7 ms·

No, this has American politics inside out. Red states are typically shall issue and blue states are typically may issue. To the extent that it's about introduci

No, this has American politics inside out. Red states are typically shall issue and blue states are typically may issue. To the extent that it's about introducing discretion as an means to accomplish a specific policy objective by stealth, that objective is gun control, not racism. An end run around the 2nd amendment, not the 14th.

wbl 6y ago
Army and Navy laws, Cruikshanks v. US, point systems for handguns, gun control in CA are irredeemably motivated by the fear of giving black men the means to defend themselves and their rights.
- dash2 6y ago
  I find it hard to believe that Californians' main reason for gun control is anti-black racism. I'd like to hear some evidence for that claim.
  - bmelton 6y ago
    The 1967 Mulford Act originated in California with the goal of disarming BLack Panther Party members to restrict their (lawful) armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods. It was introduced by a Republican, garnered bipartisan support, and enacted by (then governor) Ronald Reagan, with support from the NRA, with the espoused claim of "not harming a single honest citizen." Arguably, 1967 is not today, but even to people like myself, who try my absolute damnedest to look for non-racial motives where others ascribe racially motivated malice, it looks like it was just designed to disenfranchise Black Panthers of the same 2A right as their white peers.
  - rsync 6y ago
    "I find it hard to believe that Californians' main reason for gun control is anti-black racism. I'd like to hear some evidence for that claim." Here is a picture that seems, almost, to come from am alternate reality: https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-... "Throughout the late 1960s, the militant black nationalist group used their understanding of the finer details of California’s gun laws to underscore their political statements about the subjugation of African-Americans. In 1967, 30 members of the Black Panthers protested on the steps of the California statehouse armed with .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns and .45-caliber pistols and announced, “The time has come for black people to arm themselves.”" ... "The display so frightened politicians—including California governor Ronald Reagan—that it helped to pass the Mulford Act, a state bill prohibiting the open carry of loaded firearms, along with an addendum prohibiting loaded firearms in the state Capitol. The 1967 bill took California down the path to having some of the strictest gun laws in America and helped jumpstart a surge of national gun control restrictions."
  - jki275 6y ago
    Nearly all gun control measures in the US are rooted in racism. Some in Jim Crow, some in other eras -- but most of them were to ensure that the "wrong people"* couldn't protect themselves.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      The nfa wasn't, unless you're broadening anti-gang sentiment in the 30s to like anti Irish it italian sentiment. And it's dubious that this is true for other regulations against "assault weapons".
      - jki275 6y ago
        You don't think the 94 crime bill (AWB) was racist? Everyone else does...
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        There's two answers to this, that both have a bit more nuance than I expect HN to be okay with. One is that the AWB wasn't a racist provision of the overall bill. The gun control measure was not rooted in racism. The second is that the bill as a whole wasn't "rooted" in racism. It certainly was a bad bill that had terrible consequences, and we should undue a lot of the damage it did, but the intent of the bill was, in part, to help the black community (and it had support from many people in the black community at the time). Horribly misguided in hindsight though.
        jki275 6y ago
        Sure it was. The crime bill was designed to stop the "super predators" (to quote two democrat presidential candidates). It was a racist depiction of black men. It included a provision to outlaw scary black guns. You can't really divorce the two and pretend they're not related.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
chmod600 6y ago
What does red or blue have to do with this? Rights are for everyone. Government privileges always end up favoring particular groups for personal or political reasons. To demote a right to a privilege is to prefer this kind of favoritism over equal protection of the laws. If "blue" states just didn't like guns, then they would simply ban all CCW permits. But they do like guns -- as long as the "right" kind of people have them and the guns look the "right" way.
- wyclif 6y ago
  Agreed that rights are for everyone, equally applied. It only has to do with it insofar as the conditions he mentions: red states tend to be shall issue, blue states tend to be may issue. If you doubt that's true, look at this map: http://www.joebrower.com/PHILE_PILE/PIX/RKBA/CCW_shall_issue_states_map_March2002.gif http://www.joebrower.com/PHILE_PILE/PIX/RKBA/CCW_shall_issue... Now, that map is 18 years old and things may have changed a little since then, but I doubt it's changed much. This is why, as mentioned above, "may issue" is ripe for graft and corruption.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >If "blue" states just didn't like guns, then they would simply ban all CCW permits. There's a pesky amendment that prevents that so they settle for restricting "undesirables" (a definition which is a moving target over time).
  - chmod600 6y ago
    The second amendment seems to protect some kind of carrying. It's not clear from my reading that it protects concealed carry.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
philwelch 6y ago
Why not both? Gun control laws have a very long history of racial motivations.
- injb 6y ago
  Laws don't have motivations. People have motivations.
  - philwelch 6y ago
    Yes, and that includes motivations to write and pass laws. Apologies for the shorthand there.

wbl 6y ago

Army and Navy laws, Cruikshanks v. US, point systems for handguns, gun control in CA are irredeemably motivated by the fear of giving black men the means to defend themselves and their rights.

dash2 6y ago
I find it hard to believe that Californians' main reason for gun control is anti-black racism. I'd like to hear some evidence for that claim.
- bmelton 6y ago
  The 1967 Mulford Act originated in California with the goal of disarming BLack Panther Party members to restrict their (lawful) armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods. It was introduced by a Republican, garnered bipartisan support, and enacted by (then governor) Ronald Reagan, with support from the NRA, with the espoused claim of "not harming a single honest citizen." Arguably, 1967 is not today, but even to people like myself, who try my absolute damnedest to look for non-racial motives where others ascribe racially motivated malice, it looks like it was just designed to disenfranchise Black Panthers of the same 2A right as their white peers.
- rsync 6y ago
  "I find it hard to believe that Californians' main reason for gun control is anti-black racism. I'd like to hear some evidence for that claim." Here is a picture that seems, almost, to come from am alternate reality: https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-... "Throughout the late 1960s, the militant black nationalist group used their understanding of the finer details of California’s gun laws to underscore their political statements about the subjugation of African-Americans. In 1967, 30 members of the Black Panthers protested on the steps of the California statehouse armed with .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns and .45-caliber pistols and announced, “The time has come for black people to arm themselves.”" ... "The display so frightened politicians—including California governor Ronald Reagan—that it helped to pass the Mulford Act, a state bill prohibiting the open carry of loaded firearms, along with an addendum prohibiting loaded firearms in the state Capitol. The 1967 bill took California down the path to having some of the strictest gun laws in America and helped jumpstart a surge of national gun control restrictions."
- jki275 6y ago
  Nearly all gun control measures in the US are rooted in racism. Some in Jim Crow, some in other eras -- but most of them were to ensure that the "wrong people"* couldn't protect themselves.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    The nfa wasn't, unless you're broadening anti-gang sentiment in the 30s to like anti Irish it italian sentiment. And it's dubious that this is true for other regulations against "assault weapons".
    - jki275 6y ago
      You don't think the 94 crime bill (AWB) was racist? Everyone else does...
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        There's two answers to this, that both have a bit more nuance than I expect HN to be okay with. One is that the AWB wasn't a racist provision of the overall bill. The gun control measure was not rooted in racism. The second is that the bill as a whole wasn't "rooted" in racism. It certainly was a bad bill that had terrible consequences, and we should undue a lot of the damage it did, but the intent of the bill was, in part, to help the black community (and it had support from many people in the black community at the time). Horribly misguided in hindsight though.
        jki275 6y ago
        Sure it was. The crime bill was designed to stop the "super predators" (to quote two democrat presidential candidates). It was a racist depiction of black men. It included a provision to outlaw scary black guns. You can't really divorce the two and pretend they're not related.
        joshuamorton 6y ago

chmod600 6y ago

What does red or blue have to do with this? Rights are for everyone. Government privileges always end up favoring particular groups for personal or political reasons. To demote a right to a privilege is to prefer this kind of favoritism over equal protection of the laws. If "blue" states just didn't like guns, then they would simply ban all CCW permits. But they do like guns -- as long as the "right" kind of people have them and the guns look the "right" way.

wyclif 6y ago
Agreed that rights are for everyone, equally applied. It only has to do with it insofar as the conditions he mentions: red states tend to be shall issue, blue states tend to be may issue. If you doubt that's true, look at this map: http://www.joebrower.com/PHILE_PILE/PIX/RKBA/CCW_shall_issue_states_map_March2002.gif http://www.joebrower.com/PHILE_PILE/PIX/RKBA/CCW_shall_issue... Now, that map is 18 years old and things may have changed a little since then, but I doubt it's changed much. This is why, as mentioned above, "may issue" is ripe for graft and corruption.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>If "blue" states just didn't like guns, then they would simply ban all CCW permits. There's a pesky amendment that prevents that so they settle for restricting "undesirables" (a definition which is a moving target over time).
- chmod600 6y ago
  The second amendment seems to protect some kind of carrying. It's not clear from my reading that it protects concealed carry.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

philwelch 6y ago

Why not both? Gun control laws have a very long history of racial motivations.

injb 6y ago
Laws don't have motivations. People have motivations.
- philwelch 6y ago
  Yes, and that includes motivations to write and pass laws. Apologies for the shorthand there.