(Emory Wheel / Angel Li)
Ratified in 1791, the Second Amendment is one of the most integral American principles that has shaped this nation’s history, social ideals and national value system. The Second Amendment states, “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” However, a consensus on the application of this fundamental right has become increasingly nuanced in the wake of America’s uniquely persistent gun violence problem.
We are once again confronted with the issue of guns in America. We should leverage the constitution’s political power to explore new avenues of public discourse and political organizing among minorities that centers gun education as a viable solution to address gun violence than restrictive gun reform.
At the heart of the gun debate is not simply a dispute regarding the effects of gun violence on public safety but also the legal avenue, or lack thereof, to address gun violence. Moreover, the actors mediating this highly contentious discussion and the effective ramifications of prior gun legislation are also contributing factors to the current condition of America’s pervasive gun ideologies and strongest proponents. In recent years, public discourse has forced this discussion into a gridlock. Those paradigmatic gun-rights activists who denounce big government and promote hyper-individualism are in direct opposition to gun reformists who generally believe that the government is both competent and benevolent enough to effectively address such national grievances.
Bipartisan support for the promotion of public safety has moved well beyond the realm of possibility in our current political landscape into a stubborn and often unimaginative display of band-aid solutions, and the constitutional muster of the Second Amendment adds further barriers to addressing root causes of gun violence. Any attempt to ban guns and reform gun sale and distribution are seemingly futile. It is both impractical and unfeasible to anticipate meaningful legislative action from current lawmakers and lobbyists due to the sheer amount of guns currently in circulation on top of the deep-rooted and heavily racialized American gun culture.
The overwhelming dominance of political action groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) — with almost 5 million members nation-wide — has heavily influenced the gun debate. The NRA is the most prominent special interest lobby in support of the Second Amendment with a right-leaning bias. Their work consists of blocking gun restrictions on behalf of their conservative base, gun manufacturers’ generous financial contributions and political allies. Moreover, their youth programs educate countless students across the nation, and the law enforcement division incentivizes active and retired armed service members with a slew of benefits.
However, the NRA has also consistently failed to advocate for Black gun owners and gun violence victims. They ignore the harmful racial disparities between victims of gun violence in Stand Your Ground states. The NRA’s support for self-defense legislation, which promotes the use of deadly force rather than retreat in a dangerous altercation, was the major crux of the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the murder trial of un-armed Black teenager Trayvon Martin. As for the murder of Philando Castile, a legal gun owner whose death outraged Black NRA members, the leadership’s public response was tepid and dismissive.
The application of pro-gun laws is not equally applied across all groups. As Caroline E. Light, author of “Stand Your Ground: A History of America’s Love Affair With Lethal Self-Defense” states, “self-defensive lethal violence is steeped in a structure of power that tends to concentrate power in the hands of those who already have it.” Therefore, minority communities who seek to reclaim power within that structure should flood political lobbies in which they have been historically shunned. The political force of the Second Amendment could present legal pathways for radically re-imaging gun culture.
In response to these glaring hypocrisies, the National African American Gun Association, a competing organization, has experienced significant increases in membership over the last several years. Founded in 2015, the primary goal of the NAAGA is to distance themselves from the NRA. With over 30,000 active members (60% of whom are female), their mission is to encourage gun ownership and educate Black citizens on the historical nuances of their Second Amendment rights. They are currently considering creating a political action committee to further advance their agenda. These developments, as well as the rise of other Black pro-gun organizations, introduce a new element to the gun debate that centers the very individuals who have been historically disenfranchised as gun owners and victimized by gun violence.
Racially discriminatory gun reform is much older than our nation’s constitution. Since 1640, race-based laws have prevented both Black and Indigenous populations from access to firearms for fears of revolt against European colonial settlers. Even after the Civil War, the Black Codes were designed to prevent Black armament as a response to newly anointed African American citizenship. These legislative limitations further denied freed people’s ability to exercise their constitutional rights. Fast forward to the Civil Rights era, the creation of the original Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (later shortened to BPP) sparked more discussion about the use of firearms, specifically for political advancement. In 1967, 30 members of the BPP protested on the steps of the California State Capitol building. Lawmakers soon passed the Mulford Act that prohibited the open carry of loaded firearms because the Panthers were not publicly coded as armed patriots but instead as vigilantes. This piece of legislation was endorsed by the NRA and later signed into law by then Gov. Ronald Reagan.
More recently, federal gun legislation enacted by liberal politicians has arguably been ineffective or equally damaging. President Joe Biden’s record on gun control harks back to his involvement in the infamous Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Due to constitutional limitations, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban did very little to curb gun violence over long periods of time. Gun buyers, sellers and distributors found various loopholes in the legislation, such as sporterizing a banned weapon into a legal substitute. Legislation simply cannot keep up with the technological innovation of the manufacturing and ingenuity of illegal gun sale and distribution.
The only way to combat the NRA’s massive political influence and racialized American gun ideologies is to introduce more oppositional pro-gun organizations that understand the historical implications of gun rights and reform from an ameliorated perspective. This political strategy does not necessitate the increased ownership of guns, just minority advocacy for the fundamental principle. Any educated choice on whether to own a gun should be self-determined. By understanding this nuanced background, those that have been most affected by gun laws and gun violence can promote the well-being of their communities through representative education programs and political organizing. Doing so will not compromise the idea of gun ownership in America; in fact, it could very well revitalize the public safety discourse regarding guns in the U.S.
Viviana Barreto (22C) is from Covington, Georgia.
Based. Let’s get more people with guns! Women, minorities, and all Americans should be encouraged to exercise this right. Guns protect us from the tyranny of the government and the bigot.
Great read and call to action!
Guns make it more difficult for the oppressor to take control.
I am a white 2A advocate who is also opposed to racism from the depth of my soul. What is happening to the NRA is a very good thing for the pro-gun rights movement. It has served to redirect giving towards organizations that are not afraid to stand up for minority gun owners – such as CCRKBA and SAF. At the same time we have seen, as noted in the article, in the formation of several 2nd Amendment groups composed of black gun owners. These groups have been welcomed into the wider pro-gun community. There are now several black men who are active in the gun media – and who have followings well beyond the black community. In the 2A media, black gun rights groups are getting a lot of positive press. We are listening to them. While there are racists who own guns, the wider gun rights movement is not intentionally or overtly racist.
The NRA was subjected to a great deal of pushback from white over its failure to protest the shooting of Philando Castile – and many started looking for other groups to support. We didn’t just see a black man who was unjustly deprived of his life – we saw a fellow gun owner and licensed CCW holder who did everything right and still ended up getting shot.
As noted in the article, gun control has always been racist. Back in the 1980s, when CA passed its’ handgun “roster” of handguns that could sold in the state, supporters (mostly liberal Democrats BTW) flat out said that the purpose was to price poor minorities out of the handgun market. That’s why the law effectively banned the sale of most used guns by gun dealers. Ironically, during Jim Crow, Southern States passed laws banning ownership all handguns except “Army Models” – which priced newly freed black citizens out of the handgun market.
Gun rights are civil rights, and when a person becomes involved in fighting for one of them, they become more sensitive to the violation of ANY of them against ANYONE.
Rev. R. Vincent Warde
Clergy in Support of the Second Amendment
The racist application of gun control law is something I’m glad you’ve written about, but the notion that the solution to gun violence in America will come from minorities joining organizations that promote the further deregulation of firearms seems completely wrong. There is a pandemic of gun violence that is clearly promoted by unregulated access to an assortment of dangerous firearms. It’s not clear to me how trying platforming minority voices through pro-gun organizations will solve this fundamental problem. Assuming the political landscape is as static as you say (I agree), I think it’s likely that the masses of white, right-leaning voters who support the status quo will completely overwhelm the kind of political synthesis you hope for. A majority of Americans already agree that gun control laws need to be stricter; organizers should capitalize on this consensus, and build large political advocacy groups that oppose groups like the NRA instead of attempting to flood their ranks, which seems like a strategy which could easily backfire (giving financial support to these white-dominated groups simply will fuel their agenda which leads to violence which disproportionately affects minorities).
Hi anon,
I’m glad you left this comment as I spent the majority of this article discussing the background/historical piece for this debate, I fear that my larger argument got muddled. To start, I want to note that I do believe the solution to gun violence must include those that are proponents of gun ownership (this is not something that is mutually exclusive). I believe our societal assumption that control/reform must oppose gun owners is a highly liberalized notion which will continue to perpetuate gun violence. This keeps groups from talking to each other and promotes further harm. It is no secret that the majority of gun control legislation is largely written by people who do not understand guns—in my research for this piece I found this particular fact to be bizarre and counterintuitive. Another thing I noticed in my research for this is that the idea that gun control is racist is a very common talking point among conservatives. They use this to rally support among minorities, specifically black gun owners, under the guise that they have their “civil rights” in mind. This I also found to be heavily disturbing, as we have all seen this to be especially untrue not only given their response to Black death but also conservative demographic. The idea I am trying to lay out here is that political synthesis could be one potential outcome, but we should not consider it is not as the only one. As for political action groups, the ones I’ve listed here (and many others) are ran by minorities. Any financial contributions to them are not being used by white-dominated groups (granted our political system is and I think this is yet another hurdle that must be discussed). The most interesting aspect of this, to me, was that these minority gun owners are going directly into communities, talking to people, handing out flyers. They are doing work within communities to de-escalate, educate, and promote the well-being of their communities with information—not telling people that they need more guns. I agree that the majority of Americans support gun control, but in our current state of political inaction and violence, I must question whether this is going to effectively solve our current situation…it hasn’t up until now. Moreover, this broader notion of: how can we use guns to our advantage, not only in addressing violence among and within communities, but more largely to bridge the discrepancy the notion and the application of all our civil rights. This is the question we must all engage with because it is rooted in our history and embedded in the constitution. This notion, if popularized, might make certain demographics question their own hypocrisies, it may very well backfire as well. However, the dialogue is important and maybe we’ve let liberals and conservatives dominate this so much that we are blinded by their lack of interest in our actual safety and civil rights. lol this is long but I’m thankful for your engagement and making me question my own positions.
Thanks for the reply + clarification for me! It’s a really interesting idea, and I definitely get that gun control laws have been written by people who really don’t seem to understand guns (why are certain models of AR-15 banned by certain laws while other similar semi-automatic rifles are completely legal). I like the notion of “using guns to our advantage” — finding ways of engaging with this NRA-block may be necessary to get any kind of progress, but we should do that in a way that acknowledges and tries to heal this history of racism surrounding firearms and firearm control. Having Black-led groups enter this arena can also crack this “gun control is inherently racist” nut. My concern is still that this won’t produce policy initiatives that actually crack down on gun violence — I see how correlated gun ownership is with gun violence and look at the common case study of Australia, etc. — but maybe the politically possible solutions might only arise when people start talking in ways that are not across these normal liberal/conservative political channels.
Would really love to know if these groups like the National African American Gun Association are politically active, how they differ from the NRA, and what you think about their policy initiatives for reducing gun violence versus more common liberal proposals of outright bans — definitely would enjoy reading that follow-up article.
I really appreciate this discourse, and I think our current landscape really calls for these conversations now more than ever. I think your concern about policy initiatives is very real and understandable, but for this particular topic we should not rely on the government to effectively resolve it. They simply cannot capture the nuance that is necessary to protect our citizenry in public while also understanding and preserving the historical frame I’ve outlined. I mean, the second amendment was written to explicitly protect us from the government, and it was written so broadly to ensure it could not be infringed. I do not think the founders anticipated what gun culture could do to the U.S. public safety. However, gun culture (and its roots) is where the U.S. and Australia’s buy-back programs and other mass shooting preventions worked there and why I hypothesize they would not work here. The culture of having a weapon and wielding it against tyranny, fascism, the police state, etc. is what this country has built itself upon. I can’t imagine many people would willingly give up their weapons because the money just isn’t worth it. The principle is much greater; therefore, I think national context matters (and why the U.S. is the only country with this longstanding problem). We’ve built our democracy on it.
In the case of Black Americans in the U.S., I believe the history of gun ownership is much much richer (and why this piece only captures a small sliver of it). To dive into that, if you’re interested, I recommend Charles E. Cobb Jr.’s book “This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible” In our current climate, I think it is necessary to revisit history, see what works and what didn’t and apply it now. We’re in ruins as it is, might as well try something “new.”
As for a follow-up article, I’d like to research more on these last few questions. Maybe someone else could provide a more insightful revolutionary praxis better than myself!
Everyone who is not a criminal or has mental issues should own a firearm. With the states decriminalizing the police, we are going to have to protect ourselves.