PDA

View Full Version : Were CA CCW policies and OC policies originally based on racist intentions?


firearmenthusiast
04-19-2010, 1:57 PM
I heard that the CCW policies for California were adpoted in the 1920's due to growing fear of armed latino and chinese communities. I heard this a while back but couldn't find too much information. Does anyone know about this? Also, I heard that the OC policies were made in direct response to the Black Panther Party parading with loaded guns on their sides in the 1960's. Can anyone give me more information of this? Thanks, it seems very interesting!

Big Jake
04-19-2010, 3:34 PM
I heard something along the same lines. The way I heard it the issue of individual chiefs/sherrifs having discretion to issue was do in large part to the demographics of different parts of the state.

The head of a law enforcement agency (who was always white!) was given the authority to decide who could/could not have a ccw because the state was concerened that a state wide "Shall Issue" policy would mean that minortities could ccw.

At the time this was unacceptable by white society so discretionary issue meant that only deserving (read white) people would be issued a ccw. Although racist in its application, the law made sense at the time given the rampant racism that existed in that era!

Fast forward to today's more "enlightened" society and race (in theory anyway!) should make no difference. The law is still the same, however, and has not been brought up to date!

This is not the gospel it is just what I heard!

sholling
04-19-2010, 3:47 PM
Yes you are correct.

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nckgyfGbdnU

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g7TbxkJuqA

quick draw mcgraw
04-19-2010, 4:16 PM
If this is truly the case then I would think this to be great news and a powerful tool in the fight for a 'shall issue' California and possibly other 2A battles!!!

Big Jake
04-19-2010, 4:42 PM
If this is truly the case then I would think this to be great news and a powerful tool in the fight for a 'shall issue' California and possibly other 2A battles!!!

Don't hold your breath!

quick draw mcgraw
04-19-2010, 4:46 PM
Don't hold your breath!


Maybe not, but every little bit helps. Especially blatant racially discriminatory and thereby unconstitutional laws.

Kharn
04-19-2010, 5:04 PM
Loaded open carry was restricted in CA because the Black Panthers decided bringing their guns to Sacramento was a good idea.

quick draw mcgraw
04-19-2010, 5:11 PM
Loaded open carry was restricted in CA because the Black Panthers decided bringing their guns to Sacramento was a good idea.


Perhaps, but that legislation did not prevent WHO could LOC, but rather limited WHERE people could LOC.

rp55
04-19-2010, 5:15 PM
Yes, I do not have the links at hand but there are some scans of contemporary San Francisco newspapers (early to mid 20's as I recall) announcing how the new laws would disarm all the <insert racist term for Asians> and <insert racist term for Italians>. I'm sure the current editors at the Chronicle would blanch at the terms their predecessors used.

CCWFacts
04-19-2010, 6:27 PM
The head of a law enforcement agency (who was always white!) was given the authority to decide who could/could not have a ccw because the state was concerened that a state wide "Shall Issue" policy would mean that minortities could ccw.

At the time this was unacceptable by white society so discretionary issue meant that only deserving (read white) people would be issued a ccw. Although racist in its application, the law made sense at the time given the rampant racism that existed in that era!

This is not the gospel it is just what I heard!

It's documented truth.

You are right, this is a Jim Crow law. As with many Jim Crow laws, they gave discretion to an authority who they knew would exercise that discretion in a racist way. As you say, at the time, society couldn't accept the idea of non-whites being armed, voting, going to white schools, etc.

At the time this law was passed in California, Mexicans couldn't go to white schools, whites couldn't marry Asians, etc. So it's pretty obvious what this law was about.

But you don't need to make inferences. It's documented in news accounts of the time (http://old.californiaccw.org/files/sf-chronicle-article.htm), why they were passing this law:

ACT EXPLAINED

Possible unconstitutionality of the provision against possession of weapons by non-naturalized residents was admitted in McKissick's letter to the Governor urging signing of the bill, but he pointed out that if this clause should be held invalid the rest of the act will not be affected and that if it can be sustained that it will have a "salutary effect in checking tong wars among the Chinese and vendettas among our people who are of Latin descent."

If this is truly the case then I would think this to be great news and a powerful tool in the fight for a 'shall issue' California and possibly other 2A battles!!!

Ha ha ha. No. Everyone can see it's racist but the minority leaders in this country are extremely comfortable promoting and defending a vast repertoire of modern Jim Crow legislation.

quick draw mcgraw
04-19-2010, 7:01 PM
Why would we not bring this into the fight? It's just more ammo for us.

Nodda Duma
04-19-2010, 9:02 PM
Seriously, I don't understand the unwillingness to underscore the origins of these laws. Especially during this era of hypersensitivity to racism.

Sinixstar
04-19-2010, 10:05 PM
I don't know about California - but New York's original gun laws (Sullivan laws) were absolutely steeped in anti-immigrant/racist/corrupt motives. Sullivan wanted to make sure only 'real americans' could have guns, and that anyone who went against his gang of thug supporters were disarmed.

Since the Sullivan law was kind of the blueprint for gun control in the US - it's all 'fruit of the poisoned tree' imho.

CABilly
04-19-2010, 10:10 PM
Just goes to show that institutionalized discrimination, or directing a law at one group of people, never works out. Remember how income tax was just going to be a temporary burden on the most wealthy people?

It's too bad we only learn that granting power to government to wield against someone else could (I daresay, will) come back to haunt us all only when it's too late.

groats
04-20-2010, 6:30 AM
Why would we not bring this into the fight? It's just more ammo for us.

Because the vast majority of those who want to ban guns are liberals,
and liberals, by their own wacky definition, are never racist.

Even when they pass laws that are designed to harm minorities.
Because to liberals, the outcome doesn't matter, it's all about feelings.
Their own feelings, of course, because no one else's matter to them.

yellowfin
04-20-2010, 7:09 AM
Maybe not, but every little bit helps. Especially blatant racially discriminatory and thereby unconstitutional laws.Now they serve the discriminatory purpose of spiting gun owners (presumably by extension conservatives) who have replaced blacks, latinos, and Asians as the targeted hated minority class that's desirable to abuse. The powers that be, the media, and the populous have no problem whatsoever with blatantly discriminatory and unconstitutional laws so long as they're against someone they aren't supposed to like.

Wild Squid
04-20-2010, 4:57 PM
Yes I believe it is true, the current CCW and no open carry laws are a direct result of accepted racism in the past. And yes, it should be brought into the fight. Why it's not, well I don't know, but I do hope it's changed and soon. I don't think I want to wait years and years for a small group of people to challenge unsuccessfully. Everyone here says the lawsuits challenging CA gun laws are all pending the Mcdonald decision, but I don't really see why we should even be waiting for Mcdonald. That case is based in Chicago and it's not even about shall issue CCW. Even if that goes our way we here in CA still have to fight our own fight.

Sgt Raven
04-20-2010, 9:11 PM
Yes I believe it is true, the current CCW and no open carry laws are a direct result of accepted racism in the past. And yes, it should be brought into the fight. Why it's not, well I don't know, but I do hope it's changed and soon. I don't think I want to wait years and years for a small group of people to challenge unsuccessfully. Everyone here says the lawsuits challenging CA gun laws are all pending the Mcdonald decision, but I don't really see why we should even be waiting for Mcdonald. That case is based in Chicago and it's not even about shall issue CCW. Even if that goes our way we here in CA still have to fight our own fight.


Well the courts disagree with you and they have put all the current cases on hold till McDonald v. Chicago is decided. :rolleyes:

maddoggie13
04-20-2010, 9:17 PM
I heard that the CCW policies for California were adpoted in the 1920's due to growing fear of armed latino and chinese communities. I heard this a while back but couldn't find too much information. Does anyone know about this? Also, I heard that the OC policies were made in direct response to the Black Panther Party parading with loaded guns on their sides in the 1960's. Can anyone give me more information of this? Thanks, it seems very interesting!

:willy_nilly: Run for your life...5 billion armed china man is coming...:smilielol5:

Yes, I could say china man since I have yellow skin...:chinese:

radioman
04-20-2010, 9:35 PM
in the 1920's the KKK ran this country, and who did they NOT want to have guns? even here in California there were KKK in government, this is fact. good moral character meant we don't want no ni***s to have guns.

command_liner
04-20-2010, 9:50 PM
I heard that the CCW policies for California were adpoted in the 1920's due to growing fear of armed latino and chinese communities. I heard this a while back but couldn't find too much information. Does anyone know about this? Also, I heard that the OC policies were made in direct response to the Black Panther Party parading with loaded guns on their sides in the 1960's. Can anyone give me more information of this? Thanks, it seems very interesting!

The current CCW policies instituted in the 1920s were specifically,
directly and intentionally racist. Those same laws are still on the books.

It seems impossible for the modern mind to understand, but California
was radically racist for a long time. Look up the history. Interracial
marriage was illegal until 1958 -- the same year the Assembly passed
the 14th Amendment. Yes, it took 80 years to for the 14th to be
officially adopted here. As late as 1968 the US Supreme Court was
deciding race-based cases here in OC.

Last summer, during our 3rd declared Fiscal Emergency, the Assembly
wrote and passed a long, detailed apology for the long-term wicked
institutional racism in the state. In that apology, the Assembly
specifically apologized for passing racist gun control laws. The same
laws that are still on the books! Now, about 300 days later, the same
Assembly, with the same members, wants to _expand_ those same
racist gun laws.

No pleasant resolution to the situation is possible.

gunpower500
04-21-2010, 12:52 AM
wow, you learn something new everyday... Interesting origin of gun control in california... :eek:

rp55
04-21-2010, 10:17 AM
wow, you learn something new everyday... Interesting origin of gun control in california... :eek:

Don't want to get too OT here but what's really interesting is that drug prohibitions, which started around the same time at the start of the "progressive" era, are rooted in the same soil. I find it ironic that California is leading the fight against Federal regulation of marijuana since it was California that pushed for it in the first place back in the day. Worried about all those Mexican farm laborers after all and then all those "negro jazz musicians." Like many other progressive controls drug prohibitions started out as a tax.

radioman
04-21-2010, 11:40 AM
Don't want to get too OT here but what's really interesting is that drug prohibitions, which started around the same time at the start of the "progressive" era, are rooted in the same soil. I find it ironic that California is leading the fight against Federal regulation of marijuana since it was California that pushed for it in the first place back in the day. Worried about all those Mexican farm laborers after all and then all those "negro jazz musicians." Like many other progressive controls drug prohibitions started out as a tax.

the first drug laws came from San Francisco, in the 1870's, it was aimed at opium and the Chinese.

gunsmith
04-21-2010, 12:52 PM
I have a saved to fave that has a link to a 1920's era SF Chron
that says how great the new law will be used to keep Tongs,Mexicans and negro's
from carrying guns. I think "Tongs" are Chinese.

Fjold
04-21-2010, 1:46 PM
I have a saved to fave that has a link to a 1920's era SF Chron
that says how great the new law will be used to keep Tongs,Mexicans and negro's
from carrying guns. I think "Tongs" are Chinese.

"Tongs" were originally secret societies in China usually formed against the ruling dynasty of the times.

Here in the US they were formed for mutual protection of the Chinese people from other outside (usually whites) groups. These Tongs though usually degenerated into organized crime groups. The precursors to the modern Asian gangs.

Sinixstar
04-21-2010, 1:57 PM
Don't want to get too OT here but what's really interesting is that drug prohibitions, which started around the same time at the start of the "progressive" era, are rooted in the same soil. I find it ironic that California is leading the fight against Federal regulation of marijuana since it was California that pushed for it in the first place back in the day. Worried about all those Mexican farm laborers after all and then all those "negro jazz musicians." Like many other progressive controls drug prohibitions started out as a tax.

Ironically enough...

It was the firearms legislation in 1934 that gave the Drug people the idea for 'tax stamps'. When the original NFA of 1934 was passed, the drug control agency (the name escapes me now- it was not DEA) copied the idea of Tax Stamps - and built a few impossible bars of entry into it.

Like the Full-Auto tax stamp of NFA, the first national prohibition on drugs was the Marijuana Tax Stamp. The stamp it's self was cheap, but there were only a token number of them even created. Also - to obtain the Stamp, you have to already have marijuana, and i believe present it for inspection when applying for your stamp.
Anybody stupid enough to bring their pot to be inspected and get a stamp, was promptly arrested for possession without an accompanying tax stamp.

This stood until the 60s when Timothy Leary got the case all the way to SCOTUS, and they threw it out on it's ***.

Now to make this gun related, and even gun control related:
In NY - some counties require NRA certification for handgun permits. The problem is, you can't get NRA Certification without a live fire test. You cannot however even touch a handgun in the state of NY without the handgun permit. It's a catch-22 along the same lines as the MTS regulations of '37. yes, i'm already looking into the possibilities of how to take this court and get it thrown out. :43:

Sinixstar
04-21-2010, 2:00 PM
Also interesting - the reason why the marijuana prohibitions started out as a tax stamp - is because the powers that be felt that if they tried to flat out prohibit ANYTHING in the US - it would cause a criminal underground to develop, as well as near revolt by the people, especially after the failure of prohibition.

funny how far things have gone in less then 100 years.

pullnshoot25
04-28-2010, 11:54 AM
This is an excerpt of ACR 42, written by Fong and De Leon. It is an apology by the CA Assembly for the racist laws against the Chinese.

Here is an excerpt from from ACR 42, a bill written by Fong and De Leon that is an apology for the racist transgressions of California against the Chinese. This is damn good proof that the laws in California were geared towards a RACIST END.

WHEREAS, Among other things, these laws denied the Chinese in
California the right to own land or property, the right to vote, and
the right to marry a white person, denied children of Chinese descent
access to public schools, denied Chinese immigrants the right to
bear arms, unfairly targeted women of Chinese descent by imposing
special requirements in order for them to be allowed to immigrate
into the state, authorized the removal of Chinese immigrants to
outside town and city limits, denied Chinese laborers employment in
public works projects and through state agencies, prohibited the
issuance of licenses to Chinese in California, denied Chinese in
California the right to fish in California's waters, and unduly taxed
Chinese businesses and individuals who employed Chinese laborers;....


Newest text as of July 17, 2009.

command_liner
04-28-2010, 12:07 PM
This is an excerpt of ACR 42, written by Fong and De Leon. It is an apology by the CA Assembly for the racist laws against the Chinese.

Here is an excerpt from from ACR 42, a bill written by Fong and De Leon that is an apology for the racist transgressions of California against the Chinese. This is damn good proof that the laws in California were geared towards a RACIST END.

WHEREAS, Among other things, these laws denied the Chinese in
California the right to own land or property, the right to vote, and
the right to marry a white person, denied children of Chinese descent
access to public schools, denied Chinese immigrants the right to
bear arms, unfairly targeted women of Chinese descent by imposing
special requirements in order for them to be allowed to immigrate
into the state, authorized the removal of Chinese immigrants to
outside town and city limits, denied Chinese laborers employment in
public works projects and through state agencies, prohibited the
issuance of licenses to Chinese in California, denied Chinese in
California the right to fish in California's waters, and unduly taxed
Chinese businesses and individuals who employed Chinese laborers;....


Newest text as of July 17, 2009.

Check the sponsors.... Introduced by .... Saldana
She should read and consider her own work. Is that too much to ask?

GrizzlyGuy
04-28-2010, 12:22 PM
Those who do not understand history (like Saldana, apparently) are doomed to repeat it: AB 1934 will disproportionately hamper the ability of minorities and the poor to defend themselves from violent criminals (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=4199822&postcount=13).

thrumper
04-28-2010, 2:04 PM
This is exactly what people are up in arms about in Arizona. They fell like a specific group of people are going to be denied rights and liberties. This seems like a very powerful argument to be used in our favor. Is there some one with legal experience out there that can explain to me why this is not being used as a part of the argument to get our gun rights in California back on track with other states? Is there some way the law makers could turn the argument around on us? It doesn't seem like something the supposed "touchy feellies" that make the laws in state would want to have to argue against. If there is black and white evidence (denied Chinese immigrants the right to bear arms) that at least part of the motivation for these laws are racially based shouldn't there be a move to get exposure?