Is this sanctioned by the 2nd A'ment?

[Pond James Pond]

I've just been reading an article online about a gun-club (HPNGC) that are starting up armed patrols through their neighbourhoods in South Dallas, as a response to what it sees as excessive brutality by the police. The idea is partly to show that they can police themselves.

On the one hand it is advocating that all members of the community should arm themselves for self, family and community defence. This would seem to be in keeping with the RKBA as promoted by members on here. All very well and good so far.

On the other hand, however, the idea behind this drive toward gun ownership is apparently inspired by one of the 10 points in the Black Panther founder's programme stating that arming themselves would allow the community to defend itself against police oppression.

How does that sit with the 2nd Amendment?

It seems that the 2nd A was there to maintain power in the people's hands not government's, and in many respects, being paid for and legislated by, the Police are part of the governing order as they apply the law as set by government.

So to me it seems like a bit of a paradox. The 2A is supposed to be a force against repression. Unjustified force by authority, as these communities see it, would be repression. Therefore, in principle, people should be empowered to fight back against it. In practice, though, that is more likely to get a SWAT team called in and then there is a world of hurt coming... Beyond that, if they are doing this with a view to using force against the authorities, that too seems like treading a fine line between "keeping power with the people" and inciting violence.

Is this a practical application of what the 2nd A is supposed to ensure, or is it bordering on domestic terrorism? Is it something else entirely?

 

[Tom Servo]

Is this a practical application of what the 2nd A is supposed to ensure, or is it bordering on domestic terrorism?

That's the big question.

To answer your first question, the idea of a citizen militia squares quite well with the 2nd Amendment. The 2A was drafted to allow local militias to arm themselves in defense of city and home.

The very concept of police is a relatively new one. Prior to that, laws were enforced and protection from crime was handled on the local level. Theoretically, we still have the right to set up militias, though the very word was demonized during the Clinton administration.

Now, how do we balance the modern concept of law enforcement with that? It's hard to say. We have chosen to delegate some militia functions, such as power of arrest and lethal force, to police trained in their execution. A militia may or may not have that authority.

More to the point, what happens when the interests of the militia conflict with those of law enforcement? That's a tough one.

That said, Huey Newton may not be the best namesake for a local militia. The man was, among other things, a cop killer. That's going to raise eyebrows and hackles, and it's certainly not going to foster much goodwill with the police.

And that's the underlying problem. In this particular instance (though the Cliven Bundy idiocy also springs to mind), goodwill doesn't seem to be the idea.

 

[Banger357]

Personally, I find actions like that to be childish and counterproductive to second amendment activism as a whole. I firmly believe in a person’s right to defend him or herself, using firearms if that is what they are comfortable with. However I don’t believe that flaunting your firearms and making a big deal about it is the way to go. The whole thing has an air of “neener neener neener, I’m not touching you! I’m not touching you!” from an annoying big brother on a road trip. By being obnoxious about it, they’re only serving to P people off and make us all look like jack@$$es to the general public who may not have a strong opinion on the matter otherwise.

There is also something vaguely threatening about the message they’re sending. They are afraid of police brutality and taking a stand to change it, and that is not only okay but should be applauded because that is something our country and specifically the second amendment is all about. However by saying they’re doing it by doing their own armed patrols it is giving the impression that they will be shooting cops if they find it necessary, and that seems to me like the start of a much bigger problem.

I really wish that it was mandatory that every police officer and their car has a camera to protect both the citizen and the officer from false allegations and violence. Police brutality, just like any abuse of power, is disgusting and wrong, but so is falsely accusing cops of doing something immoral or illegal as a way to try to get out of crimes. I’m tired of this country acting like one of those things is always necessary in order to keep the other in check.

 

[raimius]

Part of the 2nd Amendment was to allow the possibility of armed resistance to an oppressive government, although I personally think it was envisioned that it would be sanctioned at the state level, rather than some people in a neighborhood deciding among themselves! That said, I firmly believe that there are MUCH better ways to deal with police brutality and crime. We still have a system of laws that generally works. If the police are mistreating other citizens, criminal and civil charges should be brought against them. Resorting to violence is going to cause trouble, and ultimately sway public opinion against them.

Additionally, private citizens are not cops. They are allowed to defend themselves and others, but the situations where serious or lethal force is permissible are very limited. So, if they try to stop crimes with lethal force, they are opening themselves up to some pretty severe legal and civil consequences.

 

[44 AMP]

The Second Amendment to the US constitution is a check on the power of GOVERNMENT.

In fact, nearly all of the Bill of Rights are written to say what the government may not do.

The 2nd Amendment "sanctions" the right of the people to "keep and bear arms" free from government interference (infringed).

Despite the opinion of most of us that the gov has been infringing this right for quite some time, so far, we still have the much of that ability left to us.

Now, what the people DO with them, while exercising their right to keep & bear, makes a difference. A huge difference.

You have the right to be armed. You do not have the right to shoot people just because you feel like it. That includes the police.

The 2nd A "sanctions" the people being armed for their defense. This means their defense against ANYONE. We focus a lot on "its there to stop a tyrannical govt." and while that true, its not the only thing its there for. Its there to stop ANYONE from oppressing us and denying us our natural rights.

Whether it is the forces of our own government, a foreign government, or a brigand warlord calling himself a revolutionary and a liberator, or any other conceivable situation, the point is that being armed at least gives one the option of resistance.

Now, if you are doing armed patrols to make "stick it to the man" point, THAT is very dangerous ground.

IF you could ensure that absolutely everyone who could even remotely be connected to your group in any way, if they ALL understood that the way to protect their neighborhood from the police abuse is with unimpeachable video evidence, NOT guns, you MIGHT have a chance to reduce the risks.

But you can't, not in the real world. Somewhere, there will be some nutjob, who chooses do violence, and if the media finds out they so much as even looked at your website once, your movement will be very publically and continually blamed for all the evil that results.

Citizens patrolling armed, against ordinary crime has social risks for the people who do it, look at the Zimmerman case as one example of how things can be spun.

On the other hand, however, the idea behind this drive toward gun ownership is apparently inspired by one of the 10 points in the Black Panther founder's programme stating that arming themselves would allow the community to defend itself against police oppression.

How does that sit with the 2nd Amendment?

I'd say it sits square with the 2nd Amendment. People have the right to arm themselves to defend themselves from oppression. And particularly when the oppression is lethal.

The worst problems occur when one group sees only oppression needful of armed resistance and everyone else sees only law enforcement.

We (in the US) are taught that our laws apply equally to all, even those who hold unpopular views. And while we all know some animals are more equal than others in the real world, that it the principle we hold to.

The Black Panthers didn't invent the concept of needing to be armed in order to defend oneself and community. Nor did the "dead white guys" who wrote the Constitution. But those most of us call "the Founders" recognized that natural right, and did their best to write it in via the 2nd Amendment.

Just my opinion, and worth what you paid for it.

 

[DanTSX]

The minute men were literally domestic terrorists.

It's impossible to put yourself in the shoes of the community we are discussing. Many times over our nation's history, our government DID act tyrannically to certain segments of people. The only problem is it depends on who you ask if it was tyranny or not. Ask southerners if they felt the civil war was, and they say yes. Hop in a time machine and ask the bonus army if they were, and they will say yes. Then go back to Dredd Scott, and ask again, or The kids at Kent State, but if you ask other people, they will say no, it wasn't and was justifiable law and order. We are a good and just nation that unquestionably leads much of human achievement in the world, but we have had some major authoritarian blunders that could had easily had been prevented. But they could also had been much worse,not the possibility of the balance of power between an armed citizenry and the authority of the state had been upset too far in the wrong direction.

It's quite possible that our policing in certain communities has reverted to a very sour state. Or it may be that our police are pawns in a greater struggle. But if a community demands, that the police that it rightfully employs, to back off, then that community has to be able to shoulder the responsibility of what happens if they do. And if they cannot then hold the peace suffer the consequences of rights being suspended under a martial order plan. If they chose to fight that, they better have a damn good case if they expect solidarity of other 2A rights groups to stand with them. Fortunately we are nowhere near that state yet.


Let these guys walk around with guns. Gun control originally was started to keep blacks from owning guns, and if we are serious about opposing gun control, we need to welcome The traditional victims of gun control into the fold. Rights are damn uncomfortable at times, but you have to embrace them. You also have to deal with raising the ante witht the cops too, so be responsible with your rights and make it a force of good. The BP's have extremist views, talk big, have radical political ideology, and glare at people outside of their community from behind sunglasses. That sounds just like all of the "activist" types at the gun club or 2A organization meetings. Are we really that different? I'd rather have these guys over for dinner than someone saying "disarm these white middle class yahoos."

 

[raimius]

To be clear, they have the right to keep and bare arms. The scope of that right includes lawful uses, such as deterring crime and personal defense. They had just better be careful not to exceed the law on the justified use (or threatened use) of force.

 

[A pause for the COZ]

Let these guys walk around with guns. Gun control originally was started to keep blacks from owning guns, and if we are serious about opposing gun control, we need to welcome The traditional victims of gun control into the fold. Rights are damn uncomfortable at times, but you have to embrace them. You also have to deal with raising the ante witht the cops too, so be responsible with your rights and make it a force of good. The BP's have extremist views, talk big, have radical political ideology, and glare at people outside of their community from behind sunglasses. That sounds just like all of the "activist" types at the gun club or 2A organization meetings. Are we really that different? I'd rather have these guys over for dinner than someone saying "disarm these white middle class yahoos."

I agree, 100%.

We all know, if there were more law abiding people in the inner-cities armed.
Life would be completely different there now.
They need it more than ANY one else. None of us would even for a second put up with what goes on there. If it was going on in our neighborhoods.
We would be out there stopping it.

The Black Panthers though??? Eww wow... If I am not mistaken. These groups are very closely tied to extreme Islamic views.

Man if you said, A Black Christian group was thinking of doing this. I might be jumping up for joy.

Will see I guess. On the surface I have no problem with more black people being armed.

Think about your next door neighbor coming over and telling you in a matter of fact way. " Yea my 7 year old little boy got hit by a stray bullet last night."
What!!!! Think on that.. What would you be doing??
I know what i would be doing and that stuff would not fly.

 

[Tom Servo]

I personally think it was envisioned that it would be sanctioned at the state level, rather than some people in a neighborhood deciding among themselves!

Actually, most militias were formed at the town level at the time of the founding. The idea was that citizens would be concerned, dedicated, and responsible enough to handle the logistics and regulation (as in training) themselves. Unfortunately, we've lost sight of that.

Folks, let's stick to the question at hand and avoid going off on tangents about politics or the Black Panthers in general.

 

[Pond James Pond]

Looking at the responses, looking at events in the media it seems to me that the 2nd A is still respected in terms of affording the US citizen the right to protect themselves, their loved ones and their assets if they are threatened by an aggressive party.

However I can't, in my mind, see that extending to the original concept of defending oneself against an oppressive regime, be it at city, state or federal level.

It seems that the right for the populace to manage themselves, in a defensive capability, has been removed in all but the theoretical sense of the 2nd A's original purpose.

Probably this is a result of a slow, gradual, unnoticed (and perhaps not even intentional) process of centralising powers.
As the French would say: "La politique du saucisson".

A saucisson is a cured, smoked, dried sausage that is eaten by taking a thin slice on bread. They are about a foot long.

The logic of the idiom being that you remember the foot long meat sausage every time you cut an thin slice thinking "oh, just the one.... OK, perhaps another...!" and so it is almost a surprise when you reach the other end, the rest having been eaten!! By then it is too late to prepare anything with it: it's all gone!

In many ways that is how the 2nd A could be eroded, if it ever comes to that: little slices until nothing is left, or at least too little to sate one's appetite.

 

[JimPage]

Pond: I have noticed that the slices are becoming bigger and bigger.

 

[Ed4032]

I live in the Dallas metro area. I have not heard about this. Since the report is coming from the terrorist news Aljezer, I would not give it a lot of credence.

 

[zukiphile]

As the French would say: "La politique du saucisson".

The comparable English speaker's idiom will involve boiling a frog. It's true, and certainly not limited to 2d Am. rights. The effective tax rates against over which English speakers took exception were much lower than any viable American politician would propose today.

It seems that the right for the populace to manage themselves, in a defensive capability, has been removed in all but the theoretical sense of the 2nd A's original purpose.

I believe it helps to understand the 2d Am. to know that it described a putatively pre-existing right. That one writer or another would see a use for that right is secondary to the existence of the right itself.

Posing the question of whether the right exists for the purpose of defense against oppressive government or for the purpose of self defense can miss the fact of the existence of the right without regard to imagined purpose.


The genre of police cases that have gotten a lot of attention in the US in the last year or so aren't what I would describe as issues of generally oppressive government, but instances in which the legality or propriety of a police act is called into question.

In those instances, defense against a PO is problematic as a practical and legal matter, and will differ from state to state. In my state, a person is entitled to defend against an unwarranted assault by a PO. However, that's a bit like knowing that a soldier is entitled to disobey an illegal order. If you aren't completely certain of the grounds for that entitlement, it may be imprudent to exercise the entitlement because the consequences for being wrong are dire. Even if you are 100% correct, it is not beyond foresight that a PO who acts outside his authority and the law is unlikely to have significant reservations about inflicting retribution for any challenge.

If you are sure that you are entitled as a matter of law to defend against a PO, a determination that would require a cool head in a circumstance not conducive to calm analysis, can you defend? If you were Abner Louima, a Haitian beaten and raped nearly to death by a group of POs, the impossibility of effective self defense makes entitlement to self defense academic.

As a practical matter, in lots of states a person will be best served in a case of PO misconduct by being calm and quiet and saving his recourse for the courtroom. That is true for an individual as well as for a group, armed or not.

 

[Pond James Pond]

Since the report is coming from the terrorist news Aljezer, I would not give it a lot of credence.

Check your facts. Al Jazeera is a very serious and very well regarded global news network. Their HQ happens to be in Dubai. That doesn't make them terrorist anything.

Here's a source closer to home.

The genre of police cases that have gotten a lot of attention in the US in the last year or so aren't what I would describe as issues of generally oppressive government, but instances in which the legality or propriety of a police act is called into question.

Except if the victims feel there is a pattern where they are the victims without recourse and the perpetrators are without reproach, given that police get both their powers and oversight from government. Admittedly, that is a subjective situation of which I thankfully have no personal experience. However, it does seem to be the complaint of those described in the report.
If even partly true, that is a problem!!

 

[zukiphile]

Except if the victims feel there is a pattern where they are the victims without recourse and the perpetrators are without reproach...

I think your impression is incorrect.

A victim of any misconduct may have feelings about it, but that itself doesn't indicate a generally oppressive government. If there is misconduct that is addressed by a government standard on which action is taken, that can't itself be evidence of oppressive government. Note that in each recent high profile event, the victim's position was addressed to one or another organ of the government.

In each case there was recourse against the PO in question, sometimes even before the elements that caused public outrage were revealed to be false.


That is distinguishable from a large society of people being taxed and governed without consideration of the rights other Englishmen of the period had.

 

[Ed4032]

James Pond,

I cannot support vigilantism but if the police overlook this area of Dallas then maybe it will do some good. South Dallas is a rougher area. That said I do play golf there regularly. There has been little said by the local media about this, if anything at all.

 

[Pond James Pond]

I cannot support vigilantism but if the police overlook this area of Dallas then maybe it will do some good. South Dallas is a rougher area.

If they are there in a deterrent capacity, it can't be vigilantism. And they'd sure seem like a deterrent me.

There has been little said by the local media about this, if anything at all.

Perhaps you should be asking why. If residents in these communities feel pushed to take such action clearly something is not right, even if it is just the way they see their own situation. That can only have a negative affect on Dallas as a whole. Local media should be reporting on it...

 

[Pond James Pond]

A victim of any misconduct may have feelings about it, but that itself doesn't indicate a generally oppressive government. If there is misconduct that is addressed by a government standard on which action is taken, that can't itself be evidence of oppressive government.

Unless that action is ineffective or hollow. If the government does nothing to address the problem, which could well be their (the residents') point of view, then it could be said the government is giving its tacit consent to what these communities are reacting to.

That their rights are not getting equal protection by the government could be seen as oppression by that government.

Note that in each recent high profile event, the victim's position was addressed to one or another organ of the government.

And have things changed? Ostensibly, from what those in the article are saying, they have not.

Just to be clear, I'm just trying to put myself in the shoes of those that have decided to take this action.

 

[dogtown tom]

The article linked in the OP is rife with errors, misinformation and fiction.

Other than one news article over a year ago, no one in Dallas has seen or heard from the Huey Newton Gun Club since it was first reported over a year ago.

This article seems to be more interested in making news than reporting it......and that reflects on the credibility of Al Jazera.

(And while AJ may have a good rep with the OP, they have serious credibility issues in the US. Not to mention very serious legal issues with employees)

 

[44 AMP]

the right to protect themselves, their loved ones and their assets if they are threatened by an aggressive party.

However I can't, in my mind, see that extending to the original concept of defending oneself against an oppressive regime, be it at city, state or federal level.

Really, James, you don't see it? Does the right to defend yourself and your family only apply against individual criminals? I say it does not. Thugs in government suits & uniforms are still thugs. And one judges them by their deeds, not words.

When the baron's guardsmen loot your manor and rape your daughter for their entertainment, simply because they can, and they want to, how is that different than the West 37th Street Lords gang doing the same thing? Because the guardsmen are all wearing the same surcoats? I don't see the moral difference, aside from the horrendous breach of trust when the govt does it.

An oppressive regime can be a lot of things, to a lot of people. It can be oppressive, and still be within the letter of its own laws.

Or it can be the kind that allows or even encourages its agents to act as they see fit, ouside the boundaries of the written law. Historical examples of every level abound. Look at the last 100years of European history for some big ones.

No, shooting police & other govt people because they "oppress" you by forcing you to pay taxes and not park in a certain spot isn't right. Nor is shooting a judge in town #2 because some people in the police in town#1 are out of control.

Not shooting them when they are there to take you and your family to jail (or a "camp") or kill you, might be the last choice you get to make on your own.

Yes, that is the extreme end of the range, but it has happened, indeed is happening in parts of the world still today. If people come to kill you, you have the natural right to resist. Doesn't matter what political or religious creed they follow. Doesn't matter what clothes they are wearing.