1

I'm British, and was befuddled to see this picture on r/oddlyterrifying of lockdown protestors carrying guns right up to the Michigan's Governor office door. I then found this combined picture on r/Political_Revolution.

enter image description here

This Reddit comment stated

The Mulford Act of 1967, signed into law by Governor Ronald Reagan, prohibited open carry in the state of California. The law was passed a mere 6 weeks after Black Panthers staged an armed protest at the state capital.

That post hints that racism against blacks explains the difference in open carry laws between the two states. Is this true?

Improve this question
3
  • 4
    I would suggest rewording the question to keep people from having to read minds, and allow answerers to rely solely on information that is obtainable such as contemporary news reports that link the law to the Black Panthers protest, interviews, official statements, transcripts of debates in the CA legislature, etc.
    – user5155
    Commented May 8, 2020 at 9:14
  • 1
    I mean, the answer to the title question is 100% yes, but I'm voting to close because it will take a book-length discussion to get to an answer, conglomerated from so many different topics: reconstruction Jim Crow and systemic racism following (and still following) the civil war, the role of Black Panthers specifically in California at that time, contrasting with culture in other areas (southern + northern US separately), "traditional" (ahem, white) 2A activist/militia groups and their relationship with law enforcement -- to name a few topics. Maybe one sub-piece would make a good question?
    – BurnsBA
    Commented May 8, 2020 at 12:45
  • 1
    It would take mind reading to really answer the question as written, but if the law was primarily aimed at black people, why did it apply to the whole state, and not just those few urban areas where there was a significant black population? Geographically, most of California is rural (often very much so) and majority white, and carrying guns is quite normal when hunting or just hiking or riding in bear country.
    – jamesqf
    Commented May 8, 2020 at 16:55

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

Although the comparison of these two images is striking, it is also somewhat arbitrary. Let us look at the overall situation of open carry laws in the United States. The Wikipedia on this topic classifies the situation in California as "anomalous".

Open carry legal in rural counties with local ordinances allowing open carry. Some of these counties issue a permit for open carry. Additionally, a person may also open carry if he or she "reasonably believes that any person or the property of any person is in immediate, grave danger and that the carrying of the weapon is necessary for the preservation of that person or property."[23] One can expect to be detained and questioned by law enforcement in most urban areas if using the latter rationale as the basis for openly carrying a firearm in public.

The endnote "23" included there links to the decision from a 1997 court case, Peruta v. San Diego County. The article on that case leads to think that laws in California may have changed considerably in recent decades. So while I think it is fair to argue that the 1967 Mulford Act had a clear connection to racialized fears of the Black Panther Party, that alone is not enough to make the case that California's current restrictions are racist.

Getting back to the general list of state-level restrictions on open carry, a few other states are labelled as more plainly restrictive ("Non-permissive"). Many more states, including Michigan, are considered permissive. Here is a map of the overall situation:

map of open carry restrictions

If there are some simple correlation between anti-black racism and restrictions on open carry, I would intuitively expect Southern Black Belt states like Alabama and Mississippi to at least have local restrictions, but they do not. While this analysis is somewhat superficial, I am inclined to say that the question as framed in the headline is an oversimplification. Racism may matter in terms of how gun legislation is passed and enforced, but the juxtaposition of these two images doesn't really tell us a whole lot.

Improve this answer
4
  • 4
    This answer completely ignores the context of the question and the role that Black Panther activism had on Reagan's decision.
    – BurnsBA
    Commented May 8, 2020 at 12:35
  • 3
    No, I wrote, "I think it is fair to argue that the 1967 Mulford Act had a clear connection to racialized fears of the Black Panther Party". If you have more to say about this, it might be worth making it an answer.
    – Brian Z
    Commented May 8, 2020 at 12:46
  • 3
    The Blank Panther Party was founded in California. Now, it may be the case that there were branches active in the Southern US, and that they had open carry protests, but the context was different. The LCFO (vaguely associated with TBP) was registering black voters to vote against a governor who's slogan was literally "White Supremacy." -- The racism was different, the oppression was different, the opportunities were different. If you're going to talk about issues across the nation, especially in the southern US, you need to talk about these things. Or just focus on the question and California.
    – BurnsBA
    Commented May 8, 2020 at 12:53
  • 1
    The question asks: "That post hints that racism against blacks explains the difference in open carry laws between the two states. Is this true?" My point is precisely that focusing on California in the 1960s doesn't get you very far in answering that question. Again if you think you can show that your previous comment is that relevant, I think you should make it an answer.
    – Brian Z
    Commented May 8, 2020 at 12:57