Prof. Olson writes:
The reason is simple: The persistent and always tense debate over
gun rights has thinly veiled underlying racial and socio-political
struggles that are as old as the Union itself.
I might be opening a can of worms but here goes.....
While I admit to being something less of a legal scholar than most on
this discussion list, I do have a modicum of information on the
subject, as do you all, and some experience as an American, as do you
all. And I simply cannot accept Professor Olson's overall
hypothesis. While I will readily admit that the roots of modern gun
control in America, especially in southern jurisdictions but perhaps
in all, is doubtlessly racial, it seems to me that the thin veil of
race being the reason for gun control has long since evaporated, at
least in its original context. I can simply accept it as a social
issue, or socio-political is that's more comfortable, as opposed to a
legal issue. Except for a small group of either (1) clear headed,
educated legal scholars or (2) radically closed minded but still
educated legal scholars it really is not a legal issue, just an
emotionally charged social issue. The members of this esteemed group
falls into the former, of course, but when some of the greatest
liberal, legal minds in the country agree with our position that
leaves but a few (dare I say a noisy few?) who simply stand radically
opposed to guns and find it easy, and necessary, to twist the right
to keep and bear arms into something it never was or was never
intended to be.
That said, it is my experience that, as a group, black Americans,
Hispanic Americans, and even some other "non-white classified"
Americans are not clamoring to support the right to keep and bear
arms in overwhelming numbers. On the other hand, what I do see is
unfortunately large numbers of black Americans hand in hand,
actually, I like "lockstep" better for that cliche, with certain
white Americans, opposing the right to keep and bear arms. What I
notice is that in great numbers the white Americans in this high
stepping group are mostly well educated and affluent to some
degree. And seriously misguided. Bearing that in mind, the
socio-political aspect of Professor Olson's hypothesis makes great
sense, but the racial aspect does not because whites trying to keep
guns away from blacks is, simply put, ancient history. Whites
trying to ensure that their police have guns while their neighbors
across town do not seems to be the essence of the debate these
days. The District of Columbia, which is very heavily
black, includes the above referenced black locksteppers, the folks
who simply do not think that their neighbors should own guns and, so,
they write laws that are patently unconstitutional to ensure that
this is accomplished.
Therefore, it is my opinion, for what little it is worth, that the
future of the debate will remain in the socio-political context only,
that race will play no role, and that the issue, after Heller settles
the individual rights issue favorably, and assuming the SCOTUS never
applies the Second Amendment to the States, will be exactly how much
local or Federal control is reasonable to exercise over an
individual's right to own firearms, or any arms for that
matter. This is certainly cultural, and it is definitely not an easy
topic, but it should result in a very inspiring discourse; on that I
know can agree with Professor Olson!
***GRJ***
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
