GUNS/RLTD To Justify Gun Control, Blue State Attorneys Cite 'Bigoted' Old Laws Disarming Blacks, Catholics And Native Americans

jward

passin' thru


dailycaller.com


To Justify Gun Control, Blue State Attorneys Cite 'Bigoted' Old Laws Disarming Blacks, Catholics And Native Americans​


Bronson Winslow​




  • Attorneys that support gun control for law-abiding citizens are resorting to outdated, racist gun laws to satisfy new firearm law requirements laid out in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen case in June.
  • The referenced laws are from the 1700s and 1800s and were used to restrict slaves, free black people, Native Americans and Catholics from owning firearms, with attorneys saying the laws show a “historical tradition” of restricting firearms that aligns with the Supreme Court’s decision.
  • “Anti-gun lawyers are openly citing racists and bigoted laws dating from the colonial era to the Jim Crow south to support their modern gun control agenda. Whether it was ‘papists’ or Native Americans in the early days of our nation, or freed slaves following the Civil War, it was all wrong, and solely meant to disarm people based on their color or creed, which is a direct violation of our Second Amendment,” GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt told the DCNF.
Attorneys involved in legal battles across the country are turning to outdated, racist gun laws as a means to justify gun control regulation for law-abiding Americans after a landmark Supreme Court decision in June established a need for all gun laws to be rooted in the “historical tradition” of American firearm regulation.
The attorneys are referencing numerous laws from the 1700s and 1800s that were used to restrict slaves, free black people, Native Americans and Catholics from owning firearms, saying the laws show a “historical tradition” of restricting firearms which aligns with the Supreme Court’s decision in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen case, according to The Wall Street Journal. New York first referenced outdated, racist laws after the Bruen decision to defend its updated concealed carry law, opting to reference colonial era laws that were once used to restrict Native American tribes from acquiring firearms, according to court filings.

“The reason that anti-gun rights Democrat attorneys are using old discredited racist gun laws from the past to provide historical tradition for current gun laws in light of the Bruen decision is because they have no valid arguments to make. This is a losing argument that makes them look like they support racist laws staying on the books,” Second Amendment Foundation Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Most recently, Attorneys in California have resorted to referencing outdated, racist gun laws in legal battles over the constitutionality of ammunition background checks and magazine capacity limits, according to court documents. Attorneys in the Rhode v. Bonta and Duncan v. Bonta cases submitted briefings in January that reference many laws from the 1700s and 1800s.

The briefs were filed after United States district judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California Roger Thomas Benitez requested that defendants in the cases submit a list of any “relevantly similar” historical laws, according to the WSJ. (RELATED: ‘Zero Tolerance’: The Biden Admin Is Allegedly Shutting Down Gun Stores For Minor Clerical Errors)

In the Rhode v. Bonta case, attorneys referenced 107 historic laws they believed were relevant to their case, including a Virginia law from 1619 that restricted giving native Americans firearms, a 1633 Massachusetts law that prohibited Native Americans from possessing, trading, seeking or repairing firearms, a 1740 South Carolina act that “prohibited any negro or slave” from possessing or using a firearm without their master’s consent and a 1756 Virginia law that prohibited Catholics from owning firearms and required that they swear oaths of allegiance in front of justices of the peace.

The Duncan v. Bonta case cited an 1835 Arkansas law, an 1818 Missouri law and an 1804 Mississippi law that blocked any “slave or mulatto” from keeping or carrying a gun, powder, shot or club, according to the brief.

“The California Department of Justice should be ashamed of itself for citing so many discriminatory laws of the past as its purported historical analogues. But even setting aside the government’s shamelessness, the argument they make is still unpersuasive,” Michel & Associates Attorney Konstadinos Moros told the DCNF.

Moros argued that the outdated laws do not provide a sufficient argument, as the Supreme Court could have referenced numerous laws from the past that are racist. Instead, they chose to only consider proper “historical analogues” that are well-established and representative of laws that apply to all citizens, not just to marginalized groups and slaves, Moros told the DCNF.

“As we have formed a more perfect union, we’ve rightly decided as a country to correct the sins of our founding and include everyone in ‘the people.’ That the Department of Justice would sink so low to try and save California’s unconstitutional gun control regime demonstrates that their laws are in trouble – and they know it,” Moros continued.

After New York passed its updated concealed carry act, Second Amendment advocacy group Gun Owners Of America (GOA) filed a lawsuit against New York State Police Superintendent Kevin P. Bruen, saying the laws used to prove “historical tradition” were used to take both First and Second Amendment rights from minorities.

Bruen defended the decision, saying that the law was deeply rooted in Anglo-American legal tradition and should therefore be upheld by the court. “From the early days of English settlement in America, the colonies sought to prevent Native American tribes from acquiring firearms, passing laws forbidding the sale and trading of arms to Indigenous people,” Bruen said in court filings at the time.

Bruen’s lawyers also noted that Catholics were barred from owning firearms due to their suspected disloyalty, according to the filing.

“Anti-gun lawyers are openly citing racists and bigoted laws dating from the colonial era to the Jim Crow south to support their modern gun control agenda. Whether it was ‘papists’ or Native Americans in the early days of our nation, or freed slaves following the Civil War, it was all wrong, and solely meant to disarm people based on their color or creed, which is a direct violation of our Second Amendment,” GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt told the DCNF.

The California Office of the Attorney General did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

posted for fair use
 

ghost

Veteran Member


dailycaller.com


To Justify Gun Control, Blue State Attorneys Cite 'Bigoted' Old Laws Disarming Blacks, Catholics And Native Americans​


Bronson Winslow​




  • Attorneys that support gun control for law-abiding citizens are resorting to outdated, racist gun laws to satisfy new firearm law requirements laid out in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen case in June.
  • The referenced laws are from the 1700s and 1800s and were used to restrict slaves, free black people, Native Americans and Catholics from owning firearms, with attorneys saying the laws show a “historical tradition” of restricting firearms that aligns with the Supreme Court’s decision.
  • “Anti-gun lawyers are openly citing racists and bigoted laws dating from the colonial era to the Jim Crow south to support their modern gun control agenda. Whether it was ‘papists’ or Native Americans in the early days of our nation, or freed slaves following the Civil War, it was all wrong, and solely meant to disarm people based on their color or creed, which is a direct violation of our Second Amendment,” GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt told the DCNF.
Attorneys involved in legal battles across the country are turning to outdated, racist gun laws as a means to justify gun control regulation for law-abiding Americans after a landmark Supreme Court decision in June established a need for all gun laws to be rooted in the “historical tradition” of American firearm regulation.
The attorneys are referencing numerous laws from the 1700s and 1800s that were used to restrict slaves, free black people, Native Americans and Catholics from owning firearms, saying the laws show a “historical tradition” of restricting firearms which aligns with the Supreme Court’s decision in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen case, according to The Wall Street Journal. New York first referenced outdated, racist laws after the Bruen decision to defend its updated concealed carry law, opting to reference colonial era laws that were once used to restrict Native American tribes from acquiring firearms, according to court filings.

“The reason that anti-gun rights Democrat attorneys are using old discredited racist gun laws from the past to provide historical tradition for current gun laws in light of the Bruen decision is because they have no valid arguments to make. This is a losing argument that makes them look like they support racist laws staying on the books,” Second Amendment Foundation Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Most recently, Attorneys in California have resorted to referencing outdated, racist gun laws in legal battles over the constitutionality of ammunition background checks and magazine capacity limits, according to court documents. Attorneys in the Rhode v. Bonta and Duncan v. Bonta cases submitted briefings in January that reference many laws from the 1700s and 1800s.

The briefs were filed after United States district judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California Roger Thomas Benitez requested that defendants in the cases submit a list of any “relevantly similar” historical laws, according to the WSJ. (RELATED: ‘Zero Tolerance’: The Biden Admin Is Allegedly Shutting Down Gun Stores For Minor Clerical Errors)

In the Rhode v. Bonta case, attorneys referenced 107 historic laws they believed were relevant to their case, including a Virginia law from 1619 that restricted giving native Americans firearms, a 1633 Massachusetts law that prohibited Native Americans from possessing, trading, seeking or repairing firearms, a 1740 South Carolina act that “prohibited any negro or slave” from possessing or using a firearm without their master’s consent and a 1756 Virginia law that prohibited Catholics from owning firearms and required that they swear oaths of allegiance in front of justices of the peace.

The Duncan v. Bonta case cited an 1835 Arkansas law, an 1818 Missouri law and an 1804 Mississippi law that blocked any “slave or mulatto” from keeping or carrying a gun, powder, shot or club, according to the brief.

“The California Department of Justice should be ashamed of itself for citing so many discriminatory laws of the past as its purported historical analogues. But even setting aside the government’s shamelessness, the argument they make is still unpersuasive,” Michel & Associates Attorney Konstadinos Moros told the DCNF.

Moros argued that the outdated laws do not provide a sufficient argument, as the Supreme Court could have referenced numerous laws from the past that are racist. Instead, they chose to only consider proper “historical analogues” that are well-established and representative of laws that apply to all citizens, not just to marginalized groups and slaves, Moros told the DCNF.

“As we have formed a more perfect union, we’ve rightly decided as a country to correct the sins of our founding and include everyone in ‘the people.’ That the Department of Justice would sink so low to try and save California’s unconstitutional gun control regime demonstrates that their laws are in trouble – and they know it,” Moros continued.

After New York passed its updated concealed carry act, Second Amendment advocacy group Gun Owners Of America (GOA) filed a lawsuit against New York State Police Superintendent Kevin P. Bruen, saying the laws used to prove “historical tradition” were used to take both First and Second Amendment rights from minorities.

Bruen defended the decision, saying that the law was deeply rooted in Anglo-American legal tradition and should therefore be upheld by the court. “From the early days of English settlement in America, the colonies sought to prevent Native American tribes from acquiring firearms, passing laws forbidding the sale and trading of arms to Indigenous people,” Bruen said in court filings at the time.

Bruen’s lawyers also noted that Catholics were barred from owning firearms due to their suspected disloyalty, according to the filing.

“Anti-gun lawyers are openly citing racists and bigoted laws dating from the colonial era to the Jim Crow south to support their modern gun control agenda. Whether it was ‘papists’ or Native Americans in the early days of our nation, or freed slaves following the Civil War, it was all wrong, and solely meant to disarm people based on their color or creed, which is a direct violation of our Second Amendment,” GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt told the DCNF.

The California Office of the Attorney General did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

posted for fair use
In a few words the California of the Attorney understands, No way brother!
 

Wildweasel

F-4 Phantoms Phorever
So the gun control crowd has so few straws to grasp in support of their goals they are reduced to citing slavery era and Jim Crow laws as the "historical traditions" they seek to continue by having gun control?

Looks like they just openly revealed that discrimination and subjugation of segments of the population is what they seek through imposing gun control laws.
 

Seeker22

Has No Life - Lives on TB
So the gun control crowd has so few straws to grasp in support of their goals they are reduced to citing slavery era and Jim Crow laws as the "historical traditions" they seek to continue by having gun control?

Looks like they just openly revealed that discrimination and subjugation of segments of the population is what they seek through imposing gun control laws.

Pathetic, isn't it?
 

Dozdoats

On TB every waking moment

North Carolina could be on brink of eliminating pistol purchase permits
Story by By Victor Skinner | The Center Square contributor • Monday
519 Comments

(The Center Square) – The North Carolina General Assembly appears poised to repeal the state’s 110-year-old pistol purchase permit, but how exactly it’s accomplished remains unclear.

North Carolina could be on brink of eliminating pistol purchase permits
North Carolina could be on brink of eliminating pistol purchase permits
© Provided by Washington Examiner
House Republicans approved House Bill 50 in a party-line vote on Wednesday to repeal the state’s pistol purchase permit. The measure now heads to the Senate, which approved the same in a broader bill package last week.




Senate Bill 41 was also approved in a party-line vote to repeal the permit that requires approval from the respective 100 county sheriffs. SB 41 includes measures to allow concealed carry of firearms at religious services that share locations with private or charter schools, and to launch a two-year firearm safe storage awareness initiative, as well.

Sen. Danny Britt, R-Robeson, sponsor of the Senate bill, contends the vast majority of pistol sales in North Carolina take place through federally licensed dealers, who would still be required to conduct checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System run by the FBI.

Supporters of the change have cited complaints about the slow pace of permit approvals and touted support for repeal from the North Carolina Sheriff’s Association.

Democrats have argued the bill would create a "giant loophole" that would allow dangerous individuals to obtain handguns through private sellers who are not required to conduct background checks.

Related video: North Carolina Lawmakers Roll Out New Bill To Legalize Sports Betting (Dailymotion)

Aspects of SB 41 regarding the safe storage awareness initiative and concealed carry at religious services have already cleared the House in standalone bills with support from Democrats. Democrat Gov. Roy Cooper vetoed similar legislation to repeal the pistol purchase permit in 2021, alleging "gun permit laws reduce gun homicides and suicides and reduce the availability of guns for criminal activity."

Senate Republicans now hold a supermajority necessary to override a gubernatorial veto, while Republicans in the House came one vote shy of that threshold in the November election.

HB 50’s single Democratic co-sponsor, Rep. Michael Wray of Northampton County, told the media he decided to vote against the bill on Wednesday after consulting with sheriffs in his district.

SB 41 is currently in the Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House, while HB 50 has not yet been referred to a Senate committee.

House Speaker Tim Moore, R-Cleveland, recently told reporters that while he believes discussions should continue with Democrats to court support for repeal, the lower chamber could simply adopt SB 41.

Advocates for repeal have highlighted how pistol purchase permits were initially implemented by Jim Crow Democrats to prevent black residents from gaining legal access to guns, dubbing the permit law "the Klan’s favorite law."

North Carolina is the only southern state that still requires a pistol purchase permit.
 

NoDandy

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Most of these "laws" keep getting shut down by the various Supreme courts. This is just now lawyers making work for themselves to keep the money pouring in.
If they want confiscation so bad, they can go out and start confiscating anytime they want. Oh, bet they would have to grow some balls for that, which they won't / can't do. So they always want to "pass a law " and get someone else to do it for them.

:mad:

:mad::mad:
 
Top