some are more equal than others.

So I hear some ball boy shot himself in the leg in a Manhattan night club by accident.  They filed charges against him, and now he’s at the NYPD with his high-dollar lawyer, turning himself in.

Now, New York has a law called the Sullivan Act, which makes it a dreadful offense to possess and carry a pistol in the city, unless you are one of the Anointed who get a discretionary carry permit from the NYPD.  (If you’re not Donald Trump, Howard Stern, or Bobby DeNiro, your chances on that front are slim to non-existent.)  The law provides for a mandatory year in jail for possessing or carrying an unlicensed handgun in NYC.

How much time do you think the famous ball boy will do? 

If one of the unwashed proles were charged with the same offense, he wouldn’t be allowed to go home,  consult with his lawyer, and then turn himself in voluntarily.  But when you get paid a hojilion dollars a year for throwing a pigskin around, not only do you get preferential, nay, deferential treatment, but you also get to afford a high-dollar lawyer who will get the charge dismissed or lowered to a negligible misdemeanor.

His lawyer opines thusly:

"My hope is that it plays out well and he can continue his career, because he’s a good person I think, with a brilliant athletic career. And it would be a terrible sadness if an isolated incident could ruin a life," said Brafman.

Of course, if you’re a pipefitter or network administrator, and you got busted on the subway for carrying a snubby to keep your hide safe during the late-evening commute, nobody in charge of NYC’s law enforcement or legal system would give a shit about an “isolated incident ruining a life”, even though an NFL superstar can financially weather a year in the pokey much better than most other folks. 

The hallmarks of an unjust law are ill-defined standards and selective enforcement, and the Sullivan Law is definitely a prime example of an unjust law.  It gives the police the power to crack down on the peasants, while giving them leeway to make exceptions for the nobility.

20 thoughts on “some are more equal than others.

  1. […] Like you and me, only better. […]

  2. Sevesteen says:

    In general, I support chipping away at gun rights, even if we don’t get everything. May issue is an exception–I’d be against it even as an intermediate step towards shall issue.

  3. If you’re not Donald Trump, Howard Stern, or Bobby DeNiro, your chances on that front are slim to non-existent.

    No doubt Slim just walked out the door, too…

  4. ChrisB says:

    He won’t go to jail because New Yorkers don’t want him in jail. It’s a question of values: they obviously don’t value their rights but they very much value the possibility of another Superbowl victory.

  5. Huck says:

    Since when is some arrogant jock who wears his highest I.Q. score on his jersey “nobility”?

  6. Marko says:

    Since his kind (jocks, not blacks) gets pampered, coddled, excused, fought over, adored, and showered with money from a young age because they’re good at playing ball.

    Seriously…these kids are used to getting what they want, to do what they want, and to not have to live by the rules imposed on others, as long as they perform on the ball field and make money for their school or sponsor. And then people are surprised when those kids think that being above the rules is a permanent condition, and act accordingly.

  7. “selective enforcement” of laws, regardless of the perceived need or desireability of the law in question (pick one, any one), is an epidemic from sea to shining sea, not limited to ballplayers or other “celebs”, and not likely to be cured anytime soon.

    jtc

  8. anon says:

    “An unjust law is no law.”–Thomas Aquinas

  9. theflatwhite says:

    The law is horrible in the first place.

    There’s something wrong when a man faces a year in jail just for exercising his 2nd Amendment rights (albeit stupidly).

    That’s a whopping 2/3 of the time Michael Vick will spend behind bars for multiple counts of animal abuse.

  10. theflatwhite says:

    Interestingly enough, Michael Blomberg agrees with you.

    Apparently, guns are so evil and require such stringent restrictions that even the “privileged persons” are subject to NYC’s quasi-fascist laws. :spits:

  11. MarkHB says:

    DC Vs. Heller, whilst potent, is not an immediate cure. You may experience symptoms for some time after applying DC Vs. Heller. Repeated applications of DC Vs. Heller may be required for a complete cure to be effective. If symptoms persist after six months of using DC Vs. Heller, please apply to the Supreme Court for more effective measures.

    DC Vs. Heller may result in such side effects as unsightly dead criminals, safer homes and repression-minded politicos thrashing around in disbelief. DC Vs. Heller is for external use only.

  12. theflatwhite says:

    ^^^ @ MarkHB ^^^
    That is Laugh Out Loud Funny. Nice.

  13. MarkHB says:

    I like the warm glow I get every time I type DC Vs. Heller, that’s all🙂 Individual right, baby – and I don’t think that the guy en route to 1600 Pennsylvania is stupid enough to even think of messing with that.

  14. SR says:

    The criminal (coddling) justice system isn’t just for ball chuckers. Massachusetts has essentially the same year in jail law (Bartley-Fox act). The mongoloid awaiting his, hopefully death penalty, sentence in Manchester, NH has a string of gun possession plea bargains from Massachusetts prior to his capital murder charge in NH. I’ll bet there are more than a few NYC common thugs who’ve plead down Sullivan act offenses.
    The problem lies mostly within the court system.

  15. that dc v. heller bit was a flash of brilliance…and i even agree that the o is way too bright/subversive to dirty his delicate digits directly…better to let an altered version of the supremes deal with that, and other inconvenient constitutiony stuff.

    jtc

  16. MarkHB says:

    Pawnbroker – thank you🙂

    It was fun to type it, I’m glad you had fun reading it. I hope, when we cross swords in later discourse, as we’re sure to do, that you recall that I want a free America and to build my home and future in peace, unmolested by gods or kings. That’s all I want, and that’s all I’m working towards.

    Amor, pax et jellybabies.

  17. amor, pax et libertas!

    may vos reperio quis vos peto…

    jtc

  18. MarkHB says:

    Forgive me for my inherently frivolous nature, jtc – but were it not for that, the post you lauded would not have happenned. And yes, I trust you will meet those who treat you as you would, as well. Unless I’ve mis-translated your vocative case. In which case, yes, I’m sure I’ll meet what I deserve.

  19. “Unless I’ve mis-translated your vocative case.”

    huh. guess i should stick to the tongue i was born to, as i am sometimes barely conversant even in that…though a “golden rule” translation isn’t far off my intent, what i thought i said was:

    “may you find what you seek”

    jtc

  20. Sara says:

    While the Sullivan law is horrid, I’d still prefer it to Chicago’s worthless “concealed carry is illegal for you peons, but the aldermen can carry at will” ordinance.

Comments are closed.