Justice D E-I Cites "Black Codes" Which Stripped Post-Civil-War Blacks of Right to Bear Arms As Good Law In Order to Justify Endless Gun Control

Justice D-EI is making it as hard as possible for other DEI judges to ever get confirmed.

What were the Black Codes? They were post-Civil-War state laws enacted by the defeated Confederacy in spite.

They were almost immediately declared unconstitutional.

The Black Codes were a series of racially discriminatory laws enacted by Southern states immediately after the Civil War (primarily in 1865--1866) to restrict the rights and freedoms of newly emancipated African Americans (freedmen) and maintain white supremacy, often as a continuation of pre-war slave codes.

These laws frequently included provisions that severely restricted or outright prohibited Black people from owning, possessing, or carrying firearms (and often other weapons like Bowie knives or dirks). The intent was to disarm freed Black individuals, leaving them vulnerable to violence from white supremacists, including groups like the Ku Klux Klan, while preventing any potential armed resistance or self-defense against oppression.

Key examples from prominent Black Codes include:

Mississippi Black Codes (1865) -- One of the earliest and most explicit. In "An Act to punish certain offenses therein named, and for other purposes" (often part of the Penal Code section), it stated:

No freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife...

Violations resulted in fines (up to $10), costs, forfeiture of the weapons/ammunition, and potential arrest by any civil or military officer. A license from a local police board was required, which was discretionary and rarely granted to Black individuals. Whites faced no such requirement.

South Carolina Black Codes (1865) -- Similar restrictions applied, stating that persons of color could not keep a firearm, sword, or other military weapon without written permission from a district judge or magistrate.

Louisiana (1865) -- Laws required consent before bringing firearms onto another's property, explicitly aimed at freedmen to disarm them.

Other Southern states adopted comparable measures, often requiring licenses (discretionary and biased against Black applicants) or imposing total bans on Black firearm possession unless in military service. These were not race-neutral; contemporary accounts and later analyses confirm they targeted freed Black people to prevent self-defense and enable terrorization.These disarmament provisions were short-lived in their original form -- many Black Codes were repealed or overridden by Reconstruction-era federal actions, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Freedmen's Bureau Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment (ratified 1868), which aimed to protect freedmen's rights, including to bear arms against discriminatory state restrictions.The Black Codes' gun restrictions are widely recognized by historians and legal scholars as part of a broader pattern of racist gun control in U.S. history, designed to deny Black people the means of self-protection.

Justice D E-I needed some kind of precedent to "prove" her argument that the Constitution allows governments to strip citizens of their right to bear arms as it pleases. She wants to uphold a Hawaiian law that strips citizens of their Second Amendment rights.

So this genius decided to cite the Black Codes as good law which should control in gun control cases.

Specifically, the Bruen ruling says that we should look at the history and tradition of the Second Amendment in the US to determine if a new gun control law is constitutional.

She decides that the Black Codes are part of that tradition -- even though they were ruled unconstitutional days after they were passed. She says they were on the books for a couple of weeks (before being repealed or ruled unconstitutional), so why shouldn't we take them as good constitutional law? After all, this MacArthur Genius Grant candidate reasons, they were only ruled unconstitutional later, after they were passed.

Note to Justice D E-I: All laws ruled unconstituional are so ruled later, after they're passed. You can't rule on a law before it's passed. Not only is that nonsensical Because of How Time Works, but the Supreme Court actually forbids what it calls "advisory opinions," or opinions of the Court about whether a law would be constitutional, if it were passed. The Court ruled that only actual "cases and controversies" -- real cases -- could be adjudicated by the court, and never any future hypothetical ones. The Constitution just doesn't allow for that.

But sure she's qualified like the Wise Latina is.

Impeach her. She's incompetent, unqualified, anti-American and tyrannical.

posted by Ace at 02:54 PM

| Access Comments