Black U.S. citizens
have rarely if ever enjoyed the same Constitutional Rights as whites do, especially
when it comes to the Second Amendment. The fatal shooting of Philando Castille illustrated
this reality in an appalling way. Castille, a 32 year old African American man
from St. Paul Minnesota, was pulled over by police as part of a traffic stop because
“he looked like a robbery suspect.”[1] The
officer preceded to go to Castille’s window and ask for an I.D. A registered concealed carry gun owner,
Castille calmly informed the officer that he had a gun on him and that he was
not reaching for it as he moved his hand to get his I.D. However, as soon as he
moved his hand the officer pulled out his own gun and shot seven times at point
blank range killing Castille.
The Philando Castille
case is straightforward. He declared that he was a permit holding gun owner,
complied with the officer’s orders, did not resist arrest in any way, yet still
wound up dead. The shooting reveals that
the Second Amendment simply does not apply if you are black. This is not a new phenomenon
and like most cases involving African Americans legal rights, it is rooted in a
complicated history.
A decisive moment in deciding who has access
to Second Amendment rights came after the Civil War. During Reconstruction
Southern states adopted the Black Codes, laws created to reinvigorate white
supremacy.[2] One
of the oft initiated provisions banned blacks from being able to own firearms. In
response Congress passed a law granting freed slaves “full and equal benefit of
all laws concerning personal liberty,” prompting the Ku Klux Klan to terrorize
black communities and seize all firearms from freedmen. [3] Amidst
the Civil Rights and Black Power movements in the 1960’s came another crucial
moment in defining African American gun rights. In certain cities such as
Oakland, the Black Panthers famously began using open carry laws to walk the
streets heavily armed citing that they were protecting themselves and the black
community from police brutality and white violence. Not surprisingly, in
response a law was created in the California legislature banning open carry.[4]
The overwhelming
evidence shows that throughout U.S. history whenever African Americans have asserted
their right to bear arms, whites have wielded their political supremacy to
infringe upon that right. The Philando Castille shooting is another example of
this disturbing trend. While Castille held a legal permit to own a gun, and there
is video evidence of him complying to the officer's demands, the policeman responsible
for his death was found not guilty. Additionally troubling was the NRA’s
complete silence on the Castille case. As the nations most powerful gun rights
advocate group the NRA vehemently endorses the idea that more people carrying
guns will generate a safer society, and have argued that African Americans
living in urban centers are ideal candidates for gun licenses. However, they neglected to make a statement
defending Castille, a permit holding gun owner, signaling that they could care
less about black gun rights. As it seems the NRA reserves its influential political
clout for white Americans, and would rather remain silent or take the side of
law enforcement in 'controversial' killings involving African Americans.
I pledge to the Honor Code
WC: 584
[1] Andy Manniz, “Police audio: Officer stopped Philando Castile on robbery suspicion,” Star Tribune, July 12, 2016, http://www.startribune.com/police-audio-officer-stopped-philando-castile-on-robbery-suspicion/386344001/#1.
[2] David.
A Graham, “The Second Amendments Second Class Citizens,” The Atlantic, July 7, 2016, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/alton-sterling-philando-castile-2nd-amendment-guns/490301/.
[3] Adam
Winkler, “The Secret History of Guns,” The
Atlantic, September, 2011. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/.
This blog post left me wide-eyed. I had not heard of the Philando Castille shooting, but it is very disturbing. If the NRA sided with the law or remained silent during a case like this, it makes you wonder who the people are in charge of it. If we see the pattern of white supremacy overruling the infringement of the gun rights of black folk, then it must mean that those in charge are white. How much more proof did the people overseeing this case need to see that the officer was guilty and the dead man was innocent? The whole situation is very hypocritical and completely unfair. I wonder how the situation would have turned out if a black person were in charge of the NRA, or if the majority of the members on the Board were black. As of 2013, 93% of the members on the Board were white (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/nra-board-members-selleck-nugent/). How much of that do we think has changed now?
ReplyDeleteThis is just another sad truth of being a man of color in America, but one that the media does not help with their portrayal of men of color. There is an intrinsic fear of color because we are raised to fear not only color, but difference. When you turn on TV or Netflix, black men are often cast in the same role as a gun toting criminal of some sort with very little education. This same fear carries over into the police force and in the case of Trayvon Martin, community watch members. So when they see a man of color they think back to their favorite shows and get a little trigger happy and any slight movement will make them uneasy. In my personal opinion, until the media portrayal of people of color is changed instances like these will continue to occur.
ReplyDeleteI really like your point. Beyond the fact that the constitution was not constructed for people of color another one of the big factors is the institutionalized racism. The media constantly portrays people of color in a negative light, focusing on crime and violence. This perpetuates the stereotype that white people are less violent than people of color. We know, however, that the majority of mass shootings in the nation are perpetrated by white men. Regardless, the media continues to portray people of color as more prone to violence. And even though people of color have the same constitutional right, because the media portrays them as more dangerous, they experience more questioning of their right to bear arms. There is more at play than just constitutional interpretation because the actions of those who interpret the laws and constitution are influenced by the dominant ideology of the society. We live in a society where the idea of people of color as more violent gets pushed into dominance.
DeleteThis blog post brought me back to the Slavery’s Constitution article. While I knew how deeply ingrained slavery was in every sector of American life during the Constitution’s ratification, and that our Constitution was created to set out rights only for a very specific group of people, it wasn’t until I read that article that I fully comprehended how every single piece of the document connects back to slavery, and that it was built to protect slavery. Clearly not everyone has equal access to the rights laid out in the Constitution, and as you point out, some groups of people who attempt to use their so-called constitutional rights face serious consequences. As Dr. McKinney brought up in class, how we interpret this fact is up for debate—is this exclusion, or is this simply how democracy works/what democracy means here? This then begs the questions: Can racial justice be achieved under a document rooted in oppression? Is viewing the Constitution as a living, breathing document enough to achieve equity and civil rights for all people? Does the document need amending? Do we need to completely reconstruct it? Answers are well-overdue. What do y'all think?
ReplyDeleteIn summation this post drives the point home that granting certain people access to certain rights does not mean that the application of the law on the ground will necessarily align with what is explicated on legal documents/amendments. To respond to Annie's question about the Constitution, it is certainly not enough to have a flexible constitution to uproot 400 years of oppression of Black people. It's definitely a step in the right direction, but real change happens ideologically, over a long period of time, but certainly not at a "comfortable" pace. Social change is not something that can occur with unanimous agreement; quite the opposite actually. Those who abide by oppressive hegemonic ideologies usually resist change that seeks to uproot the way they think.
ReplyDeleteTo respond to Annie's few questions, I don't think we can or have had or will ever be able to "function" as a nation of people with a document that is so hard to amend and that simultaneously upholds a history of slavery, inequality, and foundational racisms. The only way to move forward is to rewrite our constitution and have it function as a constitution functions in Britain or France (a constitution that constantly grows despite itself (where interpretation does not have to happen (one where the constitution is always a construction of the present))). Sadly, this won't come about peacefully, and so protests will have to happen, and the primary weight of that falls upon us (young people that believe in social justice and change).
ReplyDeleteI really agree with this post. Given all of the rights that blacks are supposed to have, there always seems to a problem when blacks are put in a situation to where they are in need of putting these rights into effect. A lot of what has been happening deals with stereotypes. In situations like these, black men who wear hoodies are automatically viewed as a threat to society. The fact that this stereotype has become a reality to some folks begins to make them extremely suspicious when a black man of this description is in the area. This stereotype has also revolved back into the issue of police brutality. These officers are not only threatening these young, black males, but they are putting there hands on these black men which most cases lead to injury and sometimes even death.
ReplyDelete