Rod Thomson

Yesterday we explained how women are being left vulnerable and unable to obtain any defensive measures to protect themselves in leftist-run cities. It is almost impossible to get even something as inherently defensive as pepper spray, to say nothing of guns, forcing some women to turn to wasp spray canisters for self-defense.

Today we turn to how even the basic Second Amendment rights of women (and men) are so roadblocked as to create a de facto ban on gun ownership in some cities. So no guns and no other defensive tools are available to women in these cities.

It’s essentially impossible to get a gun in New York City. Not technically, of course, because that would violate the Second Amendment. Just in practice.

The story of Jon Corbett trying to get a gun permit in 2015-2016 explains it perfectly. Fortunately, Corbett documents his long travails beautifully. And he is additionally a great example because he is not at all the redneck ye-haw sterotype the media and leftists like to portray as gun nuts. He is a blue-haired civils rights activist who spends time in some tough neighborhood around sometimes angry people and wanted to have a gun for self-defense.   

Here’s a condensed version of Corbett’s journey to get a gun permit by someone who is not powerful and politically connected. It’s so tragic, it’s almost funny. Almost.

I could not apply [at first] because I didn’t have an ID card issued by the New York DMV. Apparently a Florida driver’s license, a social security card, and a U.S. passport were insufficient to prove who I am…

He started over after getting a New York ID and dutifully followed all of the procedures, even as they stretched on in a vast expanse before him. The initial application included:

Please Help Us Fight For Foundational American Values!

…1 three-page application, 1 letter of necessity, 1 letter explaining any checkboxes you may have checked that need explanation (Ever had a speeding ticket? That needs to be explained!), 1 letter from your roommate approving of your license or an affidavit that you have no roommate (My 2nd Amendment rights are contingent on my roommate’s permission?), 1 affidavit from someone willing to take possession of my guns if I die, 2 photos, 1 New York ID, 1 U.S. passport, 1 social security card, and $429.75. Oh, and a copy of my business tax return. Business tax return? In order to apply to carry a firearm in New York City, you must provide a business reason…

This seems blatantly unconstitutional. Needing guns for business has nothing to do with the Second Amendment and is not the purpose. Further, his question is a great one: His Second Amendment rights require his roommate’s permission? How would that be constitutional?

…The application also asks a lot of extremely personal and seemingly irrelevant questions.  Have you ever been fired from a job? Taken a sedative medication or pain killer (you’re checking yes if you’ve ever had surgery)? Testified before Congress? The NYPD wants to know.  If your answer to any of the above is yes, add that to your explanation form next to your speeding ticket explanation. After everything is paid for, fingerprints are taken (included in that $429.75 fee, which, by the way, is non-refundable if you are denied a license, and lasts for only 2 years assuming you do)…

So Corbett has done everything required up to this point, which is fairly onerous and intrusive. But it turns out the onerous intrusiveness is only just beginning. After filing the application with all of the answers, he is sent a reply from the NYPD requiring 25 more documents.

Like Us On Facebook

These include:

  • Three letters of recommendation from people who have known you for at least five years, but are not family members, notarized and signed by those people;
  • Original court records for any of those speeding tickets you listed on your application;
  • A letter from your personal doctor describing your mental illness (funny, since I checked “no” on the “is a doctor treating you for a mental illness” box on the app);
  • Six months of bank withdrawal slips;
  • Pictures of your business, inside and out;
  • A whole lot of tax records.

By this point, it has pretty much turned into a part-time job applying for a gun permit in New York City. But he soldiers on and provides all 25 new documents, signed and notarized as required. But after all of this, he still has not completed his application process.

Corbett now needs to call a specific police officer. One guy — one guy who apparently does not want to be reached. Corbett leaves 10 messages over seven days (all of which he painstakingly documents) and never reaches the officer or gets a call back. He emails and gets nothing. He faxes and gets nothing. Finally, he actually physically travels down to 1 Police Plaza to try to find the officer. Still no luck.

So he used social media. He posted on Twitter and tagged the NYPD’s twitter account and he got considerable Twitterverse response. Perhaps not coincidentally, the officer suddenly emailed him back and they got together. Corbett says this meeting was friendly and the officer helpful, but he doubted Corbett’s permit would get approval from higher ups.

Sure enough, three weeks later, he received a “Notice of Disapproval” because the NYPD higher ups (whoever they were) decided his reason wasn’t good enough. He pursued an administrative appeal and was quickly denied.

At this point, Corbett filed suit against New York City for violating his Second Amendment rights. The city filed for a motion to summarily dismiss, and the New York judge approval the dismissal. But he appealed (because obviously Corbett is a dog at a root and good for him.) The New York Appellate Court heard his case but was hostile to it from the beginning. They, too, dismissed his case last month. Corbett is planning to appeal to the New York Supreme Court and if he loses, start over again in the federal courts.

Subscribe to our Revolutionary Youtube

There have been some separate appellate court rulings on this “need” portion of New York’s law. One upholding it, two ruling against it. But what is clear is that even if that is overturned, NYC and other anti-weapon leftist-run cities intend to make obtaining a gun all but impossible for any regular citizens — including women.

And that, combined with NYC’s and others near-ban on defensive tools down to pepper spray is leaving women increasingly vulnerable to male predators.

And that’s where the left’s war on guns has become its war on women.

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.


Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever, and a lot of sources are not trustworthy. Whatfinger.com  is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time from good sources.


 

The Left’s War On Guns Becomes A War On Women (Part II)
Liked it? Take a second to support Rod Thomson on Patreon!

Get more stuff like this

Don’t miss a single act of Revolutionary Truth... delivered to your inbox!

2 thoughts on “The Left’s War On Guns Becomes A War On Women (Part II)

  • May 10, 2018 at 2:51 pm
    Permalink

    Well, after all, New York city has such low crime rates, their policies must be working, right? Right?
    Crickets ………..

    Reply
  • May 10, 2018 at 5:34 pm
    Permalink

    In Part I, the article says that pepper-spray is not an “arm” entitled to 2A protection. This assertion is arguable. In Caetano, SCOTUS appears to say that a stun-gun probably qualifies as an “arm” deserving of 2A protection. This, notwithstanding that it is a modern artifact not contemplated in the 18’th century and has no conspicuous military application. The precedential value of Caetano is not firmly established; nevertheless, SCOTUS unanimously recorded the handwriting on the wall. Modern non-lethal weapons will be given their day-in-court under the 2A.

    The story of getting a NYC pistol permit clearly manifests that jurisdiction’s intention to “infringe” on the right to keep and bear arms. And why do we tolerate this infringement? If we tolerate this infringement, why should anyone assume that their precious right to speech or refuse to quarter troops in their homes will be sacrosanct?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

Learn How to
Decode the Media.
Download your free copy now!

3 Keys to Decoding the Media by Rod Thomson