African Americans and the 2nd Amendment: The Need for Black Armed Self-Defense

Quashon Avent
Staff Writer

PC: Library of Congress

I have been, and always will be, a supporter of the right to bear arms. I believe that everyone, regardless of race, religion or ethnicity, should be able to defend themselves from any untoward threats. This is particularly true for African-Americans, as we have been victims of unprovoked violence for centuries. Lynchings, rapes, bombings and mass shootings were, and still are, common acts of violence perpetrated against us. Many of these killings were completed with full impunity, as the American Criminal Justice system sat by and did nothing. Sometimes they were even complicit in these acts. It was only through armed self-defense that we were able to protect ourselves and our communities. The problem myself and many black gun owners have is that our second amendment rights are not fully protected by the law.

African-Americans have always struggled for equality under the law, and this is especially true when it comes to the right to bear arms. The pre-Civil War “Slave Codes” of many Southern states completely banned black people from owning firearms. Colonies such as Virginia prohibited free black people from owning weapons. Florida even created an “Act to Govern Patrols” that allowed white citizens to enter the homes of black people and confiscate any weapons they found. This is in violation of the fourth amendment. Black people were also prohibited from joining militias, which was the entire purpose of the second amendment. This was to prevent a possible slave rebellion. After the Civil War, the “Black Codes” were enacted, and were used to strictly prohibit black gun ownership.

This trend continued into the 20th century when those in power enacted some of the most blatantly discriminatory gun control laws. The most obvious example is the 1967 Mulford Act. In 1966, the Black Panther Party for Self Defense was created to protect the Oakland’s black community from repeated harassment and violence perpetrated by the local police. The group acted as an armed oversight committee, actively stopping the police from making illegal arrests. Huey Newton himself carried around a law book to inform officers of the laws that they were violating.

This angered Don Mulford, a GOP assemblyman who represented Oakland. In 1967, Mulford proposed a law to prohibit Californians from openly carrying firearms. In response, the Panthers travelled to California’s Capitol Building and protested with their firearms. They eventually entered the building with weapons in tow and walked into the assembly chamber. They were later forced by the police to leave the premises. Shortly after the protest, they were arrested on charges of “conspiracy to disrupt a legislative session.” The Mulford Act was later passed with the full support of the NRA, and was eventually signed into law by Governor Ronald Reagan.

Even today, African Americans struggle to maintain equal protection under the second amendment. A recent example is the death of Emantic Bradford Jr. Bradford was an army recruit with a concealed carry permit. While shopping in a Georgia mall, shots rang out. Bradford pulled out his weapon and directed shoppers to safety. As police entered the scene, they shot Bradford in the back three times. They told the media that Bradford was the shooter, and praised the killer as the real hero of the situation. It took a full day for them to admit that they had shot the wrong man and that the killer was still at large. They also admitted that they lied about the circumstances of the shooting, as Bradford had not brandished his pistol at officers. He was simply holding it with his back turned when they shot him.

Philando Castile was another black man whose second amendment rights were ignored by police. During a routine traffic stop, Castile told the officer he had a license to carry, and a concealed firearm on his person. The officer still asked for his identification, and as he reached for it he was shot and killed.

It should be obvious by now that many African-Americans do not have the same rights to bear arms as others. Instead, we have the right to be relinquished of our firearms and our lives, usually at the same time. We are not allowed to defend ourselves from tyranny, as the Founding Fathers once did. We are not allowed to open carry our firearms as the Alt-right is allowed to do. However, we are allowed to be shot to death by the police and white bystanders with guns. We are also allowed to be arrested for legally possessing a firearm. This is because blacks are never seen as responsible gun owners. Instead, we are seen as an “armed suspect,” even when we aren’t suspected of committing a crime. As such, we will never be seen as true “patriots” like the Bundy militia.We can never be the “good guys with guns” that the NRA loves to talk about. We will always be seen as criminals, terrorists or militants.

If being a defender of black gun rights makes one militant, then I wear the label proudly. In the words of Robert F. Williams, “The Afro-American militant is a ‘militant’ because he defends himself, his family, his home, and his dignity. He does not introduce violence into a racist social system – the violence is already there, and has always been there.”

Categories: Opinions

Tags: ,

5 replies

  1. The author is flat wrong about the sole purpose of the Second Amendment being about “joining a militia’..


  2. As a white NRA member who has lobbied the NRA leadership to defend the rights of black gun owners, I too have been very upset with some of the positions they have taken. If anyone needs a gun, it is the vast majority of black people who are law abiding victims of crime. I base this on years of being a Paramedic – including working for a time in both East Oakland and Watts.

    That said, I don’t think that the NRA is racist per se. About 6% of the NRA board, elected by the membership, is black. Tons of NRA members hate racism. Instead, I think the problem is that a great many NRA members are police officers. I know, because my 2nd career was as a pastor and I was a police chaplain. The NRA’s problem is that they do not want to anger the police among their members by taking a stand in cases like that of Philando Castile. His killer, IMHO, should have gone to prison. As you are probably aware, one of their black commentators actually broke with them in this case, and I stand with him.

    In many ways, the NRA is like a political party. None of us agrees with every stand our party may take, but hopefully we try to change it from within. I’m sure you are aware of the times the NRA has helped black gun owners – it’s not enough, but it is progress. Additionally, I direct most of my giving to other 2A groups that have a better record of protecting everyone’s rights.

    Rev. R. Vincent Warde
    Clergy in Support of the 2nd Amendment


  3. Gun control has always been about racism. It is embodied today in the Jim Crow era pistol purchase permit system, designed to deny African Americans their God-given right to self defense. Excessive fees for concealed carry “permits” keep the financially disadvantaged from exercising their rights. Both schemes are perpetrated by the NC Sheriff’s Association, which has a stranglehold (apparently) on the NC Legislature, and which is not about to give up control or easy money. I do not need permission to keep and bear arms.


  4. Some of the points in this article are valid while others are not. One example is where the author points out the GOP in California as the culprit of racist anti-gun laws. The author fails to acknowledge that the majority of the anti-firearms laws that we have today are a result of the Democrat Party. One that comes to mind most readily is the 1968 Gun Control Act. The 1968 GCA was authored by none other that Senator Ted Kennedy (MA-D). And he was a Northern Democrat! And look at what we have today. The cities with the most violent gun crimes are large enclaves run by the Democrat Party. To bring this point home about the Democrat Party, nation wide, as being the real culprit the author and all people of color should view the free to watch movie “No Guns For Negroes” (, a film produced by the organization called Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO). This film exposes the racist history of gun control laws in America. Every person who supports gun control laws must be shown this film or gun ownership will cease to exist in America. JPFO has also produced two other excellent films in support of firearms ownership by all freedom loving American citizens, “2A Today For The USA” ( and “No Guns For Jews” ( Two other situations in support of the Right To Keep and Bear Firearms that the author, and all other readers, should study are the Wilmington Insurrection of 1898 ( in which the freely elect government (most Republican Negroes) were attacked by a hooded mob made up of Democrats (KKK) and the Battle of Athens, Tennessee ( where returning WWII veterans took up arms against a crooked Democrat controlled local/state government.


  5. Famous black NY Defense Attorney Joey Jackson wrote on his website that the Jury wanted to decide that his client elder black Darryl Brown acted in lawful “self defense” when he defensively “displayed” his lawfully-carried pistol while being attacked by a younger anger-crazed lustfilled attacker who was ultimately shot because that attacker ultimately tried to forcibly steal Mr. Brown’s gun to shoot Mr. Brown.  The racist New York Judges refused to allow the lawabiding black man (Darryl Brown) to prove “self defense” and refused to allow the black man to forcibly defend his lawful possession of the gun from the imminent robbery.  (As if we want every lawful gun owner to passively surrender their gun to anger-crazed “unarmed” attackers and to all “unarmed” robbers)  This ruling suddenly revising New York law effectively nullifies the constitutional right of a Black man or a Gay man to “bear” arms for “defense” of his self or his lawful “property”.  Google:

    Rights of NY Landowners to Use Force (Display Guns)
       The racist NY judges falsely equated the mere defensive “display” of a weapon by a black man while he is being physically attacked as being an offensive “use of deadly physical force”.  This ruling invites the Lynching of Black Men, and Gays, and Transgendered persons who after being physically attacked with “punches” and thus provoked to merely “display” a stick or other weapon in selfdefense, are now deemed “aggressors” and are legally defenseless (deemed without any legal right to defend hisself, herself, or Zeself) and can be legally shot or beaten to death by the original assailant.  The new rule allows attackers of blacks and gays to start out with endless “punches” to the head, and as soon as the concussed black man or gay man tries to stop the attack by merely picking up a stick, or even grimacing and showing his teeth, the original attacker is now legally entitled to finish off the victim (the opionion implies that it is legal to beat and stomp the victim to death, or stab or even shoot the victim). Thus, Lynching has become legal in New York if the attack is initiated with “punches” to the head, and is afterwards performed correctly after the victim merely “displays” a weapon.

    The racist New York Court of Appeals has just decided that a lawabiding elder black man who was entrusted by the law with the legal right to possess a pistol for his job (peace officer, corrections officer) can be forcibly robbed of his weapon by any “unarmed” attacker, and shot and killed if he merely defensively “displayed” the gun in selfdefense while being threatened with being “punched” in the head (e.g. by a white supremacist).  The elite jewish judges on New York High Court who have never been punched to the head do not understand that an angry punch to the head can kill, especially when the elder victim is standing on a hard surface that his head can fall and crack upon.  The rule they imposed on this respectable lawabiding black man (Darryl Brown) is the that if a black man merely HOLDS a stick, a knife, or a gun at his side while he is under attack, the attacker (e.g. a white supremacist, or a skinhead) or a police offer can Shoot and kill the defender (Darryl Brown) and can even forcibly Rob him of his own weapon and use it to kill the defender!  The Model Penal Code rule for pure white citizen populations (e.g. in Maine and Texas) is that the mere “display” of a weapon is nondeadly force that is lawfully available to deter or terminate a fist attack.  Decades ago, a white woman in New York was allowed to display a pistol to stop an attack by a man.  But, in a black-white mixed population, now that black men can legally have guns, the rule has been changed by the racist judges to make the black man who merely defensively “displays” a weapon to be the “aggressor”.  This racist sudden revision of the ancient law of selfdefense in People v. Darryl Brown (suddenly denying to black men the Model Penal Code rule for self defense of white lives still applicable in all-white populations, e.g., in Maine and Texas) must be reversed! 

    Google the two Decisions in People v. Darryl Brown.  Read the Appellate Division opinion first.  Then Contact Darryl Brown directly, and then his Defense Attorney Joey Jackson.

    Here as follows are MODEL QUESTIONS to ask Defense Attorneys and experts:

    Why does the NY High Court not understand that punches from a 21 year old male to the head of a victim can be deadly?

    After People v. Darryl Brown, what is an armed man supposed to do if an “unarmed” robber walks up to him and demands “Please give me your money and your gun, or I will punch you in the head”?  

    What is an armed man supposed to do if the robber simply demands only the weapon?  “I am a felon and I cannot lawfully buy a gun.  I want to have a gun so that I can rob and rape more effectively.  Please give me your gun, or I will punch you in the head”?   

    Must the victim of an “unarmed” criminal take the punches and give the robber the gun, (and then after surrendering the gun to the robber, try to fight with the now-armed robber over the money)?  Is the rule all the same for guns and knives, sticks, and teeth?   

    In a case otherwise the same as People v. Darryl Brown, if the gun is unloaded, or is totally inoperable when displayed, does the victim’s legal right of self defense continue after the gun is displayed for the purpose of detering/terminating the punch attack?


    Concerning the NY Court of Appeals decision in People v. Darryl Brown, it leaves somewhat ambiguous the new definition of “use deadly physical force”.  If merely holding a gun (mere “display”) is now a “use of deadly physical force” , then police officers unlawfully “use” “deadly” physical force whenever they make a traffic stop or an arrest with gun drawn. 

    If a “display” of a weapon (stick, knife, gun, teeth) is “physical force”, then such a display when necessary can be lawful “nondeadly physical force” (as is expressly stated in the Model Penal Code) in a self defense situation, so then why would that display of force terminate the defender’s legal right of self-defense?  The Court’s opinion ignores the question of whether Mr. Brown”s “display” of a weapon was lawful and necessary nondeadly “physical force”. The opinion implies the “display” was unlawful, or that it is immaterial whether the display was lawful or unlawful. What if the gun was unloaded?  Same result?  What if it was a fake gun, totally inopperable? Same result? 

    Do these elite Judges really not understand that a single punch to the head can be deadly, and can kill? Especially when the victim is over a hard floor or near a hard object that the head can strike on the way down from being knocked out or knocked down?

    How can New York Attorneys convince an elite NY Judge that a single punch from a 21 year old male can kill a man or woman?  I mean, there are so many example’s of single-punch deaths in the news, in videos on the internet, and in caselaw, that a judge being ignorant that a “punch” can be deadly has to be a willful disregard for reality, or evidence of a lack of fitness to hold the office of judge.

    The opinion seems to hold that, as a “matter of law”, an “unarmed” young assailant throwing “punches” at the head of an older victim CANNOT inflict death or serious physical injury to the older victim!

    If a NY Criminal Defense Attorney punched a NY high court judge in the head repeatedly until the Judge died, could the Attorney defend against a homicide charge by arguing that the death caused as a mere unforseeable consequence of the “harassment” was “legally impossible” or was “unforeseeable as a matter of law” because of the content of the opinion in People v. Darryl Brown?

    What response does your lawfirm intend to make or publish Pro Bono Publico in view of the Court of Appeals’ opinion in People v. Darryl Brown?  Have you already published a comment about that decision?  Have you already referred the case to your Association?

    Also call the Pink Pistols (Gay NRA) for commentary.


Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: