When were the last openly racist gun laws repealed?

[OptimusPrime]

Yessir, I understand that and I do see your point. I still respectfully disagree though, no hard feelings.
When the letter of the law says one thing but absolutely leaves no room for compromise or amelioration and can only affect one particular class of people, therein lies the -ism of whatever sort (race, sex, national, religion, etc.).
If a hypothetical law said "you can not be considered clergy if you are not married" that would be a law that discriminates against Catholics (among others).
In regards to firearms, if a hypothetical law were enacted that said "only weapons designed to be fired from the left hand are legal", obviously that discriminates against an entire class of people and 89% of the population. Or 1933 Germany that only allowed personal weapons in the hands of members of The Party, which was a small part of the population at the time, and was a membership restricted from certain groups (Jews principally but also Gypsies and others). Nothing in the LETTER of the law, but de facto racism wouldn't you agree?
At any rate, the other posters are correct, this is an important topic and please do a good job researching it. Don't just rely on the thoughts of a message board but this is a good starting place to get some ideas.

 

[Somewhere in NM]

I believe that most laws that try to discourage gun ownership based on the amount of money a person can afford to spend are motivated by racist thinking. Examples include excessive fees and restrictions on cheap guns. Shameful as it is, many people of all political persuasions are scared of a black man with a gun. They think that poor = black = criminal, whether they will admit it or not.

 

[janedoedad]

This really is not what the OP is looking for, but may be good background and reference material.

http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/racist-roots-of-ga-gun-laws.pdf

 

[jerkface11]

In Illinois guns that melt below a certain threshold are still illegal. This bans inexpensive guns. Meaning that the poor cannot own an affordable pistol. Thus banning a large percentage of the minorities in Illinois from owning a handgun.

 

[Bobson]

In Illinois guns that melt below a certain threshold are still illegal. This bans inexpensive guns. Meaning that the poor cannot own an affordable pistol. Thus banning a large percentage of the minorities in Illinois from owning a handgun.

Good grief. So racist it's not even funny.

/sarcasm

 

[Deanimator]

The Sullivan Law hasn't BEEN repealed.

 

[Art Eatman]

Back, oh, maybe thirty years ago, there was a bunch of hoo-hah in Congress about the evils of "Saturday Night Specials". Inexpensive, cheaply-made handguns. RGs and such.

The Congressional Black Caucus pointed out that those handguns were all that poor people could afford, and since the majority of blacks were comparatively poor, such restrictions against production and ownership were racist. End of hoo-hah.

So: To go back to the OP, the issue, seems to me, is 1) Overt racism, or 2) Intent and enforcement.

In Missouri, for instance, carrying a handgun when out and about was illegal for all. "Don't take your guns to town, son..." Enforcement, however, was strictly against blacks. Obvious Q: Did those who wrote and passed that law intend for it to be enforced only against blacks? I don't know; the writers are dead and gone.

Divining intent is pretty much in the mind of the beholder--particularly given the ignorance about firearms on the part of those who write proposed legislation.

 

[Cee Zee]

The definition of "openly" comes into question here but IMO the last racist gun laws were repealed by Heller. DC gun laws have always been about keeping the largely black population from having firearms. It's been an extension of the black code laws after the Civil War and the Jim Crow laws that replaced those black code laws. Think about it. The blacks living in DC were denied guns while whites living in Virginia and Maryland had no such restrictions. Largely it was enforced by prosperity as much as it was by actual policing. Blacks couldn't afford to commute to their jobs in the city but white people could. The gist of what happened was that blacks were not able to defend themselves while whites could. This in turn reinforced the stereotypes that blacks were less law abiding than whites too which no doubt led to more back room political deals that prevented blacks from having weapons (or law abiding blacks anyway) in cities like Chicago. The more the laws were passed and went into effect the more crime rose in black population centers and the more certain politicians saw the "need" for more laws keeping guns from blacks.

The really insane part of all this is that blacks have been voting for the gun grabbers for a very long time not realizing that most of what kept crime rates down in more rural areas and in the suburbs was the ability to own guns for protection. The government can't protect you. It never will be able to protect you. It can only punish those that hurt you (on the best days). But they can certainly hurt you. Taking away your right to self defense is probably the worst thing they could do to you. Think about living in the heart of Africa amongst the lions and elephants and hippos and rhinos and buffalo. Would you feel safe without a weapon of any kinds? Now consider that humans are more dangerous than all those animals or at least they are when they own guns. So when the bad guys have guns and you don't you are nothing more than dinner for the carnivores that inhabit the world of man. They will eat you for breakfast.

When I last lived in a big city a friend of mine lived in a duplex with an old man and and his wife occupying the other side. Every month on check day a gang would come by and rob those people of their social security money (yes it was before direct deposit - yeah I'm old and I haven't lived in a city in a very long time - over 30 years now). My friend told me about it and laughed. We didn't stay friends very long. I was raised to believe you were obligated to help the weak no matter what it meant for you. But in the inner city people thought it was a joke when the weak were robbed. I'll never forget that. I'm sure that isn't always the case. I'm just as sure it was pretty much never the case where I live now. I watch out for my neighbor and he watches out for me. It's a simple system but a good one.