Guns and ... Slaughter-House?!?

[Miller, Darrell (mille2di)]

So, am I to take it that your conclusion is that the original understanding of the Second Amendment and/or the 14th Amendment and/or self-defense was that it protected the right of the Klan, White Liners, and white-only Rifle Clubs to procure, display and assemble with the newest forms of rifles for self-defense because the loyal state militia (mostly black) and Union governments could procure, display and assemble with those  rifles?

It just seems extremely odd to me that the lesson of Reconstruction is that because the right to arm oneself for public self-defense was inviolate, Congress and the people were resigned to facilitating a public arms race between anti-Union and pro-Union forces. (An arms race that the pro-Union forces routinely lost).

From: David Bernstein [mailto:DavidEBernstein at aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 11:56 AM
To: Miller, Darrell (mille2di)
Cc: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Guns and ... Slaughter-House?!?

Southern whites who wanted to join the Klan already had plenty of firearms, and its not like anyone was about to go house to house to confiscate them. The newly freed slaves, however, did not have prior access to/stockpiles of firearms.  So limited new access to firearms in the Reconstruction South was obviously going to favor the Klan and its allies.

________________________________
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Miller, Darrell (mille2di)
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 11:22 AM
To: 'matthewhpolsci at aol.com'; curtismk at wfu.edu; SBLichtman at ship.edu; CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Guns and ... Slaughter-House?!?

I concur that the Court's treatment of self-defense (whether it's called 2d Am. self-defense or not) and the complexities of Reconstruction is hopelessly inadequate.

There were no less than three police-led or police-abetted riots against freedmen in the South in 1866 (Norfolk, Memphis, and New Orleans), but the Court is unlikely to conclude that therefore there is a right for modern black youth in L.A. to threaten the police with arms.

The rise of white-only citizens militias,  citizens patrols, and the incipient Klan was due to white Southern fear that pro-Union government was arming a loyal (and therefore majority-black) "select" militia to enforce freedmen civil rights.   These white-only organizations marched as "citizen militias" against federal and pro-Union governments.   And yet, are we seriously to conclude that Reconstruction America understood that the constitution prevented federal or pro-Union governments from abridging these white-only groups' right to arm and assemble in "self-defense"?

I often hear that Reconstruction was about preventing disarmament of the freedmen; I never hear that Reconstruction was about preventing disarmament of the Klan.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20100210/b5b782e4/attachment.htm>