Gun control lawyers cite racist Black Codes to support gun control argument in Supreme Court case.

 

File photo of a Hawaii gun club. New York Post/AP.

Gun control lawyers cited racist Black Codes to support arguments in arguments before the Supreme Court. New York Post. The Black Codes were a serious of segregationist laws that were designed to relegate African Americans as 2nd class citizens and severely restrict their rights, including the right to bear arms. The Court was reportedly stunned that the lawyers made the argument. The laws were overturned for being unconstitutional. The case is in regards to Hawaii's "vampire rule", which requires people carrying guns to announce themselves and ask for permission before entering a business. The law is a de facto ban on carrying weapons in public places. The 9th Circuit Court affirmed the law but it seems likely it will be overturned by the Supreme Court given the case will likely fail the standard set up in NYSRPA v Bruen, which requires historical precedence for gun laws. 

The name of the case is Wolfrod v Lopez. 

My Comment:

It is crazy to me that Hawaii went through all this just to ban people from carrying weapons in businesses. Because this law does exactly that. The entire point of carrying a weapon concealed is the fact that people don't know you have it. If you have to loudly announce to someone that you have a firearm, then everyone else will know it as well, and if trouble does happen, you will be a target. It wasn't a de jure ban from carrying a firearm, but it was a de jure one and it's clearly unconstitutional. 

Indeed, it's so clearly unconstitutional that making the law seems like a total waste of time. But Hawaii did, largely because they are a one party state that is incredibly hostile to gun rights. Other anti-gun states, like California and New Jersey, have also adapted versions of this law. This is despite the fact that anyone with knowledge of the Supreme Court know that the law does not stand on the standard set in NYSRPA v Bruen. 

And it's just dumb as well. All they had to do is go to the normal standard is that if people want to bar people from carrying on their property they can just put up a sign. I have seen these signs before in my state and I usually take it as a sign to shop somewhere else. It's there right to do so, but the burden is on them to put a sign up, it's not the job of a person carrying a weapon to do so. 

The argument that the Black Codes should be used to support gun control is absolutely absurd. It's the kind of argument that only someone that just hates the right to bear arms would make. The idea that the court should use these laws to satisfy the idea that there is historical precedence for this kind of gun law is disgusting. 

And, given that those laws were blatantly unconstitutional, and racist to boot, they really should not count as an argument in favor of historical precedence. You wouldn't see this kind of argument to restrict free speech rights, but once it's the 2nd amendment, nothing is off the table for the gun control advocates. 

The good news is that the Supreme Court is likely to rule against this law. Indeed, making the argument based on the Black Codes, if anything, makes that outcome a lot more likely. Clarence Thomas is not going to be impressed by the idea that laws that would have discriminated against him because of nothing more than the color of his skin, should be used to violate gun rights. And I am guessing the rest of the conservative justices will vote the same way.