What can we learn from the Black Panthers?

[CoRoMo]

Yep. The poll results add up to 120.59%.

??????????????????????????????????

 

[Erik M]

The poll must be ran by Acorn

Anyway, a quote from the Wiki:

On May 2, 1967, the California State Assembly Committee on Criminal Procedure was scheduled to convene to discuss what was known as the "Mulford Act", which would ban public displays of loaded firearms. Cleaver and Newton put together a plan to send a group of about 30 Panthers led by Seale from Oakland to Sacramento to protest the bill. The group entered the assembly carrying their weapons, an incident which was widely publicized, and which prompted police to arrest Seale and five others. The group pled guilty to misdemeanor charges of disrupting a legislative session.[45]

Sounds familiar. I have only ever characterized the black panthers as a hate group. i have no idea how their ideologies could be linked to THR.

 

[jakemccoy]

The poll allows for multiple selections. Each individual answer could theoretically be 100%, for example, if every voter selected all options. Don't add the percentages. That doesn't mean anything useful.

 

[Zoogster]

On May 2, 1967, the California State Assembly Committee on Criminal Procedure was scheduled to convene to discuss what was known as the "Mulford Act", which would ban public displays of loaded firearms. Cleaver and Newton put together a plan to send a group of about 30 Panthers led by Seale from Oakland to Sacramento to protest the bill. The group entered the assembly carrying their weapons, an incident which was widely publicized, and which prompted police to arrest Seale and five others. The group pled guilty to misdemeanor charges of disrupting a legislative session.[45]

Sounds familiar. I have only ever characterized the black panthers as a hate group. i have no idea how their ideologies could be linked to THR.

The people are different, but you can read between the lines and see the similarity from a legislator perspective.
Today the people are generally more polite, not associated with other political actions, and don't include anyone previously convicted of any felonies.

However the decision to protest while armed in response to an anti-gun bill should sound similar enough to something that could be done today.


While I don't support PBS, and see a very clear agenda including being anti-gun, they seemed to have the only video I could find online of the incident:

http://www.pbs.org/hueypnewton/actions/actions_capitolmarch.html
(takes real player)

You will see they were not violent, and were intentionally keeping thier guns pointed up the entire time.
They came to speak in response to the bill to disarm them (and everyone in the state.) They were prevented from doing so and arrested.


I do not condone thier other activities, or support them. They were a radical group with many beliefs I certainly would rather not associate with.
However they were not that different in that particular incident of protesting than many people today.
If they had all the weapons slung over thier shoulder it would have been no different.

Thier "storming of the Capitol" was merely walking in while carrying weapons.
When they approached the Capitol, Governor Reagan who was outside speaking to some children took off running. When they entered the Capitol building a few legislators yelled things like "don't shoot", adding to the drama of the event.

As far as many were concerned a large group of politically angry blacks with guns were coming in. Some of the antis in the Capitol surely played on the event, intentionally adding to the drama and fear in the aftermath.
Reagan, having ran from the sight of the group earlier in the day quickly signed the legislation they were protesting into law.
Thus removing the right of the people in California from being in public armed with loaded weapons. Additional legislation would ban weapons from the Capitol, the governor's mansion, and other state buildings. While yet more would ban the ability to protest while armed at all (which even applies to police officers, making it illegal for police to protest with thier duty sidearm in it's holster.)



( Around 30-40 years prior concealed carry was outlawed without a permit specifically to prevent blacks, asians, and hispanics from carrying without going through the discretionary permit process that would allow them to be denied. To prevent "vendettas" and "tong wars" among the hispanics and asians respectively. At that point almost any white citizen could instantly aquire a concealed carry permit. So I guess you could call California one of the first Concealed Carry states.

At that point police really were enforcing racism around the nation. The panthers would use police scanners to follow the police and then while remaining at least 10 feet away inform the people involved of thier rights.
They often carried weapons while doing this and it occasionally resulted in clashes with the police.
Some of thier individuals also did even worse things, like individuals of any large enough group always do.)

So people showed up armed to protest an anti-gun bill being discussed that day. The result was they scared the legislators and insured the passage of the bill. The passage of the legislation prevented anyone from ever legally doing something like that again, or carrying openly in public within the state at all (while loaded).

Now imagine some guy carrying his AR at the next presidential election, not calling ahead of time and taking the precautions of the Phoenix group. Perhaps carrying in a way that is a little more intimidating even if legal.
Imagine he is shot by the Secret Service, or merely pounced on and disarmed. The media will certainly report it as a madman stopped until the truth comes out some days later.
Then imagine the "common sense" legislation proposed to prevent such a "tragedy" from occurring in the future. Legislation likely at the national level. It is not that far fetched.

 

[Mags]

Are we now comparing law abiding pro 2nd Ammendment citizens to a pro vilolence militant socialist group? Wow...

 

[Zoogster]

Are we now comparing law abiding pro 2nd Ammendment citizens to a pro vilolence militant socialist group? Wow...

Some people just cannot see reality beyond the group and beliefs they associate with.

If you scare people with guns they will try to make sure you don't have guns in the future.
It may be unconstitutional but it is how things work.
The very fact that the people carrying are law abiding citizens breaking no law can actually work against them. It says to those inclined to stop the perceived "problem" that the problem is the law and not the individual.
So it is even more likely to result in legislation than someone breaking the law.


It is not just the right of the calm collected individual as part of a group that took steps to plan ahead and coordinate with local LEO.
It is also the right of the 18 year old that is inspired from those people and does so in a much poorer way, dressed very differently, and is mouthing off his support or hatred for other causes when they interview him.


Get open carry of holstered firearms accepted in most states, nevermind open carry of rifles before you make it a national issue at presidential rallies.
Otherwise the result could be undesired.

 

[rbernie]

So people showed up armed to protest an anti-gun bill being discussed that day. The result was they scared the legislators and insured the passage of the bill. The passage of the legislation prevented anyone from ever legally doing something like that again, or carrying openly in public within the state at all (while loaded).

What if I told you that the vote count prior to the BPP protest was already showing lopsided passage of the bill in question, rendering the BPP protest irrelevant... Am I correct? Do you know the vote count prior to the protest?

No, you don't know that.

And, as it turns out, neither do I. And that's my point.

You are making up facts (inferring them, if you prefer a more gentle way of putting it) to support your emotional response. But they are no more fact than any assertation on my part that the BPP protest was utterly irrelevant.

So what are we really debating here?

 

[lionking]

I think the difference what happened in Arizona is those that openly carried grandstanded the fact that they were to fellow citizens in opposing points of view not just to the "government".They also may intimidate those opposite their view on healthcare and that is using a right to have a weapon to disrupt another person's right to rally and speak without fear of reprisal.Threatening fellow citizens who have opposing points of view is what happens in 3rd world countries and places like Iraq.Those guys in Arizona may have thought they were only exercising a right and had no intent to threaten but others might not see it that way and that endangers gun rights overall.

They took a heated issue about healthcare and hijacked it to make a statement about the 2nd amendment.Also,Americans champion the fact that every election is a "revolution" of sorts but it always comes about without violence,grandstanding weapons at a rally that had nothing to do about gun issues can send a message that those with guns only care about their freedoms and are ready to use force against others if they don't get their way.That will do gun owners no favor.

We witnessed the recent Iran elections where goon squads loyal to the islamic establishment intimidated and threatened those of the opposition,it makes clear why we have a 2nd amendment when seeing that.However in America even though it may be legal to have and carry a weapon,choosing a political rally to display it can send a wrong message that those with guns don't respect the rights of others.

 

[KarenTOC]

I voted the last option. All I am saying is give peace a chant.

 

[Quiet]

Black Panthers open carrying was the reason the Mulford Act was signed into law by Governor Reagan.

Mulford Act made loaded open carry illegal in most places in CA.
You can still legally loaded open carry in some unincorporated areas and you can legally unloaded open carry in any non-prohibited areas in CA.

The white man got scared because a minority group decide to exercise the right to bear arms.

 

[TravisB]

Sooo....getting back to the original topic.

I believe it has been established that, despite an accusation that "the premise of the OP is factually incorrect," the premise of the original post is, in fact, factually correct.

To wit:

--In California in the 1960s, the Black Panther Party For Self Defense did, in fact, begin a habit of openly carrying firearms to make a political point (and not just at one event).

--The resulting brouhaha did, in fact, lead to the end of open carry in California and to gun-control laws in other states as well.

In other words: In the past, open carry by political protesters has led to the end of legal open carry.

I ended my original post with a sincere question: Is there a reason to believe that we will not see the same result today?

So far, some reasons offered that the current trend of armed protesters will not have the same result, and my thoughts:

--The Black Panthers were scarier to the populace than today's protesters are. I'd agree that this is true, especially because the Panthers had a record of actual gun violence, but I'm not confident predicting how scared the people need to be of armed street demonstrations before they demand action. Scared is scared. And we don't know if things are going to get scarier. The current trend just started. We've gone from one individual to several individuals -- but not yet an entire self-identified group, all carrying weapons. Will we see that? Will "armed mob" realistically apply at that point?

--The Black Panther Party represented a smaller constituency than today's armed demonstrators. True. But I'm not sure how much that matters -- you can't rely on everyone who has similar political views to the armed demonstrators to also agree that firearms display at political demonstrations is a good idea.

--The Black Panthers rhetoric was different in kind from what we're hearing today. bigalexe: "The Black Panthers were active proponents of armed resistance to government in the event that their policies were not agreed to. The current situation involving people carrying firearms at political events is not so much an open suggestion of armed violence but is people demonstrating the rights they have and wish to continue to have." False. While 2nd Amendment rights are indeed being demonstrated as a consequence, most protesters to date have had a different stated primary agenda. The two armed demonstrators most prominently seen in the media so far both used revolutionary rhetoric. The Arizona protester literally said: "We will forcefully resist." Your description of the Black Panthers as "active proponents of armed resistance to government in the event that their policies were not agreed to" fits the Arizona protester to a T. By his own account, he is threatening violence against the government in response to future taxation.

 

[shibby]

Nothing like someone who doesnt know what they are talking about slanting a survey.

 

[lionking]

To answer the question as to whether open carry at political rallies will lead to laws prohibiting open carry I say yes there is a good chance specially if it continues and more do it.May not happen in Arizona but it has been made a national issue.

I say extra specially if those at a political rally feel that those with guns are there to intimidate them for their stance on healthcare or some other issue.

I think about the 2000 election close count and if Democrats would have stood protesting with Ar-15's.To GOP supporters I get the feeling that they would have thought the message was "Gore is the winner or else.....".

Not a good thing to do at a political rally,the intent could be misinterpreted.

 

[DougDubya]

I never realized that Reagan was a GFW.

Then again, he did start out Liberal and turned Conservative later in life. He might have later regretted writing an abrogation of lawful firearms carry.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

If I could open carry in TEXAS I would every day, Polecats or not . Just because you got elected to an public office your no more special than any of the rest of us.


Seems to me many here don't understand what "Shall NOT BE INFRINGED" really meant to the Founding Fathers.

 

[rbernie]

In other words: In the past, open carry by political protesters has led to the end of legal open carry.

Saying it over and over does not make it any more true.

First, the BPP was not about peaceful protest, nor viewed as political protesters. They were militants who demanded, among other things, the release of all black inmates in prison and the establishment of 'black colonies' within the US with oversight of these 'colonies' by the UN. When they showed up with guns, it was seen clearly as a threat of domestic terrorism. They were threatening violence and secession, and doing backing it up with armed confrontation.

Watching the video from either NH or AZ, you'd have to squint pretty dang hard to see Huey Newton in either case. You'd also not be able to see any of the Panther Patrol brouhaha that was the backdrop for the May 2 1967 protest. To ignore those differences for the sake of making a point is intellectually dishonest, despite your repeated efforts.

In other words: In the past, open carry by political protesters has led to the end of legal open carry.

That's simply a dishonest statement. Threats of violence and shootouts with law enforcement by an openly-radical protest group led to the passing of a law prohibiting open carry in California. To claim that their open carry protest (the only parallel between then and now) is the sole, or even principal, factor in the passing of the Mulford Act is simply not sustainable by fact no matter how many times you make a run at it.

The Mulford Act was the Patriot Act of the day - a response to acts of domestic terrorism. It had years of foundation, to the point that the FBI was actively working to infiltrate and destabilize the group by the time the May 1967 protest took place.

You claim the context is nothing. I claim the context is EVERYTHING.

 

[daorhgih]

Barely made it!

Whew! Glad that this point finally slouched away from the brink where the Mods. would've cancelled it for teetering too close to the fine edge. Also glad to see that it seems the Mods. are brilliant (didn't want to say "intelligent enough" as it would seem smart-a$$ed to say so, and seem like I didn't mean it, but I sincerely do) enough to see the real purpose behind the O.P. Just because one does not speak enough greek to know what "Мoλόn Λaßэ" means does not mean his is so encumbered by an I.Q. of 99 that he won't "run towards the sound of the cannon." "Carrying open" in my state is becoming more and more an obvious thing, and not just in "Cowboy clothiers." These open packers are plain-ole' buck-eye boys. And so forth. Seldom see any bumper stickers on their vehicles, but their stance and stature belay any need of swagger. "Semper Fi" goes a long way around here. We never took an oath to be "sworn OUT!" And I just want to add.......since it's not in the poll, I learned to respect men (actually we were boys) of any color or religion, or of NO religion, when I lived in 'Nam for 395 days. And those that we zipped up and lifted out in the soft silver coffins are still in my soul to this day. Mark me down as supporting the B.Panthers, because in the end, it's not about White or Black folks -- it's about "Мoλόn Λaßэ" in ANY language. Semper Fi!

 

[TravisB]

Well, those who wrote and passed the Mulford Act sure seemed to think they were responding to the Panther "Patrols" -- legal open carry of rifles, just standing there, wherever the Panthers saw cops, essentially armed political demonstrations designed to keep the cops in line. The origin of the Mulford Act is an open fact of history. The people who made this history stated their motivation in real time, and they unequivocally said they wanted to end the Panther Police Patrols. Even the legislators and the Panthers agreed on this fact!

As far as I know, it was, prior to your unique and still unclear historical revision, a rather uncontroversial fact of history that the Black Panthers' open-carry of weapons to make a political point led to the Mulford Act and ended open carry in CA, and other states followed suit. I stated this version of history so plainly in my original post -- all of which stands correct, no evidence presented to contradict it -- because it was such an uncontroversial view.

This brief PBS summary gives a fairly typical version of the conventionally accepted facts of history until your unique revision:

It began shortly after the shooting of Denzil Dowell. Easy Bay legislator Don Mulford introduced a bill to repeal the law that permitted citizens to carry loaded weapons in public places so long as the weapons were openly displayed [see link to California Penal Code, Sections 12031 and 171.c]. What the Mulford law sought to achieve was the elimination of the Black Panther Police Patrols, and it had been tagged "the Panther Bill" by the media.

The Police Patrols had become an integral part of BPP community policy. Members of the BPP would listen to police calls on a short wave radio, rush to the scene of the arrest with law books in hand and inform the person being arrested of their constitutional rights. BPP members also happened to carry loaded weapons, which were publicly displayed, but were careful to stand no closer than ten feet from the arrest so as not to interfere with the arrest.

Passage of the Mulford Bill would essentially end the Panther Police Patrols, so the BPP sent a group to Sacramento, California on May 2nd, 1967 to protest. The group carried loaded rifles and shotguns, publicly displayed and entered the State Capitol building to read aloud Executive Mandate Number 1, which was in opposition to the Mulford Bill. They tried to enter the Assembly Chamber but were forced out of this public place where they then read Executive Mandate Number 1 out on the lawn.

The legislature responded by passing the bill, thus creating the Mulford Act, which was signed into law by Governor Ronald Reagan. This step by the Black Panther Party was enough to put them into national prominence and was a stimulus for growth of the party within the young Black population.

I'm all for questioning received history. Hey, maybe it's wrong. And there's nothing wrong with having an ideological motivation when checking received history for errors or bias. But I do prefer new evidence to support a new theory. So far as I can tell, there is not any piece of evidence that would contradict the substance of my original post, which read:

In the 1960s, the Black Panthers decided to introduce guns into the political dialogue. Much like the recent armed protesters making the news, they claimed merely to be exercising a right they possessed under the law. Also like today's armed protesters, they claimed they were suffering under government oppression/totalitarianism/etc. and styled themselves as revolutionaries.

The Black Panthers' decision to openly arm themselves during political protest terrified the public and set off a wave of gun control, including the end of open carry in California by Governor Ronald Reagan.

This summary of California history would not raise any eyebrows among historians -- it's just the plain, boring facts of history.

Is the degree of similarity between the situation then and the situation now a matter of opinion? Yes, of course. Are there other facts that matter? Of course.

But the basic facts are still the basic facts, and the basic facts above are correct and of uncontroversial standing. The accusation that they are "factually incorrect" has been demonstrated to be false, unless there is some novel definition of "correct" that I'm unaware of.

I remain open to any new evidence that the Mulford Act was not primarily motivated by a desire to end the open-carry of firearms by the Black Panther Police Patrols.

I also remain open to a discussion of the original topic instead of this baseless challenge to the validity of the topic!

 

[TravisB]

Mark me down as supporting the B.Panthers, because in the end, it's not about White or Black folks

I was wondering when someone was going to pipe in with this view!

What the Panthers did with their armed entrance into the Assembly hall reminds me of proposals often made here and elsewhere that RTKBA activists should show up en masse, armed, at legislative sessions, just to make their presence known. Although it's usually for a City Council meeting that these demonstrations are proposed.

You could learn a lot from a Panther.

 

[Pyro-Grafix]

What if........

What if the rifle guy is a plant from ACORN............

 

[Logos]

Open carry will be outlawed if this keeps up.

No doubt.

Sometimes I think that the proponents of open carry are really anti's and are actually TRYING to get open carry banned.

Not that I care, but if they think parading around at crowded political events with guns is gonna get the general public to support them......whoa, it's like that's such bizarre thinking that it's hard to believe.

This is the 21st Century......in the 19th Century Wyatt Earp made everybody leave their guns outside of town......and the general public was overjoyed.

Why should it be so difficult for 21st Century gunowners to accept this?

 

[Troy308]

I'm a lifetime NRA member from WY. We have more firearms than people in this state and the firearm related crimes are slim to none. I understand the AZ gentleman (black or white, who cares) with the AR-15 is exercising his 2nd amendment right. What other reason would he carry a rifle to a town hall meeting? I myself have a concealed carry permit. I also carry openly in a holster, usually when I'm in the backwoods. I would have no issue with carrying at a town hall meeting, but it would probably be concealed. I would have no reason to carry my AR-10 with a 20 round magazine to a town hall meeting, even though it's my right. My question is do you think the man carrying the AR-15 to Obama's town hall meeting makes gun owners look rational or irrational? Does it really promote the 2nd Amendment? It seems to me more like taunting and flaunting than being a humble, responsible, gun owner.

 

[Mohawk]

Mark my words. Nothing good for gun owners will come from the AZ and NH gun carrying incidents. There will be a copy cat who will show up at a town hall meeting and truly frighten the average citizen who will watch it on every national news channel. We will make no friends nor convert any fence sitters with this type of display.

What bothers me to quite a degree are the number of members on this board who immediately try to vilify those on this forum who disagree with the gun toters actions and try to brand them as enemies of gun rights and Brady/Huffington types. Generally vilification of those who don’t agree with you and targeting them as enemies is one of the tenants of Fascism. I work within the political system for gun rights and over the years have made notable progress for our collective rights. Then there is the faction who are all “in your face” bluster and “Shall not be infringed” means to them that they will do whatever they damn well please regardless of the political or social consequences. Both factions have their place in the gun rights community. One can be too bold to the point of stupidity and the other can be too meek to the point of acquiescing to unreasonable restrictions. Working together they can be a powerful force for positive change.

The AZ and NH events are touchstone incidents and are very important events for society and us gun owners to ponder. I hope the Mods here do not close the threads concerning this. Soon enough at another rally, someone will come out of the woodwork and throw gasoline on the sparks that the AZ/NH individuals have ignited. Then we’ll see what society’s and the “in your face with a gun crowd” reaction is. As it stands now, staunch gun rights activists are having a very difficult time defending those gentlemen’s actions in the national media.

Those of us who find the actions of the NH and AZ gun toters irresponsible and counterproductive for the gun rights movement are not your enemies. We are law abiding, staunch supporters of the Second Amendment as written and confirmed by the Supreme Court.

 

[Dazen]

I feel all the screaming a crying about those Law abiding citizens only helps further demonize gun owners. I would like to also note that the Black Panther Party taught me one can stand in front of voting booths saying racist things holding a bully club and walk free.

 

[rbernie]

To claim that this:

In the past, open carry by political protesters has led to the end of legal open carry.

is the same as this:

The Police Patrols had become an integral part of BPP community policy. Members of the BPP would listen to police calls on a short wave radio, rush to the scene of the arrest with law books in hand and inform the person being arrested of their constitutional rights. BPP members also happened to carry loaded weapons, which were publicly displayed, but were careful to stand no closer than ten feet from the arrest so as not to interfere with the arrest.

Passage of the Mulford Bill would essentially end the Panther Police Patrols, so the BPP sent a group to Sacramento, California on May 2nd, 1967 to protest. The group carried loaded rifles and shotguns, publicly displayed and entered the State Capitol building to read aloud Executive Mandate Number 1, which was in opposition to the Mulford Bill. They tried to enter the Assembly Chamber but were forced out of this public place where they then read Executive Mandate Number 1 out on the lawn

Renders the debate irrelevant. They are not the same. I cannot say it more plainly, in hopes that SOMEBODY that is capable of critical thought will read these words and understand them.

But the basic facts are still the basic facts, and the basic facts above are correct and of uncontroversial standing. The accusation that they are "factually incorrect" has been demonstrated to be false, unless there is some novel definition of "correct" that I'm unaware of.

I am pleased that you've at least taken the opportunity to Google this, and come up with some basic background. Sadly, however, you read the facts but you do not comprehend them. You parrot them back, but you do not seem to understand their meaning. So let's use a public search engine and see what pops up, other than the PBS link. Here's a compilation of various readings on the subject: http://www.answers.com/topic/black-panther

From the Columbia Encyclopedia:

Black Panthers, U.S. African-American militant party, founded (1966) in Oakland, Calif., by Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale. Originally espousing violent revolution as the only means of achieving black liberation, the Black Panthers called on African Americans to arm themselves for the liberation struggle. In the late 1960s party members became involved in a series of violent confrontations with the police (resulting in deaths on both sides) and in a series of court cases, some resulting from direct shoot-outs with the police and some from independent charges. Among the most notable of the trials was that of Huey Newton for killing a policeman in 1967, which resulted in three mistrials, the last in 1971.

How about the Law Encyclopedia's version:

Police violence against African Americans was a common complaint in impoverished Oakland, California. By 1966, two young men had had enough. One was Huey P. Newton, age twenty-three, a first-year law student. With his friend Bobby Seale, age thirty, Newton founded the BPP, with the intent of monitoring police officers when they made arrests. This bold tactic — already being employed in Minneapolis by the nascent American Indian Movement (AIM) — was entirely legal. Also legal under California state law was the practice of carrying a loaded weapon, as long as it was visible. But legal or not, the sight of Newton and Seale bearing shotguns as they rushed to the scene of an arrest had enormous shock value. To police officers and citizens alike, this represented a huge change from the previously nonviolent demonstrations of civil rights activists. Although they did not use the guns and maintained the legally required eight to ten feet from officers, the Panthers inspired fear. They also quickly won respect from neighbors who saw them as standing up to the predominantly white police force. The law books they carried— and from which they read criminal suspects their rights — appeared to many in the community to give the Panthers a kind of legitimacy.

Attracting new members through their high visibility, the Panthers sprang to national attention in 1967. Antagonism toward the party by law enforcement officials had prompted California lawmakers to consider gun control. In May 1967, legislators met in Sacramento, the state capital, to discuss a bill that would criminalize the carrying of loaded weapons within city limits. To Seale and Newton, chairman and minister of defense of the BPP, respectively, the proposed law was unjust. Governor Ronald Reagan was on the lawn of the state legislature as thirty armed Black Panthers arrived and entered the building. TV cameras followed the group's progress to the legislative chambers, where they were stopped by police officers, Seale shouting, "Is this the way the racist government works — [you] won't let a man exercise his constitutional rights?" He then read a prepared statement:

The Black Panther Party calls upon American people in general and black people in particular to take full note of the racist California legislature which is now considering legislation aimed at keeping the black people disarmed and powerless, at the very same time that racist police agencies throughout the country are intensifying the terror, brutality, murder and repression of black people.
The Panthers kept their guns, left the building, and were subsequently disarmed by the police.

No sooner had the demonstration ended than the national media denounced the Panthers as antiwhite radicals. For many white U.S. citizens, the Panthers symbolized terror.

How about referencing the Ten Point Manifesto itself, since that formed the public face of the BPP:

We want power to determine the destiny of our black and oppressed communities' education that teaches us our true history and our role in the present day society.
We want completely free health care for all black and oppressed people.
We want an immediate end to police brutality and murder of black people, other people of color, and all oppressed people inside the United States.
We want an immediate end to all wars of aggression.
We want full employment for our people.
We want an end to the robbery by the capitalists of our Black Community.
We want decent housing, fit for the shelter of human beings.
We want decent education for our people that exposes the true nature of this decadent American society.
We want freedom for all black and oppressed people now held in U. S. Federal, state, county, city and military prisons and jails. We want trials by a jury of peers for all persons charged with so-called crimes under the laws of this country.
We want land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice, peace and people's community control of modern technology.

This is the context of the BPP. Open carry by the BPP was a single facet of a very militant worldview, and the Mulford Act was the establishment's response to the overarching threat of black militantism in the Bay Area (and elsewhere). Had busloads of nuns carried M14s through the streets of Sacramento (in protest or otherwise), the Mulford Act would never have existed. On the other hand, had busloads of white-power separatists tried the same thing as the BPP, history probably would have been repeated.

It was not about open carry. It was about suppressing the perceived threat to civil order that the BPP represented. You continue to insist that this:



is the same as this:

To support statements like this:

In the 1960s, the Black Panthers decided to introduce guns into the political dialog. Much like the recent armed protesters making the news, they claimed merely to be exercising a right they possessed under the law. Also like today's armed protesters, they claimed they were suffering under government oppression/totalitarianism/etc. and styled themselves as revolutionaries.

And that's simply disingenuous. I can think of no other way to describe it.

You are aware that the Phoenix protest was arranged in advance WITH the police and had both a police and Secret Service escort, do you not? Can you see Huey Newton doing that?