The New York Times Is Surprised To Find Public Defenders Championing the Second Amendment
Yet the civil rights movement has long had a gun rights component.

A group of public defense lawyer organizations recently joined forces with Second Amendment advocates to urge the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate a New York gun control scheme. Now that the scheme has been successfully overturned in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which held that the Second Amendment includes the right "to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home," public defenders have begun citing the Court's ruling to protect the rights of their clients.
This state of affairs has left some New York Times journalists scratching their heads in surprise. As a recent Times headline put it: "Unlikely Fans of Supreme Court Ruling on Guns: Public Defenders." The accompanying article describes the Black Attorneys of Legal Aid, the Bronx Defenders, and other groups as "unexpected" allies of the gun rights movement.
But the alliance seems less "unexpected" when you remember that gun control has a racially disparate impact. As the public defender groups told the Supreme Court in an amicus brief, "New York enacted its firearm licensing requirements to criminalize gun ownership by racial and ethnic minorities. That remains the effect of its enforcement by police and prosecutors today." In other words, Bruen was a win for both gun rights and criminal justice reform.
Likewise, the alliance seems less "unlikely" when you remember that the American civil rights movement has long had a gun rights component. This dates back as far as the abolitionists, such as Frederick Douglass, who declared in 1854 that "the True Remedy for the Fugitive Slave Bill is a good revolver, a steady hand, and a determination to shoot down any man attempting to kidnap."
Douglass continued to preach the virtues of armed self-defense throughout the rest of his life. In 1893, as the noble aims of Reconstruction were giving way to the horrors of the rising Jim Crow regime, Douglass argued that "the liberties of the American people were dependent upon the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge box." Without all three securely in place, he maintained, "no class of people could live and flourish in this country."
Leading civil rights activists carried on Douglass' position in the 20th century. "I'm alive today because of the Second Amendment and the natural right to keep and bear arms," declared John R. Salter Jr., one of the organizers of the famous sit-ins against segregated lunch counters in Jackson, Mississippi. "Like a martyred friend of mine, NAACP staffer Medgar W. Evers, I, too, was on many Klan death lists and I, too, traveled armed: a .38 special Smith and Wesson revolver and a 44/40 Winchester carbine," Salter said. "The knowledge that I had these weapons and was willing to use them kept enemies at bay."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The New York Times Is Surprised To Find Public Defenders Championing the Second Amendment
The keyword here is "public defender". These are not ACLU lawyers. these are "public defenders"... so that means a lot of their clients are probably people charged with gun possession crimes. The 2nd amendment might therefore come in handy.
The accompanying article describes the Black Attorneys of Legal Aid, the Bronx Defenders, and other groups as "unexpected" allies of the gun rights movement.
Yeah, right there, before I even started reading the article it seemed obvious to me.
But the alliance seems less "unexpected" when you remember that gun control has a racially disparate impact.
While it's fun to accuse everyone of racism, disparate impact is not a reason to fight gun control. That it's an enumerated human right spelled out in the constitution is why gun control needs to be fought.
Disparate impact is a reason. Unlike The Highlander, there can be more than one.
Disparate impact is a reason.
Not in and of itself. Laws against murder have an disparate impact on those who are inclined to commit murder. Is that a reason to oppose laws against murder? If a disparate impact can be shown to be the result of disparate enforcement of a given law, or that a law was intended to have said disparate impact then those are reasons to oppose that law. The disparate impact is a symptom, not a cause.
I without a doubt have made $18,000 inside a calendar month thru operating clean jobs from a laptop. As I had misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into so disenchanted and thank God I searched this easy task accomplishing this I'm equipped to reap thousand of bucks simply from my home. All of you could really be part of this pleasant task and will gather
extra cash online.... https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
Sure, and I might have a problem with requiring a license for taxidermy but its not going to motivate me to lobby the state legislature - mostly because it doesn't affect me at all.
"Disparate impact" might be a reason to actively participate in a debate if it affects me negatively (or my client).
Having a person with no other criminal record being arrested and charged with illegal firearms possession - because they live in a dangerous neighborhood and decided to defend themselves, is disparate from the suburbia firearms use where someone spends $20K on a Browning 4 barrel set so the ducks can see the gleam off the silver inlay...
BTW, if you ever want to see 55-65 year old 'bros', come to an 'outdoor' club and meet up at the skeet range. Be prepared to compare and contrast beards and mustaches.
Nope. Reality is often racially disparate, and this is inevitably reflected in outcomes, unless actual racial discrimination in engaged in to compensate. Really, when outcomes exactly track racial population percentages, you should suspect there's a quota system in place.
The problem here wasn't racially disparate impact, it's that the disparity was intended, the laws were crafted with the intent to enforce them in a discriminatory manner, and then that intent was executed.
Well said
If you assume that all right-thinking people are Progressives, then "that has disparate impact" is an explanation for why people care about it and "it's in the constitution" doesn't explain much of anything.
"While it's fun to accuse everyone of racism, disparate impact is not a reason to fight gun control. That it's an enumerated human right spelled out in the constitution is why gun control needs to be fought."
true.... but due to the typical political leanings of gun grabbers, it is often effective to point out just how inconsistent gun control is with the rest of their identities.
, it is often effective to point out just how inconsistent gun control is with the rest of their identities.
But it hasn't been effective. "Disparate impact" is a tool of convenience which they'll wield when its to their advantage, and ignore utterly when it's not. Because they know it's bullshit. That's why I said it was "fun" to accuse people of racism. It's certainly a good troll, and can be useful in pointing out hypocrisy, but you can't base your legal system on it, otherwise you're doomed.
in my experience, those interested in gun control don't tend to be very receptive to legal reasoning. the honest ones will point blank say they want the 2nd amendment destroyed.
But the alliance seems less "unexpected" when you remember that gun control has racist origins.
FTFY.
Except, in the case of gun control we don't have to guess at the motives. Gun control from its inception was aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of freed blacks, other minorities, immigrants and poor whites. This was explicitly stated in the hard south during Jim Crow (who originally championed much of the most popular gun control laws now pushed by progressives). It was also explicitly stated when the NFA was passed and the 1968 Gun Control Act was passed.
The only thing that's changed since, is that they've gone from wanting to disarm distrusted minorities, to wanting to disarm the distrusted majority.
Removing tools that police are using to arbitrarily enforce against people based on social class is a good reason.
One of the major, insidious enemies of liberty is law that is routinely ignored, only to be enforced when the powers that be want to punish someone.
That is a bizarre thing, right? Like, what about public defenders would make them think they'd dislike more legal protections for their clients?
I'd really love to see more from these individuals. I often wonder how many people truly cannot separate their intentions from the consequences of what they do and advocate for?
I guess that's a human failing though.
I guess that's a human failing though.
There is nothing human about the NYT. It is a well-honed machine that spits out Marxist propaganda.
Sadly that's something that humans are really good at.
I think it's just a "us versus them" mentality. Especially among progressives, "them" are very evil. However, public defenders are clearly "good", fighting oppression, so how can they disagree on a major point of view?
To someone who doesn't think in binary, it's no surprise at all, even if you hadn't thought about it, but to someone who has based their identity off resisting the evils of the opposing party, it would feel shocking.
Everything is "unexpected" when you don't know anything.
It's a way for them to deflect guilt over their ignorance of a topic they get paid to write about.
"I'm not an imposter, no one could have expected this!"
Partly right. This has more to do with one's holding bad assumptions, i.e. public defenders are more likely to be of the Left, the Left likes gun control, therefore public defenders will shy away from advocating 2nd amendment rights.
In reality, the public defender's job is argue his client's case, they will argue for gun rights if it is tactically the right play.
I worked as a prosecutor for 6 years. It was always really funny to see the dichotomy professionally and personally when it came to gun rights issues.
The elected DA was a Republican and the office was definitely conservative leaning. The PD was a Democrat and the PD's office was definitely left leaning.
In court, the prosecutors wanted to charge and take guns away from everyone while the PD argued for 2nd Amendment rights and state constitutional rights all the time to defend their clients.
Out of court, PDs spent tons of time protesting and advocating for the banning of guns and abolishment of the 2nd Amendment. DAs on the other hand would advocate for the 2nd Amendment and nearly all were members of the NRA.
It was so fascinating.
There's a book and movie on the real-life Deacons and Justice. Started in Louisiana in the early 1960s, they used guns to defend themselves and their families. The movie is all true stuff from the book, condensed and simplified of course.
* Their children went on school strike to get the same wood shop and other vocational classes the white kids got. The fire department came out to hose them down, in winter (yes, Louisiana winters can get cold enough), and the Deacons showed up with rifles and shotguns, said if you hose down our kids with high pressure cold water, we will hose you down. The fire department backed off. I don't remember if the kids got their classes.
* Some damn fool sheriff led a KKK caravan through a black neighborhood which had the audacity to host some northern white civil rights agitators, littering the neighborhood with leaflets. They were surprised when blacks in trees and on rooftops shot them up. One KKKer died because his buddies drove across two state lines to get to a hospital far enough away to not let word get back that they had been outfoxed.
It's a fascinating book, tons of source footnotes. The movie is good enough for a taste.
Botched the name.
Deacons for Defense and Justice.
these are american heroes
They are indeed. The sheer guts it must have taken, as blacks in 1960s Louisiana, to stand up to KKK sheriffs and so much corruption, amazes me every time I read of them. I imagine a lot of it was from being WW II segregated and Koren War integrated soldiers who had already put their life on the line, and were just fed up, especially with not wanting their kids to grow up with the same crap they had dealt with, like stepping into the street to let whites use the sidewalk, or separate drinking fountains, or vocational training as domestic servants.
As the public defender groups told the Supreme Court in an amicus brief, "New York enacted its firearm licensing requirements to criminalize gun ownership by racial and ethnic minorities. That remains the effect of its enforcement by police and prosecutors today." In other words, Bruen was a win for both gun rights and criminal justice reform.
Did Root really just admit that criminal justice reform is all about racism? I cannot say I'm surprised by the moxie of that, but damn I did not expect a writer here to make the point.
Yeah, I noted the same odd dichotomy or tautology in the last sentence. It only makes sense if you think gun rights, criminal justice reform, or both aren't universal. Moreover, in that context, it's not an accurate summary of the brief.
Or.
Rich white people don't care about criminal justice reform because they see it as a problem for poor black people.
Rich white people don't need criminal justice reform because they can hire expensive attorneys who are friends with the prosecutors, and the charges get dropped.
Poor people can't do that. Regardless of race.
Except I was much better friends with public defenders when I was a prosecutor than I was with any private defense attorney.
PDs were, on a whole, outstanding attorneys compared to private criminal defense attorneys. The issues PDs faced were giant dockets and the inability to spend more time on each individual case.
"In the absence of any charges, my client and I will be leaving!"
The NYT times staff is ALWAYS surprised to find out someone isn't a fucking stalinist like they are.
In other words, Bruen was a win for both gun rights and criminal justice reform.
What an odd sentence. More odd than "My mask protects you, your mask protects me."
There is a reason that Justice Thomas cited Dred Scott v. Sanford in his opinion in Bruen. Chief Justice Tanney specifically mentioned many of the rights of free individuals protected by the Constitution. Ironic that public defenders can understand simple truths in a way that the liberal elite and their mouthpieces at the NYT cannot.
Reality is always surprising the NYT
White liberals shitting their pants about blacks getting guns again?
Im so glad we have them to lecture us about OUR racism
Absolutely fascinated to find out that people who care about freedom continue to care about freedom...
Has the NYT heard anything about cops supporting the Second? I even heard there was a State AG who caught wind of the feds wanting to examine local gun licensing who sent out a notice not to comply to the sheriffs and PD's on the grounds that gun records were restricted by law from such examination by the feds. He also sent a note to the feds telling them to fuck off.
"Has the NYT heard anything about cops supporting the Second?"
They don't want to know:
Search “washingtontimes policeone survey”
Among the findings of a survey by the industry website PoliceOne, which tallied responses from 15,000 verified active and retired law enforcement professionals, police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership or accessibility, editor Doug Wyllie said.
The survey found that 91.5 percent of respondents believe a federal ban on the manufacture or sale of semi-automatic weapons would have no effect or a negative effect on the reduction of violent crime. Though a national assault weapons ban is dead in the water, numerous states — including Maryland, Connecticut and New York — have adopted or enhanced their own bans.
Public defenders have a duty to defend their clients, and if invoking the Second Amendment is the way to do that, well, they need to put aside their prog identity and be good advocates instead.
It's also worth pointing out how "Stop and Frisk" managed to violate both the 2nd and the 4th Amendments while also disproportionately targeting black and hispanic men.
but that's only because in crime infested urban areas nearly all the crime is committed by black people, therefore they're the ones that would be frisked. the issue has nothing to do with race.
The Slavery/Segregation Party (Democrats) just can't change.
Why would they be surprised? Isn't the NRA supposed to be the criminals' lobby?
I'm not kidding. They've been saying for years that gun rights are promoted by criminal interests, so why would they be surprised criminal defense lawyers would be in on it? Seriously, can someone explain to me what made the Times people surprised about this? What were they thinking, that public defenders would be afraid of being shot?
Yeah, don't mention that among the NRAs first activities was training new freedman how to properly use firearms to defend themselves against the Klan and similar groups. The NRA wasn't popular in the deep south for decades, and the NRA even successfully sued Texas over it's concealed carry law, which the NRA proved was racially applied. At the time the ACLU actually joined the NRA in this case, one of the few times the ACLU ever backed gun rights.
Some of the state affiliates used to be up for defending the 2nd amendment, it's only recently that they brought the last of them to heel on the topic.
Public defenders yes, but public prosecutes will be charging those that use the second amendment to protect their families and themselves with vigilantism.
At least the 74 remaining Soros funded prosecutors will.
I'm a liberal and hate guns, but have never been able to understand why Democrats (presumably more liberal than Republicans) do not understand that the Constitution's proscription of federal restrictions on guns is solid.
There is an elaborate, tedious explanation about how the original Constitution allowed the states to individually regulate arms as they saw fit, but was interrupted by the CIvil War Amendments (which was arguably the USA's 3d Republic), but no absolutely no one wants to hear it. So there we are ...
Saw that Houston had a gun buy-back. Dude showed up with 65 3d-printed "ghost guns" which he says cost him $3 per to create. Went away with $50 gift card for each (non-functioning) firearm (which were then dutifully destroyed). Netted close to $3K he said.
Wholesale Trade Printing