Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) filed an amicus brief

[GrayGuy]

Not sure if this was posted before, but, I thought it was an interesting read, and if the brief is successful we all benefit.

The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) filed an amicus brief (http://tinyurl.com/3h5hcvp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) in a California concealed carry case. It emphasizes how the right to "bear arms" does not stop at one's doorstep, and gives a historical analysis of the Fourteenth Amendment, discussing how discretionary firearms licensing laws were an incident of slavery.
http://tinyurl.com/3eddtoe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[b322da]

Not sure if this was posted before, but, I thought it was an interesting read, and if the brief is successful we all benefit.

The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) filed an amicus brief (http://tinyurl.com/3h5hcvp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) in a California concealed carry case. It emphasizes how the right to "bear arms" does not stop at one's doorstep, and gives a historical analysis of the Fourteenth Amendment, discussing how discretionary firearms licensing laws were an incident of slavery.
http://tinyurl.com/3eddtoe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Very interesting, GreyGuy. It is, I suspect, generally recognized that the draconian firearms laws of Texas in the Reconstruction era were to keep guns out of black hands, at least for the most part.

Strange issues can lead to strange friends.

Elmo

[LabRat]

Wasn't this the gist of Justice Thomas' opinion in the Heller v DC?

Wasn't he the only Justice to recognize the historical perspective of Post Civil War gun laws as chiefly designed to keep former slaves from protecting themselves?

[GrayGuy]

Wasn't this the gist of Justice Thomas' opinion in the Heller v DC?

Wasn't he the only Justice to recognize the historical perspective of Post Civil War gun laws as chiefly designed to keep former slaves from protecting themselves?

I don't know.

Not sure if this was posted before, but, I thought it was an interesting read, and if the brief is successful we all benefit.

The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) filed an amicus brief (http://tinyurl.com/3h5hcvp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) in a California concealed carry case. It emphasizes how the right to "bear arms" does not stop at one's doorstep, and gives a historical analysis of the Fourteenth Amendment, discussing how discretionary firearms licensing laws were an incident of slavery.
http://tinyurl.com/3eddtoe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Very interesting, GreyGuy. It is, I suspect, generally recognized that the draconian firearms laws of Texas in the Reconstruction era were to keep guns out of black hands, at least for the most part.

Strange issues can lead to strange friends.

Elmo

I don’t think this is a black/white thing. As I understand the brief’s purpose is to argue that the San Diego gun laws are discriminatory and were put in place originally with respect to freed slaves and are unlawful because they infringe on civil rights.

[b322da]

I don’t think this is a black/white thing. As I understand the brief’s purpose is to argue that the San Diego gun laws are discriminatory and were put in place originally with respect to freed slaves and are unlawful because they infringe on civil rights.

You are absolutely correct, GrayGuy. I certainly in my comments did not mean to imply that. My subtlety often gets me in trouble. I do recognize that, with regret.

What I was driving at was the apparent irony of seeing a group trying to advance, in court, an RKBA cause popular with many of us in Texas -- yes, even many of us Liberals -- the predecessors of that very group having been intentionally disarmed in Texas during the Reconstruction era. While I agree that the legal position espoused by CORE is certainly not "a black/white thing" in the case at hand, I am not prepared to say that the action by Texas in the 19th century was not.

At least to me there appears to be some irony there.

I apologize if I was misunderstood, and, if so, I will accept the blame for that misunderstanding because of my poor choice of words.

Elmo

[philip964]

I enjoyed reading the brief by CORE. I am not a lawyer, but although somewhat dry reading, it is very entertaining reading the logic used in their argument.

I learned a lot. I never realized that gun laws were in many instances designed to prevent people of color from owning and carrying guns.

After reading it. I also can't imagine how most states and cities get away with outlawing the possession and carrying of guns in the first place.

I certainly hope this changes California's laws on carrying a gun. However, I am not holding my breath.

[GrayGuy]

I don’t think this is a black/white thing. As I understand the brief’s purpose is to argue that the San Diego gun laws are discriminatory and were put in place originally with respect to freed slaves and are unlawful because they infringe on civil rights.

You are absolutely correct, GrayGuy. I certainly in my comments did not mean to imply that. My subtlety often gets me in trouble. I do recognize that, with regret.

What I was driving at was the apparent irony of seeing a group trying to advance, in court, an RKBA cause popular with many of us in Texas -- yes, even many of us Liberals -- the predecessors of that very group having been intentionally disarmed in Texas during the Reconstruction era. While I agree that the legal position espoused by CORE is certainly not "a black/white thing" in the case at hand, I am not prepared to say that the action by Texas in the 19th century was not.

At least to me there appears to be some irony there.

I apologize if I was misunderstood, and, if so, I will accept the blame for that misunderstanding because of my poor choice of words.

Elmo

Elmo, no apology is needed. No insult was taken. We were just expressing our views/ our take on the brief. Have a great day.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Roy Innis, National Chairman of CORE is on the NRA Board of Directors.

Chas.

[GrayGuy]

Roy Innis, National Chairman of CORE is on the NRA Board of Directors.

Chas.

Chas – I didn’t know that, thanks. I did know—If I read the article correctly—Core filed the brief in conjunction with the NRA.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Roy Innis, National Chairman of CORE is on the NRA Board of Directors.

Chas.

Chas – I didn’t know that, thanks. I did know—If I read the article correctly—Core filed the brief in conjunction with the NRA.

Yes, CORE did file an amicus brief. Roy has funny story about a bunch of NRA guys attending CORE's annual banquet but I'm afraid to tell it for fear someone will take it the wrong way. Roy is a great supporter of the Second Amendment and he has the credentials in the minority community to spread the word.

Chas.

[terryg]

Roy has funny story about a bunch of NRA guys attending CORE's annual banquet but I'm afraid to tell it for fear someone will take it the wrong way.
Chas.

Will you tell us if we promise not to take it the wrong way???