100 Years Ago, the Shot That Spurred New York’s Gun-Control Law

NYT Headline The New York Times, May 11, 1911.

Nothing spurs talk of gun-control legislation quite like a highly publicized crime committed with the aid of a handgun.

Such was the case 100 years ago this month, when a brazen murder committed near Gramercy Park led to the enactment a few months later of New York State’s landmark Sullivan Law, which required police-issued licenses for those wishing to possess concealable firearms and made carrying an unlicensed concealed weapon a felony (pdf).

The Sullivan Law, still on the books as section 400.00 of the New York Penal Law, became a model for gun-control legislation enacted throughout the country.

On Jan. 23, 1911, a novelist, David Graham Phillips, was shot by Fitzhugh Coyle Goldsborough in a brazen early afternoon attack on East 21st Street (or, as it is known today, Gramercy Park North). After firing six shots, Goldsborough put the gun to his temple, killing himself. Phillips survived until the next evening.

George Petit le Brun, who worked in the city’s coroner’s office, was moved to act. “I reasoned that the time had come to have legislation passed that would prevent the sale of pistols to irresponsible persons,” he wrote in his 1960 autobiography. “In the vernacular of the day, ‘There oughta be a law.’ ”

Timothy D. SullivanUnderwood & Underwood Timothy D. Sullivan in 1913.

He sent letters to prominent New Yorkers urging their support for “a law, whereby a person having a revolver in his possession, either concealed or displayed, unless for some legitimate purpose, could be punished by a severe prison sentence,” as he told The New York Times less than a week after the killing (pdf). He drew up a list of recommendations for the State Legislature and delivered them to State Senator Timothy D. Sullivan, a Tammany Hall boss better known as “Big Tim” Sullivan.

Sullivan was already on record as pledging to introduce legislation that placed restrictions on guns. “The gun toter and the tough man – I don’t want his vote,” he said during his 1910 campaign. “There are a lot of good, law-abiding people in the Lower East Side. They do not like to have the red badge of shame waved over that part of the city. They have no sympathy with the tough men, the men who tote guns and use them far too frequently.”

The Sullivan bill was opposed by the state’s gun manufacturers and, most prominently, State Senator Timothy Ferris of Oneida County. “Your bill won’t stop murders,” Ferris said during the legislative debate (pdf). “You can’t force a burglar to get a license to use a gun. He’ll get one from another state.” The issue of whether the law violated the United States Constitution was raised. In a letter to The Times (pdf), a “law-abiding citizen” wrote that he objected to the “automatic establishment of a presumption of felonious intent by the proposed law on the part of a citizen possessed of arms for home defense. Hence the unconstitutionality of the proposed law.”

Others were skeptical of the motives of Sullivan, notorious for his association with the underworld. “Cynics suggested that Big Tim pushed through his law so Tammany could keep their gangster allies under control,” wrote Richard F. Welch in his 2009 biography, “King of the Bowery: Big Tim Sullivan, Tammany Hall, and New York City from the Gilded Age to the Progressive Era.”

“Hoodlums who forgot who really ran things in the city could be easily arrested if found with a gun – or if one was slipped into their pocket,” Mr. Welch wrote. “The Big Feller surely heard the charges and likely shrugged them off. If there were political benefits from doing the right thing, what was the problem? But all the available evidence indicates that Tim’s fight to bring firearms under control sprang from heartfelt conviction.”

He certainly sounded sincere.

“I don’t know anything about the Bible except what I’ve heard from Senator Brackett and others here, where quotations are continually made,” Sullivan said during the Senate debate. “It seems to me, though, that this bill, if passed, will help along obedience to the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ I think so much of this measure that if you pass it I believe it will save more souls than all the preachers in the city talking for the next 10 years.”

The Sullivan Law, which sailed through both houses of the Legislature, went into effect as the clock struck midnight on Aug. 31, 1911 (pdf).

Comments are no longer being accepted.

How convenient that you left out the fact that the Sullivan Act was written to deliberately target the Italian immigrants coming into the city. It had nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with discriminating against those the elite found undesirable.

2nd ammendment.

A society that only permits its police to bear arms is a police state.

Laws based on a reaction to a single case are often bad laws, with unintended consequences that harm society. Examples abound.

100 years later and lok where we are now, thanks to the NRA!

Well, The NY Times loves History……..They quote their own paper………….

How do you explain that there were more Murders with Guns 50, 60 and more years after the Sullivan Law? ………………………..A law that never worked other than in the minds of those that …..want more restrictive laws.

Great self promoting work by the NY Times…and…..a skewed look at the world from the NY Times…

….They quote their paper 100 years later and that is news?………………..

Only in the NY Times………..”Yesterdays News Today !”

And after 100 years, it’s really worked out well for us, hasn’t it? We managed to eliminate gun crime by requiring criminals (who ignore the law by fact that they are criminals) to get a license to own a gun….
Oh, wait….
Never mind, it’s really for the children.

There’s a little more to “Big Tim’s” input to this law which bears his name. As the above article alludes to, Sullivan had a big following of people who made gun play part of their daily occupations. Unfortunately, some of their law-abiding victims were also known to carry guns. Someone had to put a stop to the law-abiding carrying guns, and Tim Sullivan was their man to do it. Of course, the criminal element did not bother with Sullivan Law compliance, but the law-abiding citizens did, making the criminals’ job all that much more easier.

Unfortunately, this sounds all too familiar with what we are hearing today.

The Liberal Establishment within NYC, especially Mayor Bloomberg, find out what people knew a century ago…that the criminal element have no plans with gun law compliance. Faced with that, Bloomberg now blames lawful, legitimate, gun dealers hundreds of miles away from NYC, for NYC’s gun problem, despite the fact that Bloomberg’s police department has abandoned gun enforcement out of fear of accusations from politicians representing members of protected groups of ‘profiling.’

So the blood continues to flow in certain NYC neighborhoods, which is apparently better (in Bloomberg’s mind) than having to explain why Ray Kelly’s NYPD locked up many members of certain protected groups for gun possession.

NYC = R.I.P.

Nice to know that somebody did the right thing and passed a gun controll law 100 years ago. Not every one should be allowed to own a gun. The standard should be ” a well regulated militia” i.e. the eligibility to serve in a well regulated militia. So a schizo with paranoid delusions should not be allowed to own guns and if he does, then they should be stripped from him. Ditto for felons, people who have committed acts of domestic violence on their partners, felons, mental defectives, those who have made threats, those who have been convicted of drunk driving, those who have not graduated from a state approved course of gun maintenance, safety and legal use of said gun, etc. You don’t get behind the wheel of a car without a driving license. Neither should you or me own a gun without a gun license. And if you do anything to forfeit the gun license, then you also forfeit the right to own any gun – in which case, you’ll have to turn in your guns to the appropriate authorities. A deliberate failure to report your guns if stolen automatically makes you liable and should be enough cause for you to lose your gun license. It is YOUR responsibility to keep track of the guns you own. And the gun license should be renewed periodically.

Guns don’t kill people, but people kill people? So be it, regulate the hell out of the gun owners. And again, the standard of gun ownership should not be the ability to use a toilet bowl as in Arizona but the eligibility to be a member of a well regulated militia.

“‘I think so much of this measure that if you pass it I believe it will save more souls than all the preachers in the city talking for the next 10 years.'”

So did it?

Blacklight, Re 2A: “Well-regulated” means “well equipped”. “Militia” meant “all adult citizens”. We won’t even deal with the opening phrase, which is informational, not qualifying.

To compare a gun with an auto is specious. Otherwise, just as one would remove a kitchen knife from a child, anything lethal, not just a gun, should be removed from someone who is not rational. However, it is impossible to monitor everyone. And, if a person cannot get access to a gun, suicide belts, gasoline, vehicles, knives, a well-executed neck snap, are all available.

The bottom line is that no one can legislate against sudden madness. These homicides by the insane cannot be regulated or stopped. Fortunately, they are very rare.

Finally, I ask the anti-civilian self-defense crowd to identify a single case, throughout history, in which any person was made safer by being disarmed.

As an American currently residing in Canada, I can tell you how horrible civilian disarmament or the over-regulation of gun control can be. In Ontario this summer, an innocent man’s house was hit with several molotov cocktails early one Sunday morning. To get out of his burning house, he accessed one legal pistol from his safe and fired two warning shots to frighten away the assailants. The police arrived at his rural home 22 minutes later. This man was arrrested, apparently, by an anti-gun prosecutor, for unsafe use of a firearm and several other charges. If the case continues, he will be ruined financially. If he were on anti-depressants, should he have burned to death?

As usual, you have zealots on both sides here as you do around the country. Having strict gun control laws alone will not stop gun violence if you don’t have a national policy like with cigarettes of keeping them legal but “evil”, a national policy of discouraging gun ownership except for hunting or obvious self defense and making gun owners pay for the mayhem and tragedies they create with taxes, fines, legal action, boycotts etc.

On the other hand, common sense will tell you that the less guns you have, the less likely mayhem and tragedy will occur.
So as long as gun ownership is kept legal, common sense restrictions on them is a no brainer.

NYC gun laws seriously regulate who can carry a loaded gun. However NYC imposes large annual fees for ownership of a handgun. This has nothing to do with carrying a weapon. This only applies to those that keep a weapon in their home and carry it unloaded to a range or for repair. It is as if NYC imposed large annual fees to vote or assemble. I don’t know how the city gets away with it. Is it so obviously money the city is not entitled to.

–V65Magnafan:

“Finally, I ask the anti-civilian self-defense crowd to identify a single case, throughout history, in which any person was made safer by being disarmed.”

Really? I am safer and so are the 15 million New Yorkers in the New York Metropolitan area. Right here. Right now. It’s kind of a relief walking down the street knowing that I won’t get shot by an idiot.

The outdated Sullivan-style gun-control laws have been refuted across the majority of the country as unfair, politicized systems. The fact that NY’s current statutes limit permits to persons who have “good reason to fear injury,” “justifiable need,” “proper cause,” or similar qualifications gives short shrift to the general risk that each person faces simply by living in a society where criminals move freely. Implicit in the needs-based language of discretionary statutes is the notion that the privilege of carrying arms is a function of the risk of criminal victimization: that people who, because of their circumstance, face an unusually high risk of criminal victimization and are in some sense “natural” targets of criminal assault or special targets of opportunity have a justifiable “need” to carry arms; the rest of the populace, who face only an “ordinary” risk, is not justified in wanting to carry arms to defend itself. Not only is there no reason to believe that those who face an unusual risk of criminal victimization are inherently more trustworthy or competent with a firearm than those who do not, but the implicit suggestion that some lives–because of wealth, fame, unique job requirements, or the preferences of criminals–are somehow more worth protecting than others is morally repugnant and indefensible.

Only Catholics translate the sixth commandment as “Thou Shalt Not Kill.”

To most others it is understood to mean “Thou shalt not murder.”

Killing in the name of God has been just dandy since old testament times.

Killing in self-defense is not murder.

-Matt:

” Not only is there no reason to believe that those who face an unusual risk of criminal victimization are inherently more trustworthy or competent with a firearm than those who do not, but the implicit suggestion that some lives–because of wealth, fame, unique job requirements, or the preferences of criminals–are somehow more worth protecting than others is morally repugnant and indefensible.”

Really? I would not hesitate and say that the life of a child or a nurse or a teacher is worth more than mine – And that’s just two examples. Nor would I hesitate to say that a bodega clerk or a jewel courier or a Brinks security guard have a better reason to own a gun than I do – not that they would necessarily feel privileged or lucky about it. Can’t think of too many nurses or doctors who want to walk around carrying that kind of jewelry either. In this society, children and especially babies are more at risk than any adult. So let’s arm the tykes.

As someone who lives in NYC(Brooklyn specifically) I feel less safe by the fact that It is illegal for me to bear arms openly or in my house unless applying for licenses & permits. I still have as much of a chance of getting shot by some random person on the street, since criminals are not required to follow gun control laws as law-abiding citizens are. In our attempt to protect ourselves from firearms, we create an environment where all NYC residents are made a standard victim, while those who disregard the law, are able to buy and use guns without concerning themselves with gun laws.

Just because you are not armed, and it is illegal to arm yourself in NYC (concealed or w/o permit) doesn’t mean that someone won’t randomly shoot you walking down the street or for whatever reason. It only means that you won’t have an opportunity to return fire or defend yourself if that or some other situation presents itself.

Most people who vouch for gun control seem to have never fired one. As a life-long NY’er I’ve always understood the possibility that anyone on the street could be carrying a concealed weapon(including guns). The problem is that while I assume this of everyone else, the gun laws make it that criminals assume no-one else is armed, and are by default in a better situation defensively then the rest of NYC.

Beyond that, with cops going off every other year or so unloading dozens of bullets or rampant brutality, we need more armed citizens to defend ourselves from criminals and the criminal/unjust actions of the police. Warrant-less searches, and police brutality are bigger issues than letting law-abiding, responsible citizens carry guns for protection.. Key word is protection. Owning a gun doesn’t make you a criminal and doesn’t mean that you will use it for other than protection. It’s the illegal guns that would be used for more illicit then defensive purposes. The people just wanting to arm themselves don’t want to be sitting ducks waiting for the next psycho that has a gun. If Loughner was in NYC he would’ve been able to kill dozens more people, few of us carry guns, and the majority of people’s only firearm experience is what they see on TV.

1 armed attacker + 1 armed defender = stalemate or win-win/loss-loss

1 armed attacker + 10 million unarmed civilians = more dead civilians

What everyone seems to forget is that Tim Sullivan was a mouthpiece for Tammany Hall. Could it be that the Sullivan Law was really designed to protect the lives of Tammany Hall thugs as they went about on election day intimidating voters who might vote against the Tammany Hall candidates? The history of weapons prohibitions, including the “Sword Control Edicts” of the Tokogawa Shogunate in Japan of 1600, is to protect the entrenched elite.

Second, in the 2008 Heller decision, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment included an individual right to firearms for protection. Now, what other right in the Bill of Rights has such stringent limitations as gun ownership?

I don’t think it’s accurate to say that it became a model for gun laws enacted throughout the country, far from it in fact. No State other than New York has a similar system for handgun permits, although a few other States do have them but they work in a different way, New Jersey and Mass. are most similar but there are distinct differences and they were enacted much later. The NRA opposed the Sullivan Act and developed model legislation which they promoted in Pennsylvania, it was called the “Uniform Revolver Act” but in the end the issue basically died away because of Congress enacting the National Firearms Act in 1934.

What is more interesting to me is a tiny article in the NY Times from 1911 describing a meeting between NYCPD and the Home Office (British interior ministry) who together with a few police officers from the Met had come over to the US to see how things were done Stateside.

I believe that the Sullivan Act led to the formulation of the Pistols Bill 1911 based in part on that meeting, a bill designed to enact a licensing system on pistols in the UK. The bill was never enacted as WW1 got in the way, but after the war the Home Office designed a licensing system for pistols and rifles in the Firearms Act 1920 based on the Pistols Bill 1911, and the Firearms Act 1920 was widely copied throughout the British Empire and later the Commonwealth.

So it would be accurate to say that NY gun laws led to the gun laws in the UK and elsewhere, but not the gun laws across the US, bizarrely.

Laws designed to stop the “anarchist and intellectual malcontents of the great cities, whose weapons are the bomb and the automatic pistol” and “the savage or semi-civilised tribesmen in outlying parts of the Empire; whose main demand is for rifles and ammunition”.

//www.cybershooters.org/PDFdocs/Report%20of%20Committee%20on%20Control%20of%20Firearms.pdf

Tucson-a young man with a weapon happens upon the scene and but for pure luck does not shoot the man holding a gun. Of course, that man had just taken that gun from the actual shooter.
Detroit-a man walks into a police station and shoots many officers, demonstrating that some Walter Mitty type with the latest Glock with a huge magazine, in a similar confrontation, would probably panic and add to the carnage. Last summer I watched as a bunch of tea-baggers proudly pranced around with their weapons, which some proceeded to drop!
This is why the second amendment specifies that any citizen militia be well regulated-the training and monitoring matters. Without it, you end up with a well-armed, poorly trained mob.

The sullivan law, as with the (criminal) justice system, need to be scraped. For they are both just that….criminal.

–Ray: “This is why the second amendment specifies that any citizen militia be well regulated-the training and monitoring matters. Without it, you end up with a well-armed, poorly trained mob.”

Nothing like a well armed mob with loose trigger fingers to drive up the life and health insurance rates – yours and mine.

No idiot with guns ever guaranteed my freedom. I am the guarantor of my own freedom – I and my respect for the rule of law – and the day I need a gun to guarantee my freedom will be a sad day for all of us.

It is my fervent hope that the grotesquely unconstitutional Sullivan law is laid to rest once and for all by a NY citizen with standing who has the time and resources to pursue a Federal lawsuit all the way to the Supreme Court.

I have never heard or read any arguments for gun control that had a fraction of the wisdom or persuasiveness that our Founding Fathers displayed when arguing for and then enshrining our Right to Keep and Bear arms.

Our American legal system is now quite rightfully heeding our Founders, who still maintain an honor and credibility far beyond that of Timothy Sullivan, The New York Times, “blacklight” and the rest of the enemies of our Constitution.

here’s to the Sullivan Law getting struck down within the next few years.

Guns should be outlawed in a civilized society. We should not make or import them. The government should buyout gun manufacturers like we are trying to buyout Iran and North Korea not to make nuclear weapons.

“It’s kind of a relief walking down the street knowing that I won’t get shot by an idiot.”

SO… this never happens in NYC? Its not possible? Maybe if you were working with a brighter bulb you might see that you are not safer when only the criminals are armed.