Introduction The issue of gun control and violence, both in Canada and the United States, is one that simply will not go away. If history is to be any guide, no matter what the resolution to the gun control debate is, it is probable that the arguments pro and con will be much the same as they always have been.
Copyright Clayton E. Cramer All Rights Reserved. Electronic redistribution is permitted as long as no alterations are made to the text and this notice appears at the beginning. Print reproduction or for profit use is not authorized without permission from the author. The Racist Roots of Gun Control The historical record provides compelling evidence that racism underlies gun control laws -- and not in any subtle way.
Throughout much of American history, gun control was openly stated as a method for keeping blacks and Hispanics "in their place," and to quiet the racial fears of whites. This paper is intended to provide a brief summary of this unholy alliance of gun control and racism, and to suggest that gun control laws should be regarded as "suspect ideas," analogous to the "suspect classifications" theory of discrimination already part of the American legal system.
Racist arms laws predate the establishment of the United States. Starting inthe French Black Code required Louisiana colonists to stop any blacks, and if necessary, beat "any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane. When the first U.
The New Orleans city government also stopped whites from teaching fencing to free blacks, and then, when free blacks sought to teach fencing, similarly prohibited their efforts as well. The perception that free blacks were sympathetic to the plight of their enslaved brothers, and the dangerous example that "a Negro could be free" also caused the slave states to pass laws designed to disarm all blacks, both slave and free.
Unlike the gun control laws passed after the Civil War, these antebellum statutes were for blacks alone. In Maryland, these prohibitions went so far as to prohibit free blacks from owning dogs without a license, and authorizing any white to kill an unlicensed dog owned by a free black, for fear that blacks would use dogs as weapons.
Mississippi went further, and prohibited any ownership of a dog by a black person. One example of the increasing fear of armed blacks is the change to the Tennessee Constitution, where Article XI, 26 of the Tennessee Constitution was revised from: The year before, the Tennessee Supreme Court had recognized the right to bear arms as an individual guarantee, but there is nothing in that decision that touches on the subject of race.
Huntlythe North Carolina Supreme Court had recognized that there was a right to carry arms guaranteed under the North Carolina Constitution, as long as such arms were carried in a manner not likely to frighten people.
An statute provided: That if any free negro, mulatto, or free person of color, shall wear or carry about his or her person, or keep in his or her house, any shot gun, musket, rifle, pistol, sword, dagger or bowie-knife, unless he or she shall have obtained a licence therefor from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of his or her county, within one year preceding the wearing, keeping or carrying therefor, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be indicted therefor.
Newsom was convicted by a jury; but the trial judge directed a not guilty verdict, and the state appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court. The 17th article of the North Carolina Constitution declared: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
The defendant is not indicted for carrying arms in defence of the State, nor does the act of prohibit him from so doing. Its only object is to preserve the peace and safety of the community from being disturbed by an indiscriminate use, on ordinary occasions, by free men of color, of fire arms or other arms of an offensive character.
Self preservation is the first law of nations, as it is of individuals. Unlike a number of other state constitutions with right to keep and bear arms provisions that limited this right only to citizens,  Article 17 guaranteed this right to the people -- and try as hard as they might, it was difficult to argue that a "free person of color," in the words of the Court, was not one of "the people.
The Georgia Supreme Court found in Nunn v. State that a statute prohibiting the sale of concealable handguns, sword-canes, and daggers violated the Second Amendment: The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all of this for the important end to be attained: Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I.
We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self- defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void Within a single page, the Court had gone from "right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys" to the much more narrowly restrictive right of a "citizen.
The decision Cooper and Worsham v. Savannah was not, principally, a right to keep and bear arms case. Samuel Cooper and Hamilton Worsham, two "free persons of color," were convicted of failing to pay the tax, and were jailed. State about "the right of the people," really only meant white people.Essay/Term paper: The second amendment and the right to bear arms Essay, term paper, research paper: Gun Control.
Gun Control Act of ; Other short titles: State Firearms Control Assistance Act: Long title: An Act to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for better control of the interstate traffic in firearms. Evaluation Gun Control in the United States Orval Lawler English Section B Galen College of Nursing Omar Rodriguez, MA Gun Control in the United States Gun control is not one issue, but many, some people think gun control is a gun issue, and to others it is an issue of rights.
Gun control is an issue of safety, education, and politics. Opposing Viewpoints Series - Gun Control (paperback edition) [Helen Cothran] on arteensevilla.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers.
High profile school shootings across the nation have reinvigorated the debate about gun control.
In the following chapters. Essay on Gun Control in the United States of America - Gun Control in the United States of America is a topic that has had some criticism and support by many citizens. The critical people of this topic believe that the guns do not kill people, it is the people that kill people.
Argumentative Essay: Gun Control Gun violence in the United States is a significantly large problem for our society. Many people die daily due to senseless gun crimes.