“Old Racist Gun Laws Enter Modern-Day Legal Battles”

[JerseyMike]

This article was shared on Reddit, I know most of you probably don’t use Reddit so I figured I would share it here.

https://archive.is/tvFzR

The argument is that, since facially racist gun laws existed historically, “They nevertheless show that the Framers understood that legislatures could make such judgments to categorically disarm groups of people deemed to be dangerous.”

The CA attorney general: “submitted spreadsheets of historical gun statutes that it says are relevant to its case.
Among dozens of racist laws it cited is a 1792 Virginia statute—passed one year after the Second Amendment was adopted—dictating that “no negro or mulatto” except for housekeepers “shall keep or carry any gun, powder, shot, club, or other weapon whatsoever, offensive or defensive.”
The state also referred to an 1833 Florida law, enacted in the aftermath of Nat Turner’s bloody slave rebellion, that authorized white citizen patrols to “search negro houses” for firearms. Anyone found in possession could be summarily whipped.” … “In the ammunition background-check case, the state listed more than 100 laws from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. More than three-quarters of them explicitly targeted slaves, free Blacks, Native Americans and Catholics.”

Simply stunning.

 

[JerseyMike]

Here’s the reddit link if you want to see the discussion there (warning it is the liberal gun owners subreddit, if your brain gets stuck in a loop anytime you hear about pro 2A liberals best to not click it):

I mean if the laws were “abhorrent” and racist back then, why try to argue you should be able to implement them now. Like what in the…

 

[Afrikeber]

I love history. Hopefully we will have learned our lessons from history, sadly I guess these elitists want to bring back their old status quo laws to preserve their status.

 

[teratos]

Unfortunately, The Constitution did not apply to African-Americans at the time of it's ratification. If I recall correctly, African-Americans were not guaranteed citizenship until the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. Their argument is flawed.

 

[TI-tick]

Unfortunately, The Constitution did not apply to African-Americans at the time of it's ratification. If I recall correctly, African-Americans were not guaranteed citizenship until the 14th amendment was ratified and 1868. Their argument is flawed.

The CA AG takes his marching orders from Newscum; so flawed or not, they will try to make the argument because guns are bad.

 

[HaveBlue]

Here’s the reddit link if you want to see the discussion there (warning it is the liberal gun owners subreddit, if your brain gets stuck in a loop anytime you hear about pro 2A liberals best to not click it):

I mean if the laws were “abhorrent” and racist back then, why try to argue you should be able to implement them now. Like what in the…

So did they want to restrict firearms to keep the undesirables safe like they tell us today? Or was it so they would be easier to control?

 

[delaware_export]

Well, they just wanna screw everyone now! Not just the red, brown, black folks… Catholics… AND THE DUTCH!

So they imply the new philosophy is not racist.

to quote an old coworker… I am NOT a racist, I hate everyone the same.

 

[owldo]

They know that these racially enacted laws were not legally constitutional in the context of the time period that they were enacted ! They are grasping at straws and trying to muddy the judicial waters !

 

[Bob A]

Text, History and Tradition support race-based oppression.

Take THAT, stinking Honkies!

 

[Biggfoot44]

if your brain gets stuck in a loop anytime you hear about pro 2A liberals best to not click it):

I haven't clicked yet , and from your description , it sounds like a worthwhile thread .

That said , Pro 2A Liberals are still largely an Oxymoron .

Their self description is Liberal GunOWNERS , not Liberal Gun Rights Activists . They're enjoying certain aspects of the Shooting Sports , participated by fine upstanding Elites such as themselves is OK . But for other scary guns , or people with other views , or working class people , etc , that all needs to be carefully controlled .

You know , and the over the top venom that gets thrown at traditional Sportsmen , actually applies to this minority among Libs .

 

[Some Guy]

As far as I know, if a law is proven to violate or have violated the constitution it is or was not in fact a law. Instead it is/was an illegal act or illegal action undertaken by the government.

Such discriminatory acts/actions should not be considered constitutional laws or regulations. As such, they should not be considered analogs.

That's just some guy's lay opinion, though. I wonder if there are precedents that would or would not support the above position in other, non-2nd Amendment related matters.

 

[Inigoes]

Remind everyone far and wide that the Democrats want to keep these racist laws on the books and create more to keep law abiding people down.

 

[teratos]

Text, History and Tradition support race-based oppression.

Take THAT, stinking Honkies!

My DNA test says I’m 2% Nigerian.

 

[JerseyMike]

I haven't clicked yet , and from your description , it sounds like a worthwhile thread .

That said , Pro 2A Liberals are still largely an Oxymoron .

Their self description is Liberal GunOWNERS , not Liberal Gun Rights Activists . They're enjoying certain aspects of the Shooting Sports , participated by fine upstanding Elites such as themselves is OK . But for other scary guns , or people with other views , or working class people , etc , that all needs to be carefully controlled .

You know , and the over the top venom that gets thrown at traditional Sportsmen , actually applies to this minority among Libs .

The biggest issue with that group is a very vocal minority who, like you indicate, think that only guns they own/like should be legal, and restrictions that don’t directly affect them are A OK. Basically the “I’m a gun owner but I support [insert BS gun law] because [insert BS phrase about responsible gun ownership]” crowd.

Many, like myself, identify as liberal but don’t necessarily vote dem all of the time.

 

[teratos]

The biggest issue with that group is a very vocal minority who, like you indicate, think that only guns they own/like should be legal, and restrictions that don’t directly affect them are A OK. Basically the “I’m a gun owner but I support [insert BS gun law] because [insert BS phrase about responsible gun ownership]” crowd.

Many, like myself, identify as liberal but don’t necessarily vote dem all of the time.

My son is a leftist (he hates liberals, no offense) who is as pro-2A as I am

 

[FrankZ]

My DNA test says I’m 2% Nigerian.

Where do I send my money to help you get yours out?

 

[GTOGUNNER]

My DNA test says I’m 2% Nigerian.

Prince teratos.

 

[Boats]

The CA AG takes his marching orders from Newscum; so flawed or not, they will try to make the argument because guns are bad.

Let me see if I'm getting this right:

They are using the argument that since some of the historical laws were racist, then they all were.

They are using racism and slavery as a defense to draconian, unconstitutional gun laws.

And ironically the stereotype concept that "if one is bad, they all are" that is a cornerstone of racism, is being used to defend their laws.

Am I getting that right?

 

[JerseyMike]

Let me see if I'm getting this right:

They are using the argument that since some of the historical laws were racist, then they all were.

They are using racism and slavery as a defense to draconian, unconstitutional gun laws.

And ironically the stereotype concept that "if one is bad, they all are" that is a cornerstone of racism, is being used to defend their laws.

Am I getting that right?

Yes that’s right.

 

[teratos]

Where do I send my money to help you get yours out?

Wait. I’m supposed to give you money. Send your banking info.

Prince teratos.

This is the way.