JUSTICE GORSUCH: I understand a lot of people like to cite the black codes who promote gun restrictions, who would — otherwise, they would be garlic in front of a vampire in front of them. But, here, they — they like them, they embrace them. And I’m really interested in why.
…
JUSTICE ALITO: Mr. Katyal, wasn’t the purpose of the laws in the post- — in the post-Reconstruction south that disarmed black people precisely to prevent them from doing what the Second Amendment is designed to protect, which is to defend yourself against attacks? They didn’t want the — they wanted to disarm the black population in order to help the Klan terrorize them and other — and law enforcement officers in that period in that region, they wanted to put them at the mercy of racist law enforcement officers. So is it not the height of irony to cite a law that was enacted for exactly the purpose of preventing someone from exercising the Second Amendment right to cite this as an example of what the Second Amendment protects?
— Transcript of Supreme Court Arguments in Wolford v. Lopez
Wolford v. Lopez (i.e. Hawaii ‘vampire’ law): Why the Supreme Court’s Latest 2nd Amendment Case Risks Missing the Real Threat.
ht* tps://www.ammoland.com/2026/01/wolford-v-lopez-why-the-supreme-courts-latest-2nd-amendment-case-risks-missing-the-real-threat/
We always knew that overall anti-gun people are racist to some extent, some more than others and especially those that are left-wing who already have an inherent racist thinking pattern. Or maybe as Debbie would say over at TTAG, not informed on the history of ‘gun control’ which began based upon discriminating against other races, and still today in blue held areas forced under Bruen to do something less tyrannical on their gun control the racism against both white and black still continues in its processes dealing with gun ownership and carry. To push gun control like the anti-gun wants it is not only racists, but now they actually prove it by resorting to Black Code to defend it.
To cite the Black Codes would indicate they are not only aware of gun controls racist roots but proud of it.
Interestingly, Justice Brown seemed to think the Black Codes were a proper historical precedence to back up Hawaii’s argument.
“On the other hand, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared to find that persuasive: “I thought the Black Codes were being offered here under the Bruen test to determine the constitutionality of this regulation. And it’s because we have a test that asks us to look at the history and tradition.” So she’s appealing to racist laws meant to disarm blacks in order to undermine a decision she doesn’t like (Bruen). Truly, she has a dizzying intellect.” From the Patriot Post
A dizzying intellect?
Inconceivable!
Just another educated “idiot”.
Not only racist, but unconstitutional.
.40 cal,
” . . . the history of ‘gun control’ which began based upon discriminating against other races, . . . ”
Dafuq???? So, the anglo-saxon ‘rulers’ were discriminating against other races when they prohibited anglo-saxon peasants from having swords or longbows?? Dude, you’re normally pretty sensible, and . . . this ain’t it.
YES, ‘arms control’ is a power tool, and it CAN be used for racist ends (no sh*t, Sherlock), but . . . it has been around for centuries, and used in racially-homogenous societies. Can we please stop being simplistic???
anglo-saxon peasants and anglo-saxon ‘rulers’ were two distinct classes of people. That was two part: First part – oppressive class discrimination, not racists in the sense of color but still in effect and practice as the same discriminatory practices are used for the same oppression effect as is used in racism. Second part – one can be racist against their own race – for example, the AWLF’s (Affluent White Liberal Female’s) frequently discriminate against other white people because they are white thus these AWLF are racists.
.40 cal,
Normally, I either agree with your comments, or at least find them informative. And as I said, this ain’t it.
Reading comprehension,, much??
Please re-read my comment, and indicate where I ever indicated that ‘gun control’ was not (i) a tool of class oppression, or (ii) not also used for racist purposes. ‘Gun control’ is a tool of control – racial, class, political, even sexual/gender, name whatever control criteria floats your boat. What it is not (except to a LIMITED extent, in pre-war and Jim Crow America) is ‘historically rooted in racism’. As for the whole ‘racist against your own race’ trope? It is almost invariably closely tied to idiot with a ‘white savior’ complex – they aren’t racist against their own race, they are virtue-signaling hyporites, who pretend, in their own deranged minds, that only they can defend the poor, helpless, blacks/browns/reds/yellows/etc. They are racist AF, against ‘people of color’, they’re just too stupid and dishonest to realize it.
Reading is Fundamental, as the saying goes.
Seems that I recall that “arms control” in Olde England was imposed by the Normans on the Saxons – tribal/racial and still discriminatory.
askeptic,
Nope, predates the Norman invasion, but it DID get worse after that, and an argument can be made that that was ‘racist’, but most folks today would look at Normans and Saxons and say “white Europeans”. Ancient China had weapons control. Japan had weapons control during the Samurai era (when it was one of the most, if not the most, racially homogenous populations on earth). In America, we had periods where some areas forbade guns to the Red Injun, but also to folks (including white folks) who didn’t own land.
Never, ever said it wasn’t a tool used, in some instances, for racist oppression, but it was also used for classist oppression, oppression by sex, oppression by national origin, and even oppression by politics. As I said to .40 cal, it’s a tool of CONTROL.
One of eras of British gun control disarmed Catholics. Another disarmed the working class. Classic slippery slope.