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.