Rev./Dr. Martin Luther King and the 2nd Amendment

This may seem to some like a strange post - after all, I am a passionate defender of the human right of armed self-defense, and Dr. King was passionate about non-violence.  Surely, we would have little common ground, right?

Actually, we have a lot in common.  We both are Christian ministers, we both abhor racism, and we both believe in non-violent change.  That should not surprise anyone - but this will: Both of us believe in armed self-defense and the importance of the 2nd Amendment.

Before you think this is a stretch, you need to know a few things that you were never taught in school and that you also have never seen in the media.

1) The first gun control laws were not passed in the urban North by progressives - they were pass by white racists in the post Civil War South - in order to keep freed blacks from being armed.

After all, it's much harder to terrorize people who are armed.  As is common today, one of these laws outlawed all handguns except "Army and Navy Revolvers" - pricing newly freed blacks out of the market.  (California's handgun laws are designed to do exactly the same thing and advocates were brave enough to say that they were aimed at inner city poor when they were debated!)

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
produced this film detail the racist roots of gun control

Eventually, after they had been "put back in their place" free blacks on farms were permitted to own long guns, particularly shotguns, for use around the farm.  Gradually, some of the restrictions were eased - but some of these laws have only been repealed in recent years.  However, in many areas of the South, by the 1950s, black people could own handguns, in addition to rifles and shotguns.

Black Civil Rights Leaders, including representatives
from CORE and Black NRA Board Members
speak out against gun control in early 2013.
They know the racist roots of gun control in the US

2) Dr. King owned many guns for self defense - and in 1956 applied for a carry permit.  He was denied because he was black.

In 1956 MLKs home was bombed.  He had received death threats.  He was a minister and community leader.  He was of good character.  Had he been white, he would have been

issued a permit in short order - but because he was black - and the law was "may issue", not shall issue, he was refused.  (Note: Today, under the "shall issue" laws the NRA has worked hard to pass in 43 states, this cannot happen.  If you meet all of the requirements, a permit must be issued.  If it isn't you can sue to force it to be issued.)

Visitors to King's home described it as "a virtual arsenal" due to the number of guns kept at the ready.  They was very common among civil rights leaders of the 1950s and 1960s.  They were, after all, in great danger.  The Klan would have loved to have killed them - and local law enforcement were either terrified of the Klan or were very sympathetic to them.  They could only count upon themselves for protection from the Klan.  Many were killed, but many were saved because the racists in the Klan knew that an attack might cost them their lives.




3) Even after adopting non-violence, Dr. King spoke out in defense of armed self-defense.

First, we must state the Dr. King never advocated offensive violence to accomplish racial equality, he did, however, maintain weapons - including firearms - for self defense.  After he adopted the tactic of non-violent protest, he was convinced by others that as the leader of a non-violent protest movement, he should not be armed.  Many commentators, unable to refute the

evidence of his earlier armed self defense, try to twist this into a general changing of his mind of the whole issue of guns.  They choose to ignore statements such as this:

“Violence exercised merely in self-defense, all societies, from the most primitive to the mostcultured and civilized, accept as moral and legal.  The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi.”(A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, p. 32.)

Indeed he is correct about Gandhi, consider this quote from him:

I used to issue leaflets asking people to enlist as recruits.  One of the arguments I had used was distasteful to the Commissioner: 'Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look back upon the Act depriving the whole nation of arms as the blackest.  If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity.  If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.'  -- Gandhi, Mohandas K. "Mahatma", An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth

Those who want to make MLK into a gun control advocate fail to recognize the moral difference between the use of deadly force to protect the lives of the innocent and the use of deadly force to take the lives of the innocent.  Dr. King was way too sharp to miss that important distinction.

4) Even after adopting non-violence , Dr. King - and many other civil rights leaders - were protected by armed security

Although committed to non-violence, the leaders of the civil rights movement, including Dr. King, accepted the protection of armed groups committed to defensive actions ONLY.  They

A contemporary article on the Deacons for Defense

certainly did not accept such assistance from groups such as the Black Panthers.  The largest of these groups was "Deacons for Defense".  This group was composed of exactly what the name says: Deacons - church leaders who took responsibility for the defense of their leaders and their community when the authorities would protect neither.  They did not advocate a race war, they did not advocate revenge, they did not advocate advancing the civil rights movement at the point of a gun.  They simply exercised their 2nd Amendment rights in protection of their community and leadership so the peaceful struggle would be possible.  It was in their interest and the interest of the movement to keep a low profile, but they were present and armed - and the Klan knew it.

Dr. King was indeed protected by the Deacons:

'After some debate and discussion many of the civil rights leaders compromised their strict non-violent beliefs and allowed the Deacons to be used. One such person was Dr. King. Umoja states, “Finally, though expressing reservations, King conceded to Carmichael’s proposals to maintain unity in the march and the movement. The involvement and association of the Deacons with the march signified a shift in the civil rights movement, which had been popularly projected as a ‘nonviolent movement.”'  ( Umoja, A. O. 1999. "The Ballot and the Bullet: A Comparative Analysis of Armed Resistance in the Civil Rights Movement". Journal of Black Studies

Given the fact that Southern authorities strongly opposed the movement, were frequently "in bed" with the Klan and wouldn't have shed a tear at the death of many of the movement leaders - without the Deacons, Dr. King may have been assassinated much sooner and many of the movement's other leaders with him.

Indeed, one could argue that the Deacons were a "well regulated militia" - meaning that they were well trained (many were veterans) and well disciplined.  Furthermore, without the 2nd Amendment and the right to own firearms, they could never have protected anyone.  The Klan, like hundreds of groups in 3rd world nations, would have been armed by the government - and free to conduct near genocide against the Black Community in he South.

Dr King is a hero not only to Black Americans, but to nearly all Americans.  That includes gun rights activists like myself.  When I lived in California, my license plate frame said "Gun rights are civil rights" - and this is most definitely true.  After all, we are talking about a right spelled out in plain English and underlined with the words, "shall not be infringed" - words not present in any other provision in the Bill of Rights.  For the last 50 years dedicated Americans have been fighting to regain that civil right - a right that had been completely ignored by many of our governments and many of our courts.  As we fought, we drew inspiration from Dr. King and all the other who fought to gain full citizenship for Black Americans.  At this point we have nearly won our fight.

This inspiration was not lost on Professor Adam Winkler of UCLA - who is definitely not a gun rights activist.  I close with a quote from him that sums up one reason why I fight for the 2nd Amendment:

"One lesson the gun advocates took was from the early King and his more aggressive followers: If the police can't (or won't) to protect you, a gun may be your last line of defense."  (Adam Winkler, Professor of Law, UCLA - The Huffington Post 05/25/2011)