Black Panthers Armed Patrols in TX - Is it a problem?

[pianoman9701]

I don't see the problem here. If they break the law, they'll go to jail. If they don't, they're exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. I think the Conservative Tribune has completely missed the mark with this article. What do you think?
http://conservativetribune.com/armed-gangs-black-panthers-2/

[DOUBLELUNG]

I agree.  I don't like them, and I don't like their politics.  That doesn't mean they don't have the same Constitutional rights I do. 

[Stalker]

Their open carry is fine.

However I would take issue with armed personnel marching through areas / neighborhoods chanting hateful or incendiary slogans. Akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater, you probably already know the outcome will lead to injury.

Yes I am aware of the 1st amendment as well as the 2nd.

[Fl0und3rz]

What do you mean, missed the mark? If anything, I would note the CT tone as skeptical to cantankerous.  But if any negative implications are to be drawn, I think it is that CT believes this crosses the line from simple 2A practice and advocacy to intimidation or brandishing.

For example, what exactly is to be implied by "Justice for Michael Brown! Justice for Eric Garner!" shouted by an armed man/woman marching in the streets.  It is needlessly provocative, in any event and is counterproductive to the overt message no matter what color you are.  A "justice" message would be more well-received when not mixed with the implied threat of violence from marching armed men and women.

It may be lawful, for now.


As an interesting historical aside, the role the Black Panthers played in Washington's brandishing statutes:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/WashingtonOpenCarryBan.html

[pianoman9701]

What do you mean, missed the mark? If anything, I would note the CT tone as skeptical to cantankerous.  But if any negative implications are to be drawn, I think it is that CT believes this crosses the line from simple 2A practice and advocacy to intimidation or brandishing.

For example, what exactly is to be implied by "Justice for Michael Brown! Justice for Eric Garner!" shouted by an armed man/woman marching in the streets.  It is needlessly provocative, in any event and is counterproductive to the overt message no matter what color you are.  A "justice" message would be more well-received when not mixed with the implied threat of violence from marching armed men and women.

It may be lawful, for now.


As an interesting historical aside, the role the Black Panthers played in Washington's brandishing statutes:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/WashingtonOpenCarryBan.html

It's Texas. They're black. Do you think that brandishing and/or intimidation will be tolerated for one minute there? If you do, you don't know Texas. I lived there. They won't tolerate squat.

[Fl0und3rz]

I've lived there and thereabouts.  I thought "missed the mark" was about the CT article, not Texas or its ability or inability to react rationally (on an official basis) to needless provocation. 

Nothing can be said about individuals' ability or inability to react rationally, and that has nothing to do with TX.  Stupidity happens everywhere.

If I had to guess - because that's all I really can at this point - I would suspect local LE did not consider it actionable brandishing and/or intimidation, if they even have such laws on the books, regardless of their skin color.


It seems that they did, however, allow some brandishing and/or intimidation recently in the face of Ferguson-Agenda protesters/rioters.

http://conservativetribune.com/armed-rifles-ferguson-rioters/

[cbond3318]

I think it is dumb and it makes them look even more dumb. Why any group would think it ok to march around looking like guerilla fighters in the streets is beyond sense. I would assume for these shining young stars it is to incite a negative reaction followed by an outpouring of moronic support.

[pianoman9701]

In the 60s and 70s, the black panthers were doing similar patrols in black neighborhoods in NY and Philly. They actually were responsible for cleaning up some of the trash in those neighborhoods along with the black Muslim movement.

I only posted this because it's people exercising their 2A rights. It might be scary black people with scary black guns, but they still have to obey the laws. My 1st wife lives down there. She's very conservative, religious, hates Obummer as much as I. But she's in hysterics about these "patrols". She wants them shut down. I think there's an inherent risk in standing by while the rights of others are trampled. We saw the results when the administration used the IRS to trample the rights of conservatives. We need to embrace everyone's Constitutional rights until the act in such a way as to forfeit them. My 

[cbond3318]

I understand. Legal and sensible are two things that should go hand in hand for Americans flexing their constitutional rights (those of which I believe greatly in BTW) unfortunately, in my opinion this particular group appears to only have an understanding of one of those items.

Now if they were indeed marching through a crime riddled, thug ruled neighborhood with the expressed intent of ridding these bullies and freeing the innocent families that have to live there? Then maybe my ridicule of their image would be tolerated slightly more but I highly doubt this particular group hold that high of a moral platform. Furthermore, the fact they are chanting against the American Flag , the flag that represents an upholding in our rights to do as they are , speaks volumes to their intentions. An inappropriate use of  rights in my eyes.

[Fl0und3rz]

And people will crap themselves over the sight of a gun, even when it is not accompanied by angry words and faces in an armed marching formation.

My point, as what I thought CT's was, was that it was needlessly provocative.

I think there's an inherent risk in standing by while the rights of others are trampled. We saw the results when the administration used the IRS to trample the rights of conservatives. We need to embrace everyone's Constitutional rights until the act in such a way as to forfeit them. My 

Agreed.  And as stewards of the 2A for ourselves and our future generations, we are responsible to call out provocative acts that, despite being perfectly if not borderline legal, are unnecessarily risky to the future of the 2A practice and are therefore ill-advised.


In this instance, what exactly are they protesting that makes the display of arms necessary or punctuates the political message, just so, that it could not be accomplished better or the message more clear without a display of arms (a display of force). 


As you note, it is likely that they are not unaware of people's preconceptions and uneasiness.  The most reasonable implication is that this was designed and/or intended to intimidate (or at least there was knowledge that it could do so), which is not a lawful 2A purpose, and which is what the CT article implies, IMO.

It is that instance - using rights under the 2A as a tool of intimidation - that does damage to the 2A and risks its freedom for future generations. 

[huntnphool]

 It would be nice if the media simply ignored them, didnt cover the story and let them "march" wherever they wanted. Why give them what they want?

[Fl0und3rz]

It would be nice if the media simply ignored them, didnt cover the story and let them "march" wherever they wanted. Why give them what they want?

I wouldn't exactly call Conservative Tribune, media, per se.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrickgbrown

I hadn't heard about it, other than through this thread.

[pd]

P'man, I haven't read the article (no time for now), but let me remind you all that we have a debt of gratitude to pay to the original Black Panthers.  Read on:

In the late 1960's (around '67, if I recall correctly), the Black Panther movement was founded as a way for black men in Oakland to arm and protect themselves.  They realized that the second amendment protected their rights to keep and bear arms.  Now, in that time and place they were arming themselves as a way to afford protection against a white police force, that was notorious in its abuse of black men (some of whom were criminals, some not).  It was this movement that provided the genesis to the reawakening of the 2A.

Later, the Black Panther movement turned radical.  I am not an apologist for them.

Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA, has written an excellent book on the history of the 2A, and highlights the early Black Panthers in Oakland.  You should read it.  (I have a copy somewhere.)

What are the current generation of Black Panthers doing in Texas?  I have no idea.  But they have as much right to keep and bear arms as I do. 

[JimmyHoffa]

And the response to that was the Gun Control Act of 1968.

[DOUBLELUNG]

One of the fastest growing demographics in legal concealed carry nationwide, according to a recent study I heard about on talk radio, is inner city minority women.  Pretty much the working poor.  I can think of no group that needs self defense protection more than they do, and I'm frankly thrilled at the prospect of recruiting a group that votes overwhelmingly Democratic to the gun rights issues.  The best thing that can happen to our low income, inner city areas of the country, IMHO, is for the criminals who currently run them to fear the law-abiding people they prey upon.

[JJB11B]

I don't see the problem here. If they break the law, they'll go to jail. If they don't, they're exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. I think the Conservative Tribune has completely missed the mark with this article. What do you think?
http://conservativetribune.com/armed-gangs-black-panthers-2/

Agreed, the left considers the militia in Oregon in the same light as many of us see the Black Panthers. just my take, as long as no laws are being broke, they  are exercising their rights as Americans.

[DOUBLELUNG]

Agreed, the left considers the militia in Oregon in the same light as many of us see the Black Panthers. just my take, as long as no laws are being broke, they  are exercising their rights as Americans.

Perfectly stated

[Fl0und3rz]

Two differences of note with the OR situation.  OR adversary is the government, and they are breaking the law, I am supposing.  TX adversaries are everyday citizens that happen upon this group on a public thoroughfare, by all appearances, and as noted, it is unclear whether they are breaking the law.

It appears they have gone beyond the 2A in OR, and may have in TX.

This is said in full understanding that armed resistance to tyranny is the raison d'être of the 2A. Neither OR or TX fits that justification for armed resistance.

[csaaphill]

Shrug I don't' care about black people open carrying it our right or should be.

[Oh Mah]

Two differences of note with the OR situation.  OR adversary is the government, and they are breaking the law, I am supposing.  TX adversaries are everyday citizens that happen upon this group on a public thoroughfare, by all appearances, and as noted, it is unclear whether they are breaking the law.

It appears they have gone beyond the 2A in OR, and may have in TX.

This is said in full understanding that armed resistance to tyranny is the raison d'être of the 2A. Neither OR or TX fits that justification for armed resistance.

could you list the laws that are being broken in Oregon so that we can better understand your argument?

[Fl0und3rz]

Two differences of note with the OR situation.  OR adversary is the government, and they are breaking the law, I am supposing.  TX adversaries are everyday citizens that happen upon this group on a public thoroughfare, by all appearances, and as noted, it is unclear whether they are breaking the law.

It appears they have gone beyond the 2A in OR, and may have in TX.

This is said in full understanding that armed resistance to tyranny is the raison d'être of the 2A. Neither OR or TX fits that justification for armed resistance.

could you list the laws that are being broken in Oregon so that we can better understand your argument?

I take it for granted that unlicensed armed entry and occupation of a federal facility is unlawful, as is refusing lawful commands to cease said occupation.  Don't you?  I am sure congress made some laws.

I should ask you to prove the converse so we can understand your reluctance to accept that as reality.

[WAcoyotehunter]

I don't see the problem here. If they break the law, they'll go to jail. If they don't, they're exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. I think the Conservative Tribune has completely missed the mark with this article. What do you think?
http://conservativetribune.com/armed-gangs-black-panthers-2/

Agreed, the left considers the militia in Oregon in the same light as many of us see the Black Panthers. just my take, as long as no laws are being broke, they  are exercising their rights as Americans.

The difference is that the red necks in Oregon are breaking laws, clearly. 

If the black panthers took over a federal building I think we would see a much more aggressive response. 

[Oh Mah]

Two differences of note with the OR situation.  OR adversary is the government, and they are breaking the law, I am supposing.  TX adversaries are everyday citizens that happen upon this group on a public thoroughfare, by all appearances, and as noted, it is unclear whether they are breaking the law.

It appears they have gone beyond the 2A in OR, and may have in TX.

This is said in full understanding that armed resistance to tyranny is the raison d'être of the 2A. Neither OR or TX fits that justification for armed resistance.

could you list the laws that are being broken in Oregon so that we can better understand your argument?

I take it for granted that unlicensed armed entry and occupation of a federal facility is unlawful, as is refusing lawful commands to cease said occupation.  Don't you?  I am sure congress made some laws.

I should ask you to prove the converse so we can understand your reluctance to accept that as reality.

I do not have any thing to converse for or against the laws broken,just have not been able to see any list of the laws broken yet.How much damage was done to the facility etc.What would you consider a peaceful protest on public land?Are you supposed to just stop when told to do so in your opinion?

[Fl0und3rz]

I have not seen a list either.  But it is a reasonable assumption, IMO, that there exists laws against unlicensed, armed occupation of a federal facility and/or premises and refusal to comply with lawful orders to vacate.  Is this an unreasonable assumption?

What would you consider a peaceful protest on public land?

A peaceful protest would be one that was permitted (permit obtained), if applicable, that adhered to the terms of the permit, and that ended according to the terms of the permit with full vacating of the premises and accounting for any damages, if necessary, while adhering to all other laws, whether they pertained to the protest, or otherwise.

Do you consider a militia group's armed occupation of a federal facility a peaceful protest?

[magnanimous_j]

It's a test. The anti's are waiting with baited breath to see the white, conservative reaction. They would like nothing more than for white conservatives to freak the hell out. This would prove to them (and a lot of other Americans) that open carry and 2a issues are just white privilege, adding a racial angle to the gun debate that would be a HUGELY effective for the anti's.

A calm, dispassionate response is the only solution. The Black Panthers are just agitators, they aren't going to actually do anything.

[Fl0und3rz]

A calm, dispassionate response is the only solution. The Black Panthers are just agitators, they aren't going to actually do anything.

I actually agree.  What have you done with mag_j?

It's a test. The anti's are waiting with baited breath to see the white, conservative reaction. They would like nothing more than for white conservatives to freak the hell out. This would prove to them (and a lot of other Americans) that open carry and 2a issues are just white privilege, adding a racial angle to the gun debate that would be a HUGELY effective for the anti's.

And it would a useful tool to keep the minority voters on the democratic plantation. 

[pianoman9701]

  I agree with the lib on this one.

[ctwiggs1]

My biggest concern is their crappy berets.  Come on guys, form those things!  What are you, french pastry bakers?

So some people are carrying guns around, who cares?

[Oh Mah]

I have not seen a list either.  But it is a reasonable assumption, IMO, that there exists laws against unlicensed, armed occupation of a federal facility and/or premises and refusal to comply with lawful orders to vacate.  Is this an unreasonable assumption?

What would you consider a peaceful protest on public land?

A peaceful protest would be one that was permitted (permit obtained), if applicable, that adhered to the terms of the permit, and that ended according to the terms of the permit with full vacating of the premises and accounting for any damages, if necessary, while adhering to all other laws, whether they pertained to the protest, or otherwise.

Do you consider a militia group's armed occupation of a federal facility a peaceful protest?

A PERMIT TO PROTEST ARE YOU KIDDING ME?UNLICENSED YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING.

[Fl0und3rz]

I am going to come conduct a "peaceful" armed protest in your house.  How quickly will you be calling the police to have me removed for trespassing?  Carry on in your alternate reality.

[Oh Mah]

My house is private property,see the difference?  Do you think the armed people that were protesting the I-594 were trespassing and illegally protesting without a permit at the Capital as well?

[Fl0und3rz]

You tell me.

[csaaphill]

Two differences of note with the OR situation.  OR adversary is the government, and they are breaking the law, I am supposing.  TX adversaries are everyday citizens that happen upon this group on a public thoroughfare, by all appearances, and as noted, it is unclear whether they are breaking the law.

It appears they have gone beyond the 2A in OR, and may have in TX.

This is said in full understanding that armed resistance to tyranny is the raison d'être of the 2A. Neither OR or TX fits that justification for armed resistance.

could you list the laws that are being broken in Oregon so that we can better understand your argument?

I take it for granted that unlicensed armed entry and occupation of a federal facility is unlawful, as is refusing lawful commands to cease said occupation.  Don't you?  I am sure congress made some laws.

I should ask you to prove the converse so we can understand your reluctance to accept that as reality.

don't know about the unlicensed bit because I'm sure those that hunt on those lands don't need a license other than maybe a permit like discovery Pass like we need, but I do know that the law that I found out, was only punishable up to a year in jail and $1,000 fine. so not like they're big time felons who deserve to be killed over.
I'm also sure they've researched this out before doing what they're doing.

[csaaphill]

You tell me.

with oh ma's question No.
Don't think they had a permit either.  I'm one not to believe in permits especially when it's a protected right in the Bill of rights.
Having to jump through hoops destroys the intent of being a right.
About all I'm going say o n this though
Black people carrying guns I don't really care about.
What I will say though Stop making it out as wrong when people are open carrying. the quicker people accept that fact; that's it's perfectly ok to open carry the less scared little people will call the cops and get someone killed.