deprived the populace of their God given rights, especially the right to keep and bear arms. The Jewish Defense League (www.JDL.org) has advised that everywhere in World history where genocide has been committed, the genocide was always preceded by disarming the population. The party or government responsible for disarming may not always be the same party or government that committed the genocide, nonetheless, genocide was committed on the disarmed and defenseless.

There are even certain modern evils in the United Nations that must be monitored with vigilance lest the sovereignty of the United States and our Constitution become compromised. Many people have been ill informed or unaware of our own American history and the criminal element dictating laws that prevent honest men and women from their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The “Tell”, or verbal history along with recorded documentation, has been told before. Some have forgotten, and others may never have known. Herein is a reminder:

LAW BY CRIMINALS, FOR CRIMINALS

Oath keepers such as professional law enforcement officers should be especially aware of the American historical foundation of gun control promoted by criminals. The criminal precedent is of course the 1911 Sullivan Act in New York, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act). Today, this and other evil laws like it are still in effect, thanks to quasi-criminals and or politicians that violate their oath of office by failing to support and enforce the constitution of the United States of America, which of course, includes the second amendment.

TIM SULLIVAN, CRIMINAL AND POLITICIAN

A near giant of a man, Big Tim Sullivan, was a notorious Irish gangster, (Mike Hudson http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/column357.html). His mob controlled New York City south of 14th Street around the turn of the 20th century. This dangerous street thug and politician became an influential figure in the corrupt Democratic machine there known as Tammany Hall. He made the transition from thug and political ward heeler to New York state senator in 1894. Sullivan represented New York's Red Hook district, (Patrick Sperry http://patricksperry.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/the-sullivan-act-some-hist...), sometimes referred to as "Hells Kitchen." Sullivan served a six-year term in the U.S. House of Representatives, and returned to the New York state legislature in 1909, complaining that he "lacked the juice in Washington that he had grown accustomed to on his home turf."

In 1911, Sullivan's constituents, (Irish and Jewish mobsters who put him into office), shared a growing problem with him. Immigrant Italian mafia members were horning in on what had once been their exclusive area of criminal operations. Commercial travelers passing through the district would be relieved of their valuables by armed robbers. Naturally, in order to protect themselves and their property, honest travelers began to arm themselves.

Gunfights in what was to become Little Italy became more frequent. This both raised the criminal's risk while conducting armed robbery, and reduced the gang's profit. Sullivan's criminal constituents then "lobbied" Sullivan to introduce a law prohibiting concealed carry of pistols in order to reduce the risk to his criminal constituents while robbing honest people. That Sullivan was successful in passing a law disarming honest citizens so as to aid and abet other criminals is well documented.

THE EFFECT OF THE SULLIVAN ACT

The criminals responsible for enacting this law had no intention of being deterred themselves by the Sullivan Act from their business of armed robbery. Thus, the effect of the Sullivan Act was precisely what the criminals intended, whereby they could be armed and the law abiding could not. Having a seriously unfair tactical advantage over the law abiding made their criminal life of crime much safer and easier.

Blogger NTCNoob, (http://www.defensivehandguns.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1301318144/4 March 28th 2011), offers a link to a legal brief which in part discussed the history of the Sullivan Act (http://www.longislandfirearms.com/LIF_Briefs/LIF_Brief.pdf) and his favorite part of the brief is this section which affirms Professor John Lott's (http://johnrlott.blogspot.com) research that "more guns equal less crime":

As one scholar concludes: "It didn't take long for those hopes to be dashed: within twelve months of the passage of the Sullivan Law, New York City's murder rate increased 18 percent." In the year after enactment, New York City experienced "a crime wave unequaled in its history." in 1912 presidents of fourteen burglary insurance companies called for repeal of the Act, arguing that burglaries and robberies had increased by 40%. The following year, an insurance industry publication argued that in practice the law restricted only the "honest man" and that a criminal would "carry his pistol, law or no law."

CRIMINAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES

Criminal and Killer Empowerment Zones, (http://www.spartancops.com/killer-empowerment-zones/ and http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/archive/story/2010/9/20) are commonly known as "Gun-Free" zones only by the "Reality-Challenged." "Gun-Free" is a misleading term. To the armed criminal, it means both a victim rich environment and profit. The honest citizens however, are in peril from the killers, rapists and armed robbers when they obey the law, yet may be subject to arrest when exercising their 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. The consequences can and has proved deadly to the law abiding innocents.

We are told that any harm that comes to good people because of criminal empowerment zones is unintended. Unfortunately for honest folk, considering the criminal history of gun control, the actual reality consequences, facts, common sense, and the truth would all suggest otherwise.

YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN

Empowering criminals by the process of disarming honest men and women is similar to "Killer Empowerment Zones, where only the criminal's health, welfare and safety is almost guaranteed, while the defenseless innocents are an afterthought, leaving them totally on their own. The result is the same whether the criminal empowerment zone is a school, workplace, restaurant, church, shopping mall, drugstore, island, roller rink, city, an entire state or country. The law abiding are denied a level playing field.

HURRICANE KATRINA AND MODERN UNLAWFUL DISARMING OF CITIZENS

New Orleans Louisiana was hard hit by Hurricane Katrina and flooding. There were many problems and failures. For a variety of reasons, many people elected to remain in their homes. Roving gangs were a threat to honest citizens and law enforcement there admittedly was unable to protect their own citizens. Looting and a myriad of crimes against persons and property were committed.

The honest law abiding and God fearing citizens that possessed firearms at least had a chance at protecting themselves. That was until New Orleans Mayor Nagin, (who fled to Baton Rouge), unconstitutionally ordered that his remaining citizens be disarmed. P. Edwin Compass III, superintendent of police, stated "No one is allowed to be armed. We are going to take all the guns." (http://reason.com/archives/2005/09/10/defenseless-on-the-bayou) The mayor and law enforcement officers there all violated their oaths when they went door to door confiscating legally owned firearms.

CRIMINAL RISK – BENEFIT ANALYISIS

We are reminded of the phrases "Who benefits?" or "Follow the money!" Clearly criminal empowerment zones reduce the risk to criminals pursuing their trade. Criminal empowerment zones allow their crimes to be profitable, (or murderous, depending solely on the criminals whim). Are criminal “Lobbies” still behind unconstitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms? Do some politicians still intentionally aid and abet crime as the Sullivan Act does, or are they merely clueless as to the potential harm? We suggest, you readers decide!

CONCLUSION

Word history shows us that genocide has been a byproduct of disarming the law abiding. American history has shown us that early gun control has been introduced by criminal politicians to benefit their criminal constituents. For the non-criminals, the Utopian intent of any "Gun-Free" area is of course, a delusion that laws or warning signs at a public facility will be sufficient to protect the public. The otherwise perfectly legal, concealed weapon civilians are disarmed and rendered as defenseless as everyone else.

While this Utopian theory has no validated tracking history of success, it certainly has a documented record of failure. Even if we concede that the Utopians might deserve an "A" for "good intentions," they certainly have also earned an "F" as in FATAL for actual results.

For example:

Anyone with enough interest to do the research will find that factually, of cities with similar demographics, those which unconstitutionally restrict the right to keep and bear arms have a significantly higher crime rate than those that do not. These are factual clues.

The foundation of American "Gun Control" was sponsored by and promoted by criminals. The criminal element benefits from most laws that violate the constitution. Politicians that propose laws that violate the 2nd amendment also violate their oaths to support the Constitution. "Gun Control" is a façade for a hidden agenda. "Gun Control" is a silly theory alleging that it protects the public. In reality there is no evidence of gun control protecting the public. In fact, it is quite evident that everywhere oppressive gun control exists crime is significantly higher than areas where honest citizens are permitted to keep and bear arms.

If gun control and gun free zones were effective deterrents, we would be applying their success as countermeasures to crimes "A through Z." For example: Arson Control/Arson free zones; Burglary Control/Burglar free zones; Drug Control/Drug free zones; Rape Control/Rape free zones, and so on. Anyone honest with themselves can understand the analogy here, the clarity being that none of these efforts would have an effect on the intended criminal element target.

One is tempted to think about the analogy of sovereign nations signing a treaty on nuclear disarming and President Ronald Reagan's quote about "Trust but verify." Unfortunately, criminals are not sovereign, any agreement signed by them would certainly not be trustworthy, and because of their unlawful and shadowy methods, there is no reliable way to verify they are not carrying firearms. This leads us back to square one, where gun control both effects, and punishes only honest citizens.

The most recent and aggravated example is the gun confiscation in New Orleans, LA. The citizens were clearly on their own as police were unable to protect them. Then the police unlawfully confiscated legally owned firearms from people’s homes, literally robbing them of the ability to protect themselves. When civilization returned, and the citizens used the courts to get their firearms back, the court commanded the return of their firearms. The police department refused orders from the court and would not return the stolen property until sued by the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Association.

How could this happen in America?

About the author: After a three decade police career, Ron Borsch is semi-retired. While retaining a police commission as a consultant-trainer, he manages and is the lead trainer for SEALE Regional Police Training Academy, a post-graduate facility in Bedford Ohio. SEALE Academy has specialized in tactically training 1st responders since the year 2000. Their current evolution of active killer countermeasures is SOLO, "Single Officer Lifesaving Others"©. Ron has presented various subjects in several different states to fellow officers, Chiefs of Police, national and international instructor audiences.