PDF Download |
| ||
2nd Amendment Res Judicata
From the library of congress
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/public/gdcmassbookdig/negrolawofsouthc00onea/negrolawofsouthc00onea.pdf
NEGRO LAW
SOUTH CAROLINA,
COLLBCTED AND DIGESTED BY JOHN BELTON O'NEALL,
One of the Judges of the Courts of Law and Error of the said State,
UNDER A RESOLUTION OF THE STATE AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY OF SOUTH CAROLINA:
Read before them, at their September Semi-Annual Meeting, 1818, at Spartanburg Court House—by them directed to be submitted to the Governor, with a request that he would lay it before the Legislature, at its approaching Session, November, 1818, and by him ordered to be published fur the information of the Members.
COLUMBIA:
PRINTED BY JOHN G. BOWMAN.
1848
SOUTH CAROLINA,
COLLBCTED AND DIGESTED BY JOHN BELTON O'NEALL,
One of the Judges of the Courts of Law and Error of the said State,
UNDER A RESOLUTION OF THE STATE AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY OF SOUTH CAROLINA:
Read before them, at their September Semi-Annual Meeting, 1818, at Spartanburg Court House—by them directed to be submitted to the Governor, with a request that he would lay it before the Legislature, at its approaching Session, November, 1818, and by him ordered to be published fur the information of the Members.
COLUMBIA:
PRINTED BY JOHN G. BOWMAN.
1848
TO HIS EXCELLENCY, DAVID JOHNSON,
Governor and Commander-in-Chief in and over South. Carolina. This work, passing through your hands to the Legislature of the State, may, I trust, be appropriately dedicated to you, as a slight testimonial of the friendship which, for more than thirty years, at the Bar, on the Bench, in your present high and dignified office, and in all the relations of life, has existed, and I hope ever will exist between us.
JOHN BELTON O'NEALL.
Springfield, Oct. 3, 1848
Governor and Commander-in-Chief in and over South. Carolina. This work, passing through your hands to the Legislature of the State, may, I trust, be appropriately dedicated to you, as a slight testimonial of the friendship which, for more than thirty years, at the Bar, on the Bench, in your present high and dignified office, and in all the relations of life, has existed, and I hope ever will exist between us.
JOHN BELTON O'NEALL.
Springfield, Oct. 3, 1848
NEGRO LAW OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
CHAPTER I.
The Status of the Negro, his Rights and Disabilities.
CHAPTER I.
The Status of the Negro, his Rights and Disabilities.
Sec. 4. The term negro is confined to slave Africans, (the ancient Berbers) and their descendants. It does not embrace the free inhabitants of Africa, such as the Egyptians, Moors, or the negro Asiatics, such as the Lascars.
Sec. 64. Free negroes, and free persons of color, (meaning of course mulattoes and mestizoes,) are prohibited, (unless they have a ticket from their guardian.) from carrying any fire arms, or other military or dangerous weapons, under pain of forfeiture, and being whipped at the discretion of a Magistrate and three freeholders. They cannot be employed as pioneers, though they may be subjected to military fatigue duty.
Negro Law or South Carolina.
Sec. 64. Free negroes, and free persons of color, (meaning of course mulattoes and mestizoes,) are prohibited, (unless they have a ticket from their guardian.) from carrying any fire arms, or other military or dangerous weapons, under pain of forfeiture, and being whipped at the discretion of a Magistrate and three freeholders. They cannot be employed as pioneers, though they may be subjected to military fatigue duty.
Negro Law or South Carolina.
CHAPTER II.
Slaves, their Civil Rights, Liabilities, and Disabilities.
Slaves, their Civil Rights, Liabilities, and Disabilities.
Sec. 53. The Act of 1819. 5lh section, repeals the 23d section of the Act of 1740. The law now makes it unlawful for any slave except in the company and presence of some white person, to carry or make use of any fire arms or other offensive weapon, without a ticket or license in writing from his owner or overseer; or unless such slave be employed to hunt and kill game, mischievous birds or beasts of prey, within the limits of his master's plantation, or unless such slave shall be a watchman in and over his owner's fields and plantation. If this law be violated, any white person finding a slave carrying or using a gun or other offensive weapon, without a ticket or license in writing, from his owner or overseer, or not used to hunt game, within the plantation, or as a watchman in the same, may seize and appropriate to his own use, such gun or offensive weapon. But to make the forfeiture complete and legal, the party making the seizure, must, within 48 hours after the seizure, go before the next Magistrate, and make oath of the manner of taking, and then, after 48 hours’ notice lo the owner or overseer having charge of the slave, by summons to shew cause why the articles should not be condemned, (the service of the summons being proved on oath.) the Magistrate may, by certificate under his hand and seal (if he be satisfied that the arms have been seized according to the Act of 1819) declare the same to be forfeited.
CHAPTER III.
Crimes of Free Negroes, Mulattoes, Mestizoes, and Slaves—Their Punishment and Mode of Trial, including the Law as to Runaways and the Patrol.
Crimes of Free Negroes, Mulattoes, Mestizoes, and Slaves—Their Punishment and Mode of Trial, including the Law as to Runaways and the Patrol.
Sec. 36. Masters, overseers, or other persons, have the power to apprehend and take up any slave found out of his or her master's or owner's plantation at any time, but more especially on Saturday nights or Sundays, or other holidays, not being on lawful business, or not with a ticket from the master, or not having some white person in company, and even with a ticket, if armed with wooden swords or other mischievous and dangerous weapons, and to disarm such slave, and all such mentioned in this section, to whip.
Sec. 42. It is the duty of the commandant of the patrol to call them out at least once a fortnight, and to take up and correct stripes not exceeding 20 with a switch or cowskin. all slaves found outside of their owner's or employers plantation, without a ticket or letter to shew the reasonableness of his absence or some white per-son in company to give an account to the business of such slave; and also if the slave have a ticket, and has in his possession, a gun, Pistol or other offensive weapon, unless such slave be on lawful business, or in company with some white person not less than ten years of age. Fire arms, and other offensive weapons, found by the patrol, in the possession of a slave, in violation of the above provisions, are liable to seizure by them, and condemnation and forfeiture to the use of the regiment to which the patrol may belong.
Index
FIRE ARMS. Not to be carried by persons of color, ' Slaves not allowed to carry or use. Seizure of. from slaves. - ' - Mode of proceeding.
Sec. 42. It is the duty of the commandant of the patrol to call them out at least once a fortnight, and to take up and correct stripes not exceeding 20 with a switch or cowskin. all slaves found outside of their owner's or employers plantation, without a ticket or letter to shew the reasonableness of his absence or some white per-son in company to give an account to the business of such slave; and also if the slave have a ticket, and has in his possession, a gun, Pistol or other offensive weapon, unless such slave be on lawful business, or in company with some white person not less than ten years of age. Fire arms, and other offensive weapons, found by the patrol, in the possession of a slave, in violation of the above provisions, are liable to seizure by them, and condemnation and forfeiture to the use of the regiment to which the patrol may belong.
Index
FIRE ARMS. Not to be carried by persons of color, ' Slaves not allowed to carry or use. Seizure of. from slaves. - ' - Mode of proceeding.
Commonwealth v Alvarado 423 Mass 266. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Carrying a gun is not a crime... This court held in Commonwealth v. Couture, 407 Mass. 178, 183, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 951 (1990), that, under the Fourth Amendment, "[t]he mere possession of a handgun was not sufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was illegally carrying that gun." See Commonwealth v. Toole, 389 Mass. 159, 163-164 (1983) ("carrying a .45 caliber revolver is not necessarily a crime" and thus there was no probable cause to search vehicle)
Brumley v Commonwealth 413 S.W. 3d 280, ky “Knowledge of firearms... alone… does not create reasonable suspicion…”
Commonwealth v Kelly 484 Mass 53. Carrying… a weapon is not, standing alone, an indication that criminal conduct has occurred or is contemplated.
Commonwealth v Kelly 484 Mass 53. Carrying… a weapon is not, standing alone, an indication that criminal conduct has occurred or is contemplated.
Nordyke v King 563 F.3d 439: “Self-preservation is commonly called the first law of nature… Self-preservation cannot be repealed, or superseded or suspended by any human institution.”
Samuel Adams in his report to the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town meeting in 1772: “the duty of self-preservation [is] the first law of nature”
Selective Draft Law 254 U.S. 366: “The highest duty… is to bear arms… This duty is inherent… without it… society could not be maintained.”
United States v Miller supra at 178: The Supreme Court stated that the purpose of the second amendment was “to preserve the effectiveness of militias.”
Moore v Madison 702 F3d 933: “armed self-preservation [is] a fundamental natural right… a right to possess guns for resistance, self-preservation, self-defense and protection against both public and private violence.”
Barneblatt v United States 360 U.S. 109: “Self-preservation [is] the ultimate value of society.”
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008): “Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting [one] to repel force by force when the intervention of society in his behalf may be too late to prevent injury.”
Samuel Adams in his report to the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town meeting in 1772: “the duty of self-preservation [is] the first law of nature”
Selective Draft Law 254 U.S. 366: “The highest duty… is to bear arms… This duty is inherent… without it… society could not be maintained.”
United States v Miller supra at 178: The Supreme Court stated that the purpose of the second amendment was “to preserve the effectiveness of militias.”
Moore v Madison 702 F3d 933: “armed self-preservation [is] a fundamental natural right… a right to possess guns for resistance, self-preservation, self-defense and protection against both public and private violence.”
Barneblatt v United States 360 U.S. 109: “Self-preservation [is] the ultimate value of society.”
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008): “Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting [one] to repel force by force when the intervention of society in his behalf may be too late to prevent injury.”
|
|
|
|
Dylann Storm Roof (born April 3, 1994) is an American white supremacist, neo-Nazi, and mass murderer convicted for perpetrating the Charleston church shooting on June 17, 2015, in the U.S. state of South Carolina. During a Bible study at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, Roof killed nine people, all African Americans, including senior pastor and state senator Clementa C. Pinckney, and injured one other person.
|
|
On May 14, 2022, a mass shooting occurred in Buffalo, New York, United States, at a Tops Friendly Markets supermarket in the East Side neighborhood. Ten Black people were killed and three people were injured. The shooter livestreamed part of the attack on Twitch, but the livestream was shut down by the service in under two minutes. The accused, identified as 18-year-old Payton S. Gendron, was taken into custody and charged with first-degree murder. He formally entered a plea of "not guilty" on May 19, 2022.
|
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010): Three years after Slaughter-House, the Court in Cruikshank squarely held that the right to keep and bear arms was not a privilege of American citizenship, thereby overturning the convictions of militia members responsible for the brutal Colfax Massacre. See supra, at 4–5. Cruikshank is not a precedent entitled to any respect. The flaws in its interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause are made evident by the preceding evidence of its original meaning, and I would reject the holding on that basis alone. But, the consequences of Cruikshank warrant mention as well.
Cruikshank’s holding that blacks could look only to state governments for protection of their right to keep and bear arms enabled private forces, often with the assistance of local governments, to subjugate the newly freed slaves and their descendants through a wave of private violence designed to drive blacks from the voting booth and force them into peonage, an effective return to slavery. Without federal enforcement of the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, these militias and mobs were tragically successful in waging a campaign of terror against the very people the Fourteenth Amendment had just made citizens.
Take, for example, the Hamburg Massacre of 1876. There, a white citizen militia sought out and murdered a troop of black militiamen for no other reason than that they had dared to conduct a celebratory Fourth of July parade through their mostly black town. The white militia commander, “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman, later described this massacre with pride: “[T]he leading white men of Edgefield” had decided “to seize the first opportunity that the negroes might offer them to provoke a riot and teach the negroes a lesson by having the whites demonstrate their superiority by killing as many of them as was justifiable.” S. Kantrowitz, Ben Tillman & the Reconstruction of White Supremacy 67 (2000) (ellipsis, brackets, and internal quotation marks omitted). None of the perpetrators of the Hamburg murders was ever brought to justice.
Organized terrorism like that perpetuated by Tillman and his cohorts proliferated in the absence of federal enforcement of constitutional rights. Militias such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Knights of the White Camellia, the White Brotherhood, the Pale Faces, and the ’76 Association spread terror among blacks and white Republicans by breaking up Republican meetings, threatening political leaders, and whipping black militiamen. Era of Reconstruction, 199–200; Curtis 156. These groups raped, murdered, lynched, and robbed as a means of intimidating, and instilling pervasive fear in, those whom they despised. A. Trelease, White Terror: The Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy and Southern Reconstruction 28–46 (1995).
Although Congress enacted legislation to suppress these activities, Klan tactics remained a constant presence in the lives of Southern blacks for decades. Between 1882 and 1968, there were at least 3,446 reported lynchings of blacks in the South. Cottrol 351–352. They were tortured and killed for a wide array of alleged crimes, without even the slightest hint of due process. Emmit Till, for example, was killed in 1955 for allegedly whistling at a white woman. S. Whitfield, A Death in the Delta: The Story of Emmett Till 15–31 (1988). The fates of other targets of mob violence were equally depraved. See, e.g., Lynched Negro and Wife Were First Mutilated, Vicksburg (Miss.) Evening Post, Feb. 8, 1904, reprinted in R. Ginzburg, 100 Years of Lynchings 63 (1988); Negro Shot Dead for Kissing His White Girlfriend, Chi. Defender, Feb. 31, 1915, in id., at 95 (reporting incident in Florida); La. Negro Is Burned Alive Screaming “I Didn’t Do It,” Cleveland Gazette, Dec. 13, 1914, in id., at 93 (reporting incident in Louisiana).
The use of firearms for self-defense was often the only way black citizens could protect themselves from mob violence. As Eli Cooper, one target of such violence, is said to have explained, “ ‘[t]he Negro has been run over for fifty years, but it must stop now, and pistols and shotguns are the only weapons to stop a mob.’ ” Church Burnings Follow Negro Agitator’s Lynching, Chicago Defender, Sept. 6, 1919, in id., at 124. Sometimes, as in Cooper’s case, self-defense did not succeed. He was dragged from his home by a mob and killed as his wife looked on. Ibid. But at other times, the use of firearms allowed targets of mob violence to survive. One man recalled the night during his childhood when his father stood armed at a jail until morning to ward off lynchers. See Cottrol, 354. The experience left him with a sense, “not ‘of powerlessness, but of the “possibilities of salvation” ’ ” that came from standing up to intimidation. Ibid.
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Timothy Joe Emerson, Defendant-appellee, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001). US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001) October 16, 2001Revised November 2, 2001. An Additional Number of Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Letter XVIII, May 1788 (reprinted in Young, supra at 354-55) (footnote omitted) ("First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community to be avoided. . . . But, say gentlemen, the general militia are for the most part employed at home in their private concerns, cannot well be called out, or be depended upon; that we must have a select militia; that is, as I understand it, particular corps or bodies of young men, and of men who have but little to do at home, particularly armed and disciplined in some measure, at the public expence, and always ready to take the field. These corps, not much unlike regular troops, will ever produce an inattention to the general militia; and the consequence has ever been, and always must be, that the substantial men, having families and property, will generally be without arms, without knowing the use of them, and defenceless; whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle . . . .")… Debates In The Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, reprinted in 3 J. ELLIOT, debates in the several state Conventions 425 (3d ed. 1937) (statement of George Mason, June 14, 1788) ("Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people...."); letters from the federal farmer to the republican 123 (W. Bennett ed. 1978) (ascribed to Richard Henry Lee) (" [a] militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...."); Letter from Tench Coxe to the Pennsylvania Gazette (Feb. 20, 1778), reprinted in The documentary history of the ratification of the constitution (Mfm. Supp. 1976) ("Who are these militia? are they not ourselves.") (emphasis in original)…. And, "Militia," just like "well-regulated Militia," likewise was understood to be composed of the people generally possessed of arms which they knew how to use, rather than to refer to some formal military group separate and distinct from the people at large.36 Madison also plainly shared these views, as is reflected in his Federalist No. 46 where he argued that power of Congress under the proposed constitution " [t]o raise and support Armies" (art. 1, § 8, cl.12) posed no threat to liberty because any such army, if misused, "would be opposed [by] a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands" and then noting "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation," in contrast to "the several kingdoms of Europe" where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." The Federalist Papers at 299 (Rossiter, New American Library). Plainly, Madison saw an armed people as a foundation of the militia which would provide security for a "free" state, one which, like America but unlike the "kingdoms of Europe," was not afraid to trust its people to have their own arms.37 The militia consisted of the people bearing their own arms when called to active service, arms which they kept and hence knew how to use. If the people were disarmed there could be no militia (well-regulated or otherwise) as it was then understood.
PARKER v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 478 F.3d 370 (2007). Shelly PARKER, et al., Appellants v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor of the District of Columbia, Appellees. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Argued December 7, 2006. Decided March 9, 2007: “the District claims a militia did not exist unless it was subject to state discipline and leadership… The District's definition of the militia is just too narrow…. THE FEDERALIST NOS. 8, 28, 59 (Alexander Hamilton), No. 46 (James Madison) (arguing that an armed populace constitutes a check on the potential abuses of the federal government) with MELANCTON SMITH [Federal Farmer], OBSERVATIONS TO A FAIR EXAMINATION OF THE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT PROPOSED BY THE LATE CONVENTION, AND TO SEVERAL ESSENTIAL AND NECESSARY ALTERATIONSIN IT (Nov. 8, 1787), reprinted in THE ORIGIN OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, supra, at 89, 91.
United States v Jemenez-Shilon. May 23rd, 2022. No. 20-12139. Newsom, Circuit Judge: See Charles, Armed in America , supra , at 94; The Complete Bill of Rights , supra , at 275 (documenting the Massachusetts proposal that Congress be barred from "prevent[ing] the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms," as well as the New Hampshire proposal that "Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion").
The Second Amendment seems to have codified this principle. See Heller , 554 U.S. at 592–93, 599, 128 S.Ct. 2783. "It was understood across the political spectrum that the right" to keep and bear arms "helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down." Id. at 599, 128 S.Ct. 2783. At the same time, it helped to secure the citizen's right to self-defense when his government was unable (or unwilling) to protect him from private lawlessness. [Several Federal Court cases have already decided that the Federal, State and Local (Municipal / County, City and Towns) governments, which includes State and Local Police, have no duty to protect an individual. i.e., “his government is unwilling to protect him from private lawlessness.” See Munger v City of Glassgow Police 227 F 3d 1082: “a police officer generally has no duty to protect a particular individual…”; Taylor v Phelan 9 F 3d 882; So v Bay Area Transit 2013 U.S. Dist Lexis 149807; Hernandez v City of San Jose 14 Cal App 4th 129: “the police have no duty to protect individuals from private wrongdoers.”; White v Duchford 592 F 2d 381: “There is no general duty to provide police protection to the general public.”; and United States v Duguay 93 F 3d 346: “The state owes no legal duty to protect things outside its custody from private injury.”]
United States v Knights 989 F. 3d 128 (March 10th, 2021): “According to a scientific study published by the national academy of science, ‘Black men are about 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police… Black people [are] disproportionately victims of lethal force by law enforcement, with a fatality rate 2.8 times higher among blacks than whites.”
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-killed-police
The US Bureau of Justice Statistics says there were 2,931 “arrest-related deaths” from 2003 to 2009. That includes car chases, shootouts and so on. The casualties are nearly always male, and men aged 25 to 34 are most likely to die.
Some 41.7 per cent of the casualties were white and 31.7 per cent were black.
Since black people only make up about 13 per cent of the US population, and nearly 63 per cent of Americans are white, blacks were disproportionately likely to be killed… From 2010 to 2012, black people were two to three times more likely to be killed by legal intervention.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2021/09/30/study-us-police-killings-have-increased-since-1980---and-black-americans-face-the-highest-risk-of-death/?sh=6649353e5b3b
Study: U.S. Police Killings Have Increased Since 1980 — And Black Americans Face The Highest Risk Of Death
Black Americans were 3.5 times more likely than white people to be killed by police violence over the last 40 years, according to a study published Thursday by The Lancet that asserts that police killings have grown more common in recent years and are vastly underreported.
About 32,000 Americans died due to police violence from 1980 to 2019, researchers estimated in Thursday’s study, which analyzed data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and several independently run databases of police killings.
The police mortality rate for non-Hispanic Black people was 0.69 out of 100,000 over that time period, compared to a rate of 0.35 for Hispanics, 0.2 for non-Hispanic white Americans and 0.15 for non-Hispanic members of other races.
Cruikshank’s holding that blacks could look only to state governments for protection of their right to keep and bear arms enabled private forces, often with the assistance of local governments, to subjugate the newly freed slaves and their descendants through a wave of private violence designed to drive blacks from the voting booth and force them into peonage, an effective return to slavery. Without federal enforcement of the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, these militias and mobs were tragically successful in waging a campaign of terror against the very people the Fourteenth Amendment had just made citizens.
Take, for example, the Hamburg Massacre of 1876. There, a white citizen militia sought out and murdered a troop of black militiamen for no other reason than that they had dared to conduct a celebratory Fourth of July parade through their mostly black town. The white militia commander, “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman, later described this massacre with pride: “[T]he leading white men of Edgefield” had decided “to seize the first opportunity that the negroes might offer them to provoke a riot and teach the negroes a lesson by having the whites demonstrate their superiority by killing as many of them as was justifiable.” S. Kantrowitz, Ben Tillman & the Reconstruction of White Supremacy 67 (2000) (ellipsis, brackets, and internal quotation marks omitted). None of the perpetrators of the Hamburg murders was ever brought to justice.
Organized terrorism like that perpetuated by Tillman and his cohorts proliferated in the absence of federal enforcement of constitutional rights. Militias such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Knights of the White Camellia, the White Brotherhood, the Pale Faces, and the ’76 Association spread terror among blacks and white Republicans by breaking up Republican meetings, threatening political leaders, and whipping black militiamen. Era of Reconstruction, 199–200; Curtis 156. These groups raped, murdered, lynched, and robbed as a means of intimidating, and instilling pervasive fear in, those whom they despised. A. Trelease, White Terror: The Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy and Southern Reconstruction 28–46 (1995).
Although Congress enacted legislation to suppress these activities, Klan tactics remained a constant presence in the lives of Southern blacks for decades. Between 1882 and 1968, there were at least 3,446 reported lynchings of blacks in the South. Cottrol 351–352. They were tortured and killed for a wide array of alleged crimes, without even the slightest hint of due process. Emmit Till, for example, was killed in 1955 for allegedly whistling at a white woman. S. Whitfield, A Death in the Delta: The Story of Emmett Till 15–31 (1988). The fates of other targets of mob violence were equally depraved. See, e.g., Lynched Negro and Wife Were First Mutilated, Vicksburg (Miss.) Evening Post, Feb. 8, 1904, reprinted in R. Ginzburg, 100 Years of Lynchings 63 (1988); Negro Shot Dead for Kissing His White Girlfriend, Chi. Defender, Feb. 31, 1915, in id., at 95 (reporting incident in Florida); La. Negro Is Burned Alive Screaming “I Didn’t Do It,” Cleveland Gazette, Dec. 13, 1914, in id., at 93 (reporting incident in Louisiana).
The use of firearms for self-defense was often the only way black citizens could protect themselves from mob violence. As Eli Cooper, one target of such violence, is said to have explained, “ ‘[t]he Negro has been run over for fifty years, but it must stop now, and pistols and shotguns are the only weapons to stop a mob.’ ” Church Burnings Follow Negro Agitator’s Lynching, Chicago Defender, Sept. 6, 1919, in id., at 124. Sometimes, as in Cooper’s case, self-defense did not succeed. He was dragged from his home by a mob and killed as his wife looked on. Ibid. But at other times, the use of firearms allowed targets of mob violence to survive. One man recalled the night during his childhood when his father stood armed at a jail until morning to ward off lynchers. See Cottrol, 354. The experience left him with a sense, “not ‘of powerlessness, but of the “possibilities of salvation” ’ ” that came from standing up to intimidation. Ibid.
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Timothy Joe Emerson, Defendant-appellee, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001). US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001) October 16, 2001Revised November 2, 2001. An Additional Number of Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Letter XVIII, May 1788 (reprinted in Young, supra at 354-55) (footnote omitted) ("First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community to be avoided. . . . But, say gentlemen, the general militia are for the most part employed at home in their private concerns, cannot well be called out, or be depended upon; that we must have a select militia; that is, as I understand it, particular corps or bodies of young men, and of men who have but little to do at home, particularly armed and disciplined in some measure, at the public expence, and always ready to take the field. These corps, not much unlike regular troops, will ever produce an inattention to the general militia; and the consequence has ever been, and always must be, that the substantial men, having families and property, will generally be without arms, without knowing the use of them, and defenceless; whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle . . . .")… Debates In The Convention of the Commonwealth of Virginia, reprinted in 3 J. ELLIOT, debates in the several state Conventions 425 (3d ed. 1937) (statement of George Mason, June 14, 1788) ("Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people...."); letters from the federal farmer to the republican 123 (W. Bennett ed. 1978) (ascribed to Richard Henry Lee) (" [a] militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...."); Letter from Tench Coxe to the Pennsylvania Gazette (Feb. 20, 1778), reprinted in The documentary history of the ratification of the constitution (Mfm. Supp. 1976) ("Who are these militia? are they not ourselves.") (emphasis in original)…. And, "Militia," just like "well-regulated Militia," likewise was understood to be composed of the people generally possessed of arms which they knew how to use, rather than to refer to some formal military group separate and distinct from the people at large.36 Madison also plainly shared these views, as is reflected in his Federalist No. 46 where he argued that power of Congress under the proposed constitution " [t]o raise and support Armies" (art. 1, § 8, cl.12) posed no threat to liberty because any such army, if misused, "would be opposed [by] a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands" and then noting "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation," in contrast to "the several kingdoms of Europe" where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." The Federalist Papers at 299 (Rossiter, New American Library). Plainly, Madison saw an armed people as a foundation of the militia which would provide security for a "free" state, one which, like America but unlike the "kingdoms of Europe," was not afraid to trust its people to have their own arms.37 The militia consisted of the people bearing their own arms when called to active service, arms which they kept and hence knew how to use. If the people were disarmed there could be no militia (well-regulated or otherwise) as it was then understood.
PARKER v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 478 F.3d 370 (2007). Shelly PARKER, et al., Appellants v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor of the District of Columbia, Appellees. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Argued December 7, 2006. Decided March 9, 2007: “the District claims a militia did not exist unless it was subject to state discipline and leadership… The District's definition of the militia is just too narrow…. THE FEDERALIST NOS. 8, 28, 59 (Alexander Hamilton), No. 46 (James Madison) (arguing that an armed populace constitutes a check on the potential abuses of the federal government) with MELANCTON SMITH [Federal Farmer], OBSERVATIONS TO A FAIR EXAMINATION OF THE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT PROPOSED BY THE LATE CONVENTION, AND TO SEVERAL ESSENTIAL AND NECESSARY ALTERATIONSIN IT (Nov. 8, 1787), reprinted in THE ORIGIN OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, supra, at 89, 91.
United States v Jemenez-Shilon. May 23rd, 2022. No. 20-12139. Newsom, Circuit Judge: See Charles, Armed in America , supra , at 94; The Complete Bill of Rights , supra , at 275 (documenting the Massachusetts proposal that Congress be barred from "prevent[ing] the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms," as well as the New Hampshire proposal that "Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion").
The Second Amendment seems to have codified this principle. See Heller , 554 U.S. at 592–93, 599, 128 S.Ct. 2783. "It was understood across the political spectrum that the right" to keep and bear arms "helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down." Id. at 599, 128 S.Ct. 2783. At the same time, it helped to secure the citizen's right to self-defense when his government was unable (or unwilling) to protect him from private lawlessness. [Several Federal Court cases have already decided that the Federal, State and Local (Municipal / County, City and Towns) governments, which includes State and Local Police, have no duty to protect an individual. i.e., “his government is unwilling to protect him from private lawlessness.” See Munger v City of Glassgow Police 227 F 3d 1082: “a police officer generally has no duty to protect a particular individual…”; Taylor v Phelan 9 F 3d 882; So v Bay Area Transit 2013 U.S. Dist Lexis 149807; Hernandez v City of San Jose 14 Cal App 4th 129: “the police have no duty to protect individuals from private wrongdoers.”; White v Duchford 592 F 2d 381: “There is no general duty to provide police protection to the general public.”; and United States v Duguay 93 F 3d 346: “The state owes no legal duty to protect things outside its custody from private injury.”]
United States v Knights 989 F. 3d 128 (March 10th, 2021): “According to a scientific study published by the national academy of science, ‘Black men are about 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police… Black people [are] disproportionately victims of lethal force by law enforcement, with a fatality rate 2.8 times higher among blacks than whites.”
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-killed-police
The US Bureau of Justice Statistics says there were 2,931 “arrest-related deaths” from 2003 to 2009. That includes car chases, shootouts and so on. The casualties are nearly always male, and men aged 25 to 34 are most likely to die.
Some 41.7 per cent of the casualties were white and 31.7 per cent were black.
Since black people only make up about 13 per cent of the US population, and nearly 63 per cent of Americans are white, blacks were disproportionately likely to be killed… From 2010 to 2012, black people were two to three times more likely to be killed by legal intervention.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2021/09/30/study-us-police-killings-have-increased-since-1980---and-black-americans-face-the-highest-risk-of-death/?sh=6649353e5b3b
Study: U.S. Police Killings Have Increased Since 1980 — And Black Americans Face The Highest Risk Of Death
Black Americans were 3.5 times more likely than white people to be killed by police violence over the last 40 years, according to a study published Thursday by The Lancet that asserts that police killings have grown more common in recent years and are vastly underreported.
About 32,000 Americans died due to police violence from 1980 to 2019, researchers estimated in Thursday’s study, which analyzed data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and several independently run databases of police killings.
The police mortality rate for non-Hispanic Black people was 0.69 out of 100,000 over that time period, compared to a rate of 0.35 for Hispanics, 0.2 for non-Hispanic white Americans and 0.15 for non-Hispanic members of other races.