‘Racist’ history of gun control

In a Pew Research study from March of last year, a full 64 percent of Black Americans said that state and local governments should be allowed to pass laws restricting handguns. Only 38 percent of whites agree with that statement. Over the years, Blacks have become all too aware of the damage handguns can unleash on communities, which is why they’ve become major proponents of gun laws. But a new book about the history of American gun regulation shows how ironic Black support of widespread gun restriction actually is.

While doing research for Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America, UCLA constitutional law professor Adam Winkler discovered that, contrary to modern America, there was a time in U.S. history when African-Americans were actually fighting against gun regulation.

Starting as early as the Dred Scott decision in 1857, the American federal government made a point to keep guns out of African-American hands. When then-Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote his decision that Blacks couldn’t be considered full citizens, he noted that if they were, they would be allowed “full liberty of speech … to hold public meetings on political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” Taney and others were terrified of a full-scale Black revolt, which meant they were completely in favor of keeping Blacks unarmed.

After the Civil War, the Southern states created so-called “Black Codes,” laws that restricted the rights of newly freed blacks. Can you guess what one of the main oppressions was? Blacks couldn’t own guns. Even when Blacks did get their hands on weapons, the nascent Ku Klux Klan would frequently go on raids of Black homes and take away their weapons, making them even more vulnerable to Klan attacks.

These kinds of arbitrary restrictions on gun ownership traveled all the way to the civil rights era, when the archaic Black Codes continued to prevent African-Americans from arming themselves. Even Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. applied for a gun permit after his house was firebombed. Despite King being a respected community leader and a man of the cloth, the Alabama police denied his request.

Nowadays, things have obviously turned around drastically. Blacks have won the right to own guns, but awful gun violence has also wreaked havoc on Black communities from coast to coast. The Klan was wrong: Rather than attacking them with guns, some African-Americans started attacking each other over gang territory and drug battles. It’s no wonder today’s African-American leaders herald gun restrictions. And one has to consider whether winning the right to carry handguns everywhere was really that wonderful of a victory. – bet.com

Republicans, Democrats clash over gun rights in Iowa

By Mike Glover

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — The Iowa House approved two gun-rights measures Wednesday night that sparked Democrats to stage a walkout earlier in the day, stalling action for six hours.

One bill would allow people to use deadly force to protect themselves and the other called for writing gun rights protections into the Iowa Constitution. The second measure would have to be approved by another legislative assembly next year and then be referred to voters.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of Des Moines said the chamber’s 40 Democrats decided to return after deciding they’d made their displeasure clear regarding a lack of notice about the bills and concerns the proposals would gut the state’s gun laws. He said he feared the votes would turn Iowa into the Wild, Wild West.”

“It would eliminate all gun laws,” he said. “This issue is very, very extreme. This proposal is not a mainstream proposal.”

Backers argued for the change in the Constitution, warning judges are eager to limit the rights of gun owners.

“For far too long, we’ve seen judicial abuse of our Second Amendment,” said Rep. Matt Windschitl, R-Missouri River, the main backer of the effort.

Critics argued the measure would largely pre-empt virtually all of the state’s gun control laws, a charge Windschitl rejected as “simply false.”

Both measures were approved largely along party lines in the GOP-led chamber where Republicans have a 60-40 margin.

Republicans could have technically debated the bills without Democrats in attendance. The Iowa rules are different than in Wisconsin and Indiana, where similar Democrat walkouts stretched on for weeks. More than half the lawmakers must be on hand to conduct business in those states, though Wisconsin Republicans eventually used a procedural move to approve legislation opposed by Democrats.

House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, R-Hiawatha, said he decided not to press the issue while Democrats were missing because that would have poisoned the atmosphere around an issue that’s already emotionally charged.

“Right now I’m trying to be patient,” Paulsen said. “Part of my job is to protect the institution.”

The future of the measures is unclear as they move to a Senate where Democrats have a 26-24 margin. Majority Leader Michael Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, says he has no plans to bring the issue up for debate.

Gronstal said he wasn’t warned in advance of the walkout.

“I know nothing about what happened,” he said.

Tim Albrecht, a spokesman for Republican Gov. Terry Branstad, said the governor would have no comment.