A year after passage, the Civil Rights Act was the subject of a report from President Grant to Congress which stated that parts of the South were under the control of Ku Klux Klans, the objects of which were “to deprive colored citizens of the right to bear arms and of the right to a free ballot ….” In debate on a bill to expand civil rights protection, Senator John Scott explained how Klansmen seized the firearms of their victims before lynching them. But Senator Pratt observed that the Klansman “fears the gun” of a man in his “humble fortress.” The Klan targeted the black who would “tell his fellow blacks of their legal rights, as for instance their right to carry arms and defend their persons and homes.”

In sum, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 was understood to provide a remedy to persons who were deprived of the right to carry firearms for self defense. This is such a case.

Stephan P. Halbrook
May 25, 2011
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF CONGRESS OF RACIAL EQUALITY, INC., IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS AND IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL
EDWARD PERUTA, et at., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et at., Defendants-Appellees
[Via David Hardy.

The right to keep and bear arms is a civil right. The first laws in this country to deprive people of this specific enumerated right were specifically intended to keep slaves, and sometimes more generally all “people of color”, from possessing firearms. When governments expand the prohibitions to include nearly all people what they are implicitly saying is the people in general should be treated as slaves with the upside down relationship of the public servants being treated as the masters.

This arrogance of public servants cannot be tolerated. Sometimes servants need to be reminded of their position in life. This is one of those times.—Joe]

Wisconsin would not be in its present situation had it not been for anti-gun former Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat. He twice vetoed concealed carry legislation that had been supported by most people on both sides of the issue that would have included permits. His actions have resulted in something of a civil rights backlash, with many gun owners now pushing for full carry rights without a permit. It’s essentially payback for Doyle and a handful of Democrats who refused to override his vetoes. If Wisconsin’s Legislature adopts constitutional carry, the blame, or credit depending upon one’s perspective, lies at Doyle’s feet and nobody else’s. He had two chances to be “reasonable,” as the gun control crowd always puts it, and he blew them both.

Why this is important to gun rights advocates in the Pacific Northwest should be obvious. Washington has one of the strongest state constitutional right-to-bear-arms provisions in the nation. Open carry has been legal here since before statehood, as noted yesterday. CPLs were not required until 1933. We can carry right now in the Capitol and legislative office buildings, a fact that gives gun prohibitionists heartburn. A growing contingent of Evergreen State gun owners think we ought to return to the “good old days” and point to Alaska, Arizona (which has a state constitutional provision identical to Washington’s) and Vermont as examples of properly minimal gun regulation.

If Wisconsin adopts, right out of the gate, a constitutional carry measure where no concealed carry provision existed previously, then 2012’s legislative session in Olympia just might see the same proposal. In an election year, that could create a degree of political discomfort for lawmakers who do not care to rile this state’s activist gun owners.

Dave Workman
May 26, 2011
WI panel OKs gun bill; columnist shows bankruptcy of anti-CCW mindset
[The repression of a group over a long period of time spawns resentment. This resentment can result in a demand for “justice” that far exceeds the original modest requests. For many decades gun owners have been treated as second and third class citizens instead of first class as have those that exercised other specific enumerated rights such as freedom of speech.

Those that lament our recent successes in our regaining the recognition of our rights should celebrate that we found success in the courts and the legislatures rather than through our method of last of resort. I suspect we were far closer to the breaking point than the other side realized. Hence our gains are far more modest than they really should be but there is the benefit of the gains being obtained without the shedding of blood. For that both sides can and should celebrate that the system is working.—Joe]