Thursday, November 22, 2012

NY Billionare Disarmed after Incident

The New York Times reports

The police have confiscated two guns belonging to a New York billionaire and are weighing whether to revoke his handgun license after officers responded to an incident this month at Trump Tower, according to a police official and two people familiar with the matter. 

The billionaire, Stewart J. Rahr, 66, a philanthropist who calls himself the “No. 1 king of all fun,” declined to comment on Wednesday. 

Details of the incident at Trump Tower were not immediately available. But Benjamin Brafman, a lawyer retained by Mr. Rahr, said in a statement: “There was a minor incident that the police are reviewing, as is standard practice. Based on my understanding of the facts, I am very confident that the matter will be closed without any formal proceedings whatsoever as Mr. Rahr did absolutely nothing wrong.” 

The police were summoned to Trump Tower in Midtown Manhattan, where Mr. Rahr has an office, on Nov. 1 after a heated exchange involving Mr. Rahr and an elevator operator, said one of the two people familiar with the matter. Both declined to be identified because they were not authorized to discuss the incident publicly.
I guess there goes Greg's theory about how the wealthy get preferential treatment.

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.


  1. Nope. He has a handgun license--one he's had for forty years, according to the source. He has a famous lawyer. We don't know what happened, so who knows where the case will go, but that's a lot of preferential treatment already.

    Put it this way, Mikeb: Do you imagine that you or I could get a carry license in New York City?

    1. NYC requires a license just to own a handgun in your home. This quote didn't say anything about it being a carry license. Still, even the license to own usually requires connections. I believe there are only some 40,000 licenses to own in a city of 8 million, so the point about preferential treatment is valid.

    2. The news article implied that he had a license to carry. They're rarely clear about such things, of course.

    3. Why shouldn't societies "elites" be subject to preferential treatment over the ordinary masses? Persons such as Rahr (being of value to society) have a valid interest in obtaining lethal weapons, unlike most gun "rights" proponents.


      New York State requires a pistol licence to obtain or possess a handgun within the State (issued on a "shall issue" basis). In addition New York City requires one to obtain a licence to possess ANY firearm, and requires additional endorsement for handguns (in addition to the State-mandated pistol licence). Very few persons are issued New York State licences to carry in urban areas, and fewer are able to obtain a City-issued licence to carry within New York City.

    4. E.N., more nonsense from you? That putz has no more rights than anyone else and no fewer. We're all equal with regard to rights and the law.

    5. I disagree with the "we're all equal" claim. When it comes to qualifying for the "may issue" license, we're not all equal. The wealthy and famous often have a legitimate reason for being armed which does not apply to ordinary people. They are targets of stalking and extortion, of kidnapping even. Their celebrity makes them more likely to need a gun or bodyguards. That's the main difference.

    6. Mikeb, you're a hypocrite. Look at all your yammering about Romney and his wealth during the election, and now, you're here telling us that the rich and famous have rights that the rest of us don't have.

      New York, city and state, is a prime example of what happens when people are not all equal under the law.

    7. I'm not talking about rights, Greg. I'm talking about the way things are. Celebrities have problems with stalkers and kidnappers and extortionists that ordinary citizens don't have. That's all.

    8. The rich and famous have problems? Cry a river, build a bridge, and get over it. That's my advice to them. Mikeb, you whine and moan about how the rich are robbing the rest of us, about how Mitt Romney ran only to enrich is fellow millionaires, about how the Occupy movement was such a good thing for this country, and then you say that the one percent deserve to carry guns to defend themselves, while the rest of us don't.

      I'll make it clear for you: I don't give a flying goddamned fuck about the rich and famous. They may have every right that I have, but no more. Get it?

    9. What happened to "give them what they want"? That is what we are supposed to do. These criminals are only after their money, and money isn't worth shooting someone over, right? And this guy is a billionaire, so he is not going destitute from getting robbed a few times, even if he is losing millions.

  2. Show me, Mike. Show me how the wealthy have higher rates of being victims of violent crime than the rest of the country. Don't just 'feel', but 'show'.