Talk:Sullivan Act

Highly questionable information
"Many believe the act was to discriminate against immigrants in New York, particularly Italians, as the first person arrested under the law was mobster Giuseppe Costabile." This statement is sourced to a pro-gun blog, and not even to a particular blog entry there. "Many believe" seems a questionable way to make a factual statement. Positioning this information above the facts about Mayor Gaynor seems to bias the conclusions away from the factual causes and toward specualtive ones -- that is, the Gaynor shooting was a definite factor in the law's passage and discrimination only a possible one, and yet discrimination is given privilege of place (and length, and consideration). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.172.169 (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Gaynor statement moved
Moved from article page, as it does not constitute either a "pro" or "con" position on the act: (It could go elsewhere in the article, though)


 * In 1910, mayor William Jay Gaynor was shot and seriously wounded by a disgruntled former public employee, prompting calls to regulate guns in New York.

--snoyes 00:19, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I could of wrote some of it better. I wanted to get a quick dirty stub out there. Seems to have been fixed; fine with me. --  dino

Unclear
A quick question: The following sentence is unclear: "Upon first passage, the Sullivan Act banned the ownership of pistols in New York, more formally, it required licenses for New Yorkers to own guns small enough to be concealed." Does it mean that pistols were outright prohibited at first, but then allowed if licensed? Was it not in fact a ban, but rather a mandatory licensing? --snoyes 00:22, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes it was a de facto ban, because anyone who already owned a handgun was immediately in violation until they could get a license; in fact two of the first-day arrests were of pawnbrokers – one had five revolvers displayed in the shop window, the other had several in a desk drawer. --CliffC 11:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Not just guns
I expanded the list of weapons cited by the law. While working on "Mad Bomber" George Metesky I was surprised to discover he was also charged with Sullivan Law violations for carrying the thirty-odd bombs he placed around town. The law also makes having a cute little gadget called a slungshot a felony; I thought it was a typo for slingshot, but it's not. --CliffC 11:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Slungshot and slingshot in early 20th century weapons laws: Tennessee law on "going armed" forbids carrying the "slingshot" which appears to reference either the weaponized slungshot or a large metal ball (shot) in a leather or canvas bag. This has led to some humor among modern readers who read it as banning carry of slingshots. Naaman Brown (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

After finding this reference to slungshot, I followed the link. The article for "slungshot" lists states that outlaw it, and New York is not one of them. Is that an error in the "slungshot" article, or just on this talk page? They can't both be right.Jororo05 (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Timothy Sullivan?
It's attributed to Timothy Sullivan, but I couldn't find anything solid saying it was his act, though this reference makes a bland statement about gun control. Sullivan is a common name. So was it Timothy Sullivan? Some other Sullivan?

dino (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It was Timmo all right, here's the lead paragraph of a January 17 1909 NY Times editorial titled "THE POLICEMAN'S CLUB" about himself, stating that Timmo wants to disarm the police, link here, he was a fine fellow and a model crook.
 * TIMOTHY SULLIVAN, major, introducing in the State Senate a bill to deprive policemen of their weapons of offense and defense, yclept clubs, stands forth as a true representative of his constituency. A disarmed police force is one of the cherished dreams in the district of Mr. SULLIVAN, the larger.
 * --CliffC (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a direct descendant of Big Tim and he was the primary sponsor of the 1911 legislation. Also, Sullivan was not "committed" to a mental hospital. He did suffer from tertiary syphilis and was adjudicated incompetent to handle his own affairs. With that, I removed that incorrect sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.53.241 (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Dan Czitrom, "Underworld and Underdogs: Big Tim Sullivan and Metropolitan Politics in New York, 1889-1913", Journal of American History, 78.2. (1991) THAT Timothy Sullivan arrogant power- and money-grabbing thug. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing "notoriously corrupt" from the intro, because it's not pertinent to the act. There is info about Mr Sullivan's personal involvement later in the article. David (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Dpm64 I oppose this change. I believe that longstanding detail filled the purpose of illustrating the controversial nature of the act. Oktayey (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest it would be analogous to mentioning Watergate in the lede of an article about Nixon reopening relations with China. It's not relevant to the event, and looks like an attempt to discredit via an ad-hominem attack. The Sullivan Act article does a good job describing the controversy further on. David (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dpm64 I feel like its controversy is significant enough to be illustrated in the lede. If "notoriously corrupt" is removed, how would you suggest that be done? Oktayey (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As a non-American, I get the feeling that this article is touching on a bigger political debate, where discrediting the act (vs describing it as objectively as possible) is important to some people (not specifically @Oktayey). Wikipedia is an international project, and it's best to leave political baggage at home. David (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we could describe the nature of the controversy itself. The lede mentions the event that generated widespread support for the act; what was the nature of the opposition? David (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Correction — the lede does ``not`` mention the murder-suicide that generated support. Perhaps we could briefly summarize the controversy itself. David (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Dpm64 There a couple controversial aspects to the law in question: the anti-Italian sentiment linked to the act and its selective enforcement, and the discriminatory issuance of permits, practically limited exclusively to retired police and those who paid bribes.
 * I don't know if the mention of both aspects can be succinct enough, so should we choose just one? Oktayey (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Which has the most-credible citations/evidence? David (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dpm64 Although there is definitely sufficient evidence illustrating the selective enforcement of the law early on, the latter has actual recent examples of officials getting convicted of participating in bribery schemes. Oktayey (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Question:
I am searching for a reference that research which supported the Sullivan Act was admitted on the death bed of it's author to have been falsified. Anybody know who that was? Contact me "at" kc4iai_hotmail.com

LK Tucker 108.206.18.197 (talk) 06:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Discuss the Majority Opinion in the Bruen case.
Currently this article quotes from Justice Alito’s concurrence in the Bruen case, but shouldn’t it also make reference to the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, authored by Justice Thomas, which declared the “proper cause” requirement unconstitutional (after it had apparently stood for a over a century)? RoslinTollcross (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Advanced Legal Research
— Assignment last updated by Simmsmls (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)