racism

Uncategorized

Jim Crow Law Lives Until 2021

June 3, 2015 by 2 Comments

According to WRAL Raleigh, HB 562 – the Second Amendment Affirmation Act – was postponed for consideration until Wednesday. The House Rules Committee will vote on a committee substitute at 9am tomorrow. A summary of the committee summary can be found here and the actual text here. It does include the elimination of the pistol purchase permit but not until 2021. Dealers, however, would be allowed to sell handguns without a pistol purchase permit if they ran a NICS check on the person.

Come 2021, North Carolina residents would no longer need a permit when buying handguns under a redrafted omnibus firearms bill that circulated among members of the General Assembly Tuesday night.

The House Rules Committee is scheduled to vet the new version of HB 562 at 9 a.m. Wednesday. According to a summary of the bill provided to committee members, the measure still contains measures related to how doctors ask patients about firearms in their homes, although the language is loser than earlier versions of the bill.

Advocates for and against the measure were at the state Capitol on Tuesday. The lobbying group Moms Demand Action pressured lawmakers to turn back the bill, focusing particularly on the pistol permit provision. Meanwhile, the pro-gun lobbying group Grass Roots North Carolina pressured lawmakers to pass the bill.

The most scrutiny has focused on a provision that would repeal North Carolina’s pistol purchase permit system. As originally drafted, the bill would have ended the state’s pistol permit system in 2018. The measure up for consideration Wednesday morning would extend the system’s life until 2021.

Sen. Furnifold Simmons and early N&O owner Josephus Daniels are probably laughing from the grave over this turn of events. They were the architects of the racist white supremacy policies of the North Carolina Democratic Party. The co-sponsor of the Senate bill that eventually became law was none other than Simmons’ former brother-in-law Sen. Earle A. Humphrey (D-Goldsboro).  Simmons’ dominance of North Carolina politics in that era was so far reaching that it was referred to as the Simmons Machine just like Richard Daley’s dominance of Chicago politics was called the Daley Machine.

Uncategorized

If You Support A Law That Is Based On Racism, Are You A Racist?

May 14, 2015 by 6 Comments

The headline to this post is meant to be provocative. In the last couple of days, I have received numerous emails from gun prohibitionists groups and have seen Everyday Moms for Illegal Mayors launch a media campaign all of which is intended to keep in place North Carolina’s pistol purchase permit system.

§ 14-402 and § 14-403 of the North Carolina General Statutes were originally passed in 1919 and gave the Clerk of the Superior Court (later given to the Sheriff) of each North Carolina county the power to determine just who of their county’s residents would be eligible to purchase a handgun. Note that this preceded the Gun Control Act of 1968 by almost 50 years. Firearms of all sorts could still be purchased over the counter and through the mails. So why would the North Carolina General Assembly give Clerks of the Superior Court such power? Below is a little context.

The end of the Great War in 1918 saw the return of many African-American veterans who had served in segregated military units. They had served their country both home and abroad and were now coming home expecting some recognition of their rights. W.E.B. DuBois had encouraged black veterans to not just return home but to return home fighting against Southern racism.

At an Emancipation Day ceremony in Raleigh in January 1919, a crowd of 3,000 passed resolutions condemning lynching and attacking segregation. Through the 1920s, the annual commemorations of emancipation as well as the Armistice ending World War I remained occasions for rallies. Editorials in the black press in Durham and Raleigh frequently called for improvements in, if not an end to, the Jim Crow system.

White North Carolinians listened with concern to the outbursts of black protests after the War, but they managed to preserve both white supremacy and the myth that black North Carolinians were contented with legal segregation and Jim Crow. North Carolina’s postwar reconsideration of racial relations and racial policy took place in the context of the nationwide “Red Scare” between 1918 and 1921, touched off by fears of communist and foreign subversion.

Adding to this general fear was Winston-Salem’s November 17, 1918 riot over the attempted lynching of a black man who had been erroneously accused of raping a white woman. Most of the rioting was done by whites but it was the black community which had the tanks sitting in their streets.

The General Assembly passed “An Act to Regulate the Sale of Concealed Weapons in North Carolina” on March 10, 1919. It required a permit to purchase “any pistol, so-called pump-gun, bowie knife, dirk, dagger or metallic knucks.” The “so-called pump-gun” is, as best as I can determine, what we would now call a pump shotgun. Section 3 of Chapter 197 reads:

That before the clerk of the Superior Court shall issue
any such license or permit he shall fully satisfy himself by affidavits,
oral evidence, or otherwise, as to the good moral character
of the applicant therefor, and that such person, firm, or corporation
requires the possession of such weapon mentioned in section
one of this act for protection of the home: Provided, that
if said clerk shall not be so fully satisfied, he shall refuse to issue
said license or permit : and Provided further, that nothing in this
act shall apply to officers authorized by law to carry firearms.
The clerk shall charge for his services upon issuing such license
or permit a fee of fifty cents.

The Clerk and the firearms dealer were both required to keep records of the permittees/purchasers including name, age, residence, former residence, “etc.”  The owner of the firearm was also required to list it as personal property with the local tax authorities.

Let’s think about this a bit. Who would be considered to be a person of “good moral character” in 1919 to a legislature that was composed primarily of white Democrat segregationists who were sympathetic to the KKK? And what do you think the Clerk of the Superior Court is going to consider by “etc.” which is actually included in the text of the bill? I think any intelligent person could reasonably assume that a person of “good moral character” would tend to be white, probably a Democrat (unless living in the mountains), a segregationist, a church-goer, and someone who owned property. It would not have been an African-American nor would it have been a populist, socialist, or union organizer. I would also assume that the race of the purchaser was intended to be kept as part of the records.

Given the state of race relations in North Carolina in 1919 and the contextual background of this law, I defy anyone to say that there is no racial component to this law. It may not have said de jure that blacks couldn’t possess pistols and other weapons but that was the de facto reality.

So I say to Mike Bloomberg, Gabby Giffords, Dan Gross, Shannon Watts, and all the others of their ilk who have been agitating against HB 562, does not your support for the continuation of a law conceived in racism make you just a wee bit racist yourself?

Uncategorized

Dinner And Education Event On The Racist Roots Of Gun Control

March 19, 2015 by

Historian and blogger Clayton Cramer will be the featured speaker at an event co-sponsored by the CalGuns Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition on March 29th in Sacramento, California. He will be speaking on the racist roots of gun control. Other speakers include Second Amendment attorneys Don Kilmer, Bradley Benbrook, and Stephen Duvernay, CalGuns Foundation chairman Gene Hoffman, and Firearms Policy Coalition president Brandon Combs.

More info on the event is below. If you are in the Sacramento area on the 29th, this sounds like an interesting event. On a personal note, it is great to see Clayton doing a public event like this given his stroke about a year and a half ago. If you can’t make the event, Clayton has put together a YouTube video on the topic including PowerPoint slides.

Sacramento, CA – Firearms Policy Coalition and The Calguns Foundation have announced a special dinner and education event featuring noted Second Amendment historian Clayton E. Cramer, who will give his talk The Racist Roots of Gun Control.
Cramer will be joined at the March 29 event by firearms law and policy experts including noted civil rights attorneys Donald Kilmer and Bradley Benbrook, Calguns Foundation Chairman Gene Hoffman, and Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs. Speakers will be taking questions from the audience following the talks.
Tickets for the event, which can be purchased at FPC’s website, are $60 per person and include a filet of beef, chicken, or salmon dinner. College, university, and law school students can purchase tickets at a reduced rate of $30 per person.
Event: The Past, Present, and Future of Second Amendment Policy and Litigation — A Special Evening with Historian Clayton E. Cramer and Friends
Date: March 29, 2015
Time: 5:30 p.m. guest check-in & mixer; dinner 6:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m. (or until Q&A concluded)
Location: Embassy Suites Sacramento – Riverfront Promenade (link to hotel website) (link to Google map)
Speakers and topics will include:
  • Historian Clayton E. Cramer: The Racist Roots of Gun Control
  • Attorney Donald Kilmer: Gun Violence Restraining Orders and the Growing Problem of Constitutional Conflicts in Public Policy
  • Attorney Bradley Benbrook: Firearms-area Litigation and Emerging Second Amendment Jurisprudence
  • Attorney Stephen Duvernay: Active litigation case updates
  • The Calguns Foundation Chairman Gene Hoffman: The Minimum Necessary Right to Keep and Bear Arms – What, Why, and How We’re Doing So Far
  • FPC President Brandon Combs: What to Expect In and From Firearms Policy and Litigation Going Forward
Uncategorized

Last Refuge Of A Liberal Scoundrel

October 27, 2014 by 4 Comments

If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, then accusations of racism must be the last refuge of a liberal scoundrel. Accusations can come in both overt and covert forms.

For example, coming out and saying that Senator X is a racist or that some act that he or she committed was racist in intent would be an overt accusation. At least these accusations are forthright.

Covert accusations are much more insidious. They rely upon code words. Code words like Trayvon, Ferguson, and stand your ground.

So it is with the latest ad from Sen. Harry Reid’s Senate Majority PAC. Listen to the radio ad that they are playing in North Carolina aimed at African-American voters. Pay attention to the segment starting at 0:24 to 0:30 as captured from the airwaves by well-known North Carolina conservative blogger Sister Toldjah.

You heard correctly. The ad says, “Tillis even led the effort to pass the type of stand your ground laws that caused the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.” It doesn’t matter that Florida’s stand your ground law was not invoked in George Zimmerman’s trial nor that they confuse passage of the castle doctrine with stand your ground laws. It is still using covert accusations of racism to encourage black voters to turn out for Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC).

And to be honest, Speaker Tillis did not lead the effort to pass HB 650. It was Rep. Mark Hilton (R-Catawba) and Sen. Buck Newton (R-Nash). The best you can say is that Tillis did not impede the efforts to pass this omnibus bill that reformed North Carolina’s gun laws. Moreover, HB 650 was signed into law by Democrat Gov. Beverly Perdue.

Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) should repudiate this racist ad but we all know she won’t. She needs the “black vote” and Harry Reid will go as low as he needs to in order to secure it for her.

Uncategorized

NRA-ILA Gives CPD Superintendent A History Lesson

July 2, 2011 by 1 Comment

Chicago Police Department Superintendent Gerry McCarthy said that Federal gun laws were tantamount to “government sponsored racism” in a speech at St. Sabina’s Catholic Church in Chicago. Recognizing that McCarthy had a poor education in history growing up in New York, the NRA-ILA gives him a history lesson on where the real connections between racism and gun control lie.

Chicago’s Top Cop: The Racist Roots of Gun Rights?

Friday, July 01, 2011

Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, newly appointed by anti-gun Mayor Rahm Emanuel, has wasted no time in sharing his views on Chicagoans’ individual right to keep and bear arms. Less than a month after his approval by the City Council, McCarthy attended a service at St. Sabina’s Church (a parish led by anti-gun extremist Father Michael Pfleger) and made a speech claiming that a lack of restrictive gun control laws is “government sponsored racism.”

Those with a better understanding of history will find themselves confused trying to interpret McCarthy’s logic, as decades of scholarship have proven just the opposite; that gun control, rather than its absence, has often been used as a means of government sponsored racism.

In his 1995 Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy article, “The Racist Roots of Gun Control,” Second Amendment scholar Clayton E. Cramer outlines the historical case that “racism underlies gun control laws.” Cramer notes that racist gun control in America stretches as far back as 1751 with a French law in the Louisiana territory that required colonists to “‘[i]f necessary,’ beat ‘any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane.’”

Though Superintendent McCarthy might be excused for not looking that far back, he should certainly be aware of last year’s U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the case of McDonald v. Chicago. In a concurring opinion in that case, Justice Clarence Thomas explained that in the years preceding the Civil War, “Many legislatures amended their laws prohibiting slaves from carrying firearms to apply the prohibition to free blacks as well.” After the Civil War, little improved. Justice Thomas writes: “Some States formally prohibited blacks from possessing firearms… Others enacted legislation prohibiting blacks from carrying firearms without a license, a restriction not imposed on whites.”

Other Reconstruction Era (and later) laws were less candid. For example, an 1870 Tennessee law barred the sale of all but the most expensive pistols, effectively disarming newly freed blacks and the poor. New York’s Sullivan Law of 1911, requiring a permit for handgun possession, was largely targeted at Italians and other disfavored immigrant groups. (That law is still on the books.) And the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was denied a concealed carry permit in Alabama under a similar discretionary permitting law—even after his house had been bombed.

We suggest that in the future, Superintendent McCarthy might do a little more research before conflating respect for a fundamental individual right with its antithesis, government-sponsored racism.

Uncategorized

Belle Meade, TN Repeals Racist Gun Control Law

August 27, 2010 by

The city of Belle Meade, TN repealed a city ordinance dating from the Reconstruction Era. It had banned the carry of any firearm “with the intent to go armed” except for an “Army or Navy pistol carried openly in the hand.” At that time, it was primarily white men who owned Army or Navy pistols and the law was intended to restrict recently freed blacks from bearing arms.

SayUncle has the full story here.

Belle Meade is located within Metro Davidson County and is an affluent suburb of Nashville. It is where Al Gore lives when he isn’t staying at his beachfront house in Montecito, California or touring the world spreading “The Gospel of Global Warming According to the Prophet Al”.

Uncategorized

Race Cases Win Gun Rights

July 8, 2010 by

Clarence Page, a columnist for the Chicago Tribune, offers a surprisingly sympathetic review of the McDonald case in yesterday’s Tribune. Usually, Mr. Page is a reliable proponent of more gun control and “sensible” gun regulations.

Lobbyists for gun rights owe black Americans a historical debt of gratitude.

The U.S. Supreme Court reminds us of this debt in its recent decision to overturn Chicago’s sweeping prohibition against handgun possession. That decision rests on more than the Second Amendment. It also rests on the 14th Amendment, which brought equal protection to freed slaves after the Civil War.

How times change. An amendment that helped blacks protect themselves from Ku Klux Klan terrorists now is being used to help protect a black Chicago man from gangbangers.

Page then goes on to review how the African-American community often had to resort to firearms for protection from racist groups such as the KKK and others of their ilk.

Yet, armed self-defense is a long-running theme in African-American history. As recently as the 1960s, for example, the Deacons for Defense and Justice was a popular and powerful self-defense group in the last days of Jim Crow. Yet, news media paid much more attention to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and his non-violent side of the civil rights movement.

Those days came to mind as I read Justice Clarence Thomas’ separate opinion in McDonald’s case. With the emotional force of a man raised in rural Georgia during the last days of legal segregation, he recounted, page after page, of terror spread by “militias such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Knights of the White Camellia, the White Brotherhood, the Pale Faces and the ’76 Association” and how “firearms for self-defense was often the only way black citizens could protect themselves from mob violence.”

He concludes with this.

Chicago and the District of Columbia already have fought back with new laws that restrict the purchase, possession or use of guns without an outright ban.

But this country has too long and too deep of a tradition of gun ownership — and way too many guns already in circulation — for the tide to be turned in the foreseeable future by city gun ordinances, no matter how well-intentioned.

I think Mr. Page gets it. He may not like it but he gets it. It is all about winning civil rights.

Uncategorized

Alan Gura’s Next Target – North Carolina’s Emergency Powers Gun Bans

June 29, 2010 by 2 Comments

I just found this on the Second Amendment Foundation’s website.

SAF SUES TO OVERTURN NORTH CAROLINA’S ‘EMERGENCY POWERS’ GUN BANS

The Second Amendment Foundation along with Grass Roots North Carolina and three individuals are suing to overturn the law in North Carolina that allowed the Town of King to impose a ban on possession and sales of firearms due to … lots of snow.

Having read the law and seen when it was adopted, I’ve always felt it was a racist reaction to the civil unrest on college campuses during the late 1960s. The General Assembly was especially interested in tamping down any civil unrest at the historically black colleges and universities. This was very true in my hometown of Greensboro where the authorities kept a much closer eye on historically black NC A&T State University than on Women’s College (now UNC-Greensboro).