Mediaboss Marketing

July 11, 2017 AtlantaLike many African-Americans of his generation, Phillip Smith, a Californian in his 50s, grew up without a gun in the house. To his parents, gun ownership was not just politically unacceptable, but morally wrong a fount, if anything, of trouble and tragedy.

When he moved his own family to the South in 2002, he found a different tradition, where black families, many of them fresh from the farms, had hunting rifles for sport and, to an extent, self-defense. Mr. Smith was intrigued. As he bought his first guns and began practicing at a gun range, he had an epiphany: Perhaps the Second Amendment is the black mans ultimate sign of full citizenship.

Smiths crossover into the world of guns and ammo makes him part of a widening attempt to, as he says, normalize a black gun-carrying tradition fraught with historical pain and tragedy.

His advocacy for African-American gun rights has turned out to be a potent message. TheNational African-American Gun Associationhe founded has grown from 800 to 20,000 members since 2015. Unlike the primarily white and male National Rifle Association, NAAGA is diverse in both color and gender; 60 percent of its members are women.

The main thing and Id be lying if I said something else is that in the last 18 months the racial tone of the country has tilted in a direction that is alarming, at a minimum, says Smith, who lives in an Atlanta suburb. For African-Americans, were seeing the same old faces, the same type of conversations we saw in the 50s and 60s, and we thought they were dead and gone.

Given that white Americans have led the liberalization of gun laws in the past decade, black gun carry is becoming a test of constitutional agency, injecting what University of Arizona gun culture expert Jennifer Carlson calls the specter of legitimate violence into an already tense political climate. Incidents like the June acquittal of the Minnesota police officer who shot Philando Castile, a legal gun owner, during a traffic stop have added to that tension, gun owners like Smith say as did the National Rifle Associations silence over both his shooting and the verdict.

For some black gun owners, the question is a stark one: Can African-Americans reasonably expect to be covered by the Second Amendment in a country still marbled by racist rhetoric, attitudes, and acts?

In one way, it is saddening and troubling how much hopelessness there must be to make such a massive shift to decide guns might be a necessary answer to a documented rise in overt racism, says Nancy Beck Young, a political historian at the University of Houston.

The shooting of Mr. Castile and the election of President Trump changed things for Dickson Q Amoah, a former Air Force reservist from the outskirts of Chicago.

Like Smith, Mr. Amoah says his parents were vehemently anti-gun.To this day, he says, Honestly I still think that getting rid of all these excess guns in Chicago and the country would be a good thing.

Then he saw the white nationalist salute of Hail Trump near the White House in January. His first thought was: Oh, hell no.

For him, carrying a gun has become a test of a stereotype, as Professor Young says,built on the myth of what the black man was after and what he might do.

I used to worry about what people thought of me as a black man, says Amoah, the president of the 761st Gun Club of Illinois. As a gun-carrier, he says, Now, I just dont care anymore.

The extent of the risk legally armed black men take to carry guns is hard to measure. The Washington Post has found that unarmed black men are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than unarmed white men. But there are no hard studies on that have looked at how officers react to armed black men versus armed white ones. Moreover, privacy laws prohibit deep-dive studies of gun registration data to look for patterns by race.

But Ms. Carlson, author of Citizen-Protectors: The Everyday Politics of Guns in an Age of Decline, found a proxy in administrative gun boards that exist in several states to adjudicate gun license issues. She found, in two adjacent Michigan counties,that black concealed-carry applicants are routinely lectured and quizzed in public forums what she calls degradation ceremonies. White gun owners, meanwhile, are addressed without lectures in hearings where they can plead their case in a semi-private room.

Her findings suggest such proceedings for concealed-carry licenses now serve as mechanisms ... to encourage black men to internalize their position at the bottom of the racial ... hierarchy.

That evidence, she says, underscores how some policing strategies, like stop-and-frisk, only work if you can presume that the guns that are being carried are illegal, says Carlson. In that way, gun laws change the ordering of how people think about danger in a way that is way beyond whether there is a gun there or not.

Only about half as many African-American households have guns as white ones 19 percent, compared with 41 percent.And attitudes toward guns remain starkly divided along racial lines. Sixty percent of black voters favor more gun control, while 61 percent of white voters seek more gun rights.

That reflects a deep resistance to guns in African-American communities that goes back to the civil rights era, when blacks, often victims of gun crimes, began to see gun ownership as counterproductive and dangerous. But that doesn't tell the whole story, gun-carry proponents say.

You dig and you realize the civil rights movement wasnt just a nonviolent movement, counters Amoah. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a gun carrier. And you look at Malcolm X differently. He was a self-defense guy.

Smith in Atlanta says he has had heated debates with preachers over his gun carry advocacy. To some, it seems a reprise of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense movement, which led to a wave of gun control laws in the US. After 30 of its members marched, armed and defiant, into the California state capitol in 1967, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan, who ran for president as a staunch Second Amendment defender, signed a law prohibiting open carry in the state.

Scholars say that Second Amendment rights for African-Americans cannot be fought for separately from other rights.

No. 1, Philando Castile was seeking to show an officer his permit when he was killed, so having a gun is not an escape from being killed, says historian Gerald Horne, author of The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America.But while that case suggests that African-Americans SecondAmendment rights are not worth as much as those of others, it also brings us to the devalued citizenship of black Americans in 2017. In order to re-value that citizenship it will take a political movement that goes beyond SecondAmendment rights and focuses on the whole panoply of rights generally.

The coast-to-coast growth of NAAGA chapters from a handful to 32 in less than two years seems to mirror a shift, partly a generational one, in that thinking. The number of blacks who prioritize gun rights over gun control rose from 18 percent in 1993 to 34 percent in 2014, according to the Pew Research Center.

Black-owned gun shops say they have seen business increase in the last six months, even as gun sales overall have softened, leading to price cuts of more than 50 percent.

At 280 pounds, Louis Dennard says he can be an intimidating presence until people get to know him as the kind-hearted gardener and pitmaster that he is.

His worry is that racist stereotypes get enshrined into law, under a president who openly questioned former President Barack Obamas citizenship and, in Mr. Dennard's view, is basing his legacy on dismantling the work of the countrys first black president. Right now, they are in the process of prejudicing the system, he says.

Though the growth of his gun club is tied to national politics, Smith is careful to not focus his advocacy on the president or the NRA. He says his toughest critics, so far, have been others in the African-American community, who dont see a strong correlation between the Second Amendment and a sense of full citizenship.

Im trying to let everyone know that you have the right not the God-given right, but the right as an American to carry a gun, says Smith. We have things to overcome in the black community in terms of what you believe you have a right to do as a citizen.

My job is to convince people that it is not radical to have a gun ... to protect your family.

See the original post:
Black gun owners ask: Does the Second Amendment apply to us? - Christian Science Monitor

A Black, off-duty St. Louis policeman was shot by a white colleague when he went to assist officers with an arrest. The Black officer had, according to reports, showed up on the scene and was ordered to get on the ground until he was identified, at which point he was told stand up and walk toward them. At that point, a white officer who had not originally been on scene showed up and allegedly shot the off-duty Black officer. He claimed he was scared.

Whether it is a matter of the so-called Stand Your Ground laws, police shootings of unarmed African-Americans or, as in the now-notorious case of the police killing of Philando Castilein Minnesota who possessed a LEGAL firearm, we are being bombarded with the rhetoric of supposedly scared white people who, regardless of the circumstances, believe that their lives are in mortal danger because we happen to be in the vicinity.

The Castile case was remarkable on so many levels, not the least of which was that he informed the officer who killed him that he possessed a legal weapon. What was even more striking was the thunderous silence of the National Rifle Association, which consistently and vehemently defends the rights of gun owners, in the aftermath! Would they have been as silent had Castile been white?

This issue of white fear is over the top. Frankly, and specifically, I am sick and tired of hearing white police discuss their fear. What did they think was going to happen when they entered law enforcement? Did they think they would be protecting Mayberry, N.C., the fictitious town in The Andy Griffith Show? Should the actions of unarmed or legally armed African-Americans automatically evoke fear in white people?

Another way of looking at this situation is to understand that the cry of fear is the rhetoric of racial suppression. It is a fear that has been generated in the hearts of whites since the time of slavery and the Indian Wars amid their ever-present concern that the slaves might rise up in revolt or the Indians might leave the reservations. Our mere presence induces fear. We do not have to do anything other than exist in order for whites to quake in fear at the thought of us exploding in righteous anger.

The National Rifle Association could not respond to the killing of Castile because doing so would call into question the implicit message that the NRA has propagated for years, i.e., increase weapon ownership is for protection from Blacks. It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment but is instead based on the notion that gun ownership is actually the prerogative of whites only, a right rooted in the era of the genocide of Native Americans and that of slavery when only free white men could possess weapons.

This is the discussion that must be held. It is not about firearms safety or, for that matter, gun control. And, to be truthful, it is not, mainly, about police accountability. What is at issue is the extent to which U.S. society continues to keep a bulls eye on the forehead of African-Americans because of the fear that we generate, a fear rooted in their deep guilt and anxiety about the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow and genocide.

Bill Fletcher, Jr. is the former president of Trans Africa Forum. Follow him on Twitter, Facebook and at http://www.billfletcherjr.com.

The rest is here:
Are White Gun Owners Protecting the Second Amendment or Their Racial Interest? - Atlanta Black Star

Being Libertarian

In Case You Missed It: Austin Petersen, Second Amendment, CNN. Being Libertarian Welcome to the fifth installment of In Case You Missed It, a weekly news roundup that focuses on some of the biggest news stories from around the globe every week. So, in case you missed it, here's your week in review: ...

Follow this link:
In Case You Missed It: Austin Petersen, Second Amendment, CNN. - Being Libertarian

A few years ago, Illinois lost a notable some would say notorious attribute. It was the last state that banned any carrying of concealed firearms in public. In 2012, a federal appeals court struck down the ban, forcing the General Assembly to pass a measure allowing citizens to obtain concealed-carry permits.

The new permit system includes a number of common-sense provisions. It disqualifies felons and those guilty of misdemeanors involving the use or threat of violence. Repeat DUI offenders are ineligible, as is anyone who has undergone residential or court-ordered drug or alcohol rehab in the past five years. It requires 16 hours of firearms training to ensure competence. The minimum age is 21.

But if the National Rifle Association and its allies in Congress have their way, those rules won't mean much.

The legislation they propose would force every state to honor concealed-carry permits from other states. In practice, this would mean the laws of states with loose standards would apply to those beyond their borders. Indiana, for example, has no proficiency requirement and grants permits to 18-year-olds. There are 800,000 permit holders in Indiana, and they would all be entitled to pack here, regardless of what the people of Illinois think.

Supporters say that just as a driver's license issued in one state is valid everywhere, a weapons permit should be. But states honor driver's licenses voluntarily, not by federal mandate, a custom that makes sense because the requirements to get one don't differ much from one place to another. Concealed-carry permit standards vary greatly. Lax rules create a danger to public safety by allowing people without basic skills to carry guns.

This legislation would trample on the principle of federalism by denying states the right to decide for themselves what to require of those who want to carry loaded guns in public. If states want to honor permits from other states, they're free to do so, and some do. If they don't, they shouldn't have to.

This logic is even more compelling at a time when the NRA is pushing states to allow concealed-carry without a permit. Missouri recently decided to let anyone who lawfully owns a gun to carry it in public over the objections of the Fraternal Order of Police. Eleven other states have similar laws. Under the proposed federal measure, someone from a state that doesn't require a permit would have the right to carry in a state that does.

The whole idea of allowing concealed-carry without a permit is a mistake. Montana Gov. Steve Bullock recently vetoed a bill to that effect, arguing that it would make just as much sense to let people drive a car or pilot a plane without a license.

Requiring a permit of those who want to carry loaded guns in public is hardly unreasonable. All 50 states require hunters to get licenses and 49 have hunter education requirements. If that's a reasonable approach for someone who wants to use a gun to shoot ducks or deer, it's a reasonable approach for someone who wants to carry a gun for self-defense.

Some gun-rights zealots think the Second Amendment bars even minimal government regulation of firearms ownership. But the Supreme Court has never taken that view, and other constitutional rights are not unlimited. Even Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the landmark 2008 decision striking down a Washington, D.C., gun ordinance, noted that 19th-century courts generally "held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment."

The entire debate is a reminder of the value of federalism in a large and diverse country. When it comes to concealed-carry laws, the best option is to let each state decide for itself what rules to impose within its boundaries and let every other state do the same.

Join the discussion on Twitter @Trib_Ed_Boardand onFacebook.

Become a subscriber today to support editorial writing like this.Start getting full accessto our signature journalism for just 99 cents for the first four weeks.

Read more:
Leave concealed-carry laws to the states - Chicago Tribune

by C.D. Michel

U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- On June 29 2017, Cuban-born Federal District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez issued aninjunctionin an NRA and CRPA supported lawsuit that challenges Californias laws prohibiting the possession of standard capacity firearm magazines.

For now at least, Judge Benitezs ruling in the Duncan v. Becerra case stops the ban from taking effect. More generally, and perhaps more significantly, it affirms that the Second Amendment is not a second class right, and must be respected and protected by the courts.

In 1960, when he was 10 years old, Judge Benitez emigrated from communist controlled Cuba to the United States. He was accompanied by his 13-year old brother, but his mother was initially unable to accompany them because she had been arrested by Castros forces on suspicion of sympathizing with the United States Government. After being held for three days without being allowed to call a lawyer or her family, she was fortunately released, and was eventually able to escape Castros regime.

Judge Benitez familys experiences under communist rule have impacted his judicial career, and apparently shaped his thinking. Thursdays well-reasoned and meticulously thorough 66-page decision to issue an injunction stopping California law from turning hundreds of thousands of California gun owners into criminals demonstrates that. It shows Judge Benitezs profound respect for, and appreciation of, the freedoms enshrined in the United States Constitution an appreciation likely brought into sharp relief compared to the oppressive dictatorship he and his family lived through.

It seems the Judge has seen how insidious government infringements on civil rights can be, and grasps how the Founding Fathers shaped the Bill of Rights to protect us from statist politicians incrementally increasing those infringements, even in the beguilingly alluring name of public safety.

The ruling is welcome news for gun owners who are under siege from shrewd California lawmakers with an extreme progressive agenda. Last year California politicians were faced with a threat from Gavin Newsoms self-promoting Prop 63 as he vied to seize the mantle of the King-of-Gun-Control from Senator Kevin DeLeon so he could build his name recognition in his gubernatorial campaign. So they raced to pass a number of gun bans that have collectively become known as Gunmageddon. Both Prop 63 and Gunmaggedon included a ban on the possession of standard capacity magazines that can hold more than ten rounds. Although acquisition and importation of the magazines had been banned since 2000, under the new laws gun owners were compelled to dispossess themselves of the magazines by July 1. Its government confiscation with a mustache. But by issuing the preliminary injunction, Judge Benitez instead preserved the status quo while the constitutionality of the ban is fully litigated in court, where plaintiffs are seeking to eventually have a permanent injunction issued.

Unsurprisingly Newsom, Prop 63s main proponent, was unhappy with the decision. As he stated to Fox News, large-capacity magazines enable murderers to unleash dozens of rounds without having to stop and reload.

But to quote the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. And despite Prop 63s purported public safety interests, those interests may not eviscerate the Second Amendment, as Judge Benitez put it.

Even so, Newsoms claim that banning these magazines would somehow save lives is pure fallacy. To support this policy choice, attorneys for the government offered a number of studies and expert testimonies trying to prop up that claim. But unlike some courts that have almost blindly accept the governments claims without scrutinizing the evidence, Judge Benitez took a close look. He found that states evidence was inconclusive at best. One of those experts admitted that it is not clear how often the ability to fire more than 10 shots without reloading . . . affects the outcomes of gun attacks. Another so-called expert cited nothing more than news articles in concluding that the bans on large capacity magazines can help save lives by forcing mass shooters to pause and reload ammunition.

As Judge Benitez correctly notes, the burden of justification is demanding and it rests entirely on the State. In order to meet this burden, the State cannot get away with shoddy data or reasoning. But in this case, the States evidence is nothing more than a false dichotomy. For as a purely public policy choice, a government may declare that firearms of any capacity are dangerous in the hands of criminals, while simultaneously concluding that firearms with larger than 10-round magazines in the hands of law-abiding citizens makes every individual safer and the public as a whole safer. As a result, banning such magazines is hardly the reasonable fit constitutionally required to uphold such a ban.

In addition to the lack of evidentiary support for the policy being advocated, Judge Benitez bravely questioned the appropriateness of the trend of lower courts to apply a convoluted, multi-step test in scrutinizing the constitutionality of gun control laws. Its a subjective test that lets judges put their fingers on the scales of justice, and almost always results in upholding any form of gun-control. But even if that test were applied here, Judge Benitez found the States evidence to be incomplete, unreliable, and speculative at best, flatly rejecting the States attempt to support its ban with anything less than hard facts and reasonable inferences drawn from convincing analysis.

Newsom wasnt the only one to criticize Judge Benitezs clear and well-founded reasoning. Having just recently suffering a defeat before the Office of Administrative Law, which rejected his Departments most recent proposed assault weapon regulations, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra put out a press release stating that Proposition 63 was overwhelmingly approved by voters to increase public safety and enhance security in a sensible and constitutional way.

But Judge Benitez was mindful that a majority of California voters approved Prop 63, just as he was equally mindful that the Constitution is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. If all that was needed to undermine constitutionally protected rights was a simple majority vote, the Constitution would long ago have lost all meaning. And without the Constitution to preserve and protect Americas civil liberties we could, and given that bureaucrats crave power and power inevitably corrupts almost certainly eventually would, find ourselves under oppressive government regimes like those of 1960s Cuba.

Of course, this wont stop the state from appealing the decision to the Ninth Circuit, where the politicians hope to find a more sympathetic audience that will bend over intellectually backwards to defer to the governments arguments.

To learn more about the Duncan case, as well as other NRA / CRPA lawsuits brought to protect the rights of California gun owners, subscribe to NRA and CRPA email alerts. And please take a moment to consider donating to the CRPA Foundation, to support the Duncan case, and other NRA / CRPA efforts in California. About: CalGunLaws.comis an online research resource designed primarily for use by attorneys and interested firearm owners. CalGunLaws.com strives to provide easy access to and facilitate understanding of the multitude of complex federal, state, and local firearm laws and ordinances, administrative and executive regulations, case law, and past and current litigation that defines the California firearms regulatory scheme in theory and practice.

Read this article:
Sorry Gavin, Your Civilian Disarmament Agenda Does Not Trump the Second Amendment - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News