“We maintain that the current statue cited by the DA and police in order to violate our constitutional, civil and human rights is a crime and it is because we are black and it is because we are black panthers. This is in clear violation of the state and US constitution, freedom of expression and the right to bear arms.” – Statement from the Black Panther Party, quoted in NC deputies seize 10 guns at Black Panther Party press conference [via wncn.com]

84 Responses to Quote of the Day: NC Cops Confiscate Black Panthers’ Guns

  1. Yeah… I bet these same racist cunts were calling for Obama to launch drone strikes against the militia in OR. Sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, don’t it? Terrorists pieces of shit.

    • As I told 2ASux recently, the state agents you so lovingly fellate when they kick down others’ doors will one day kick down yours as well.

        • Neither am I. I’m an ofwg vet. And I face the same prospect of having my basic rights violated everytime I leave my home as these panthers.

          There’s nothing right in these actions.

        • Cops shoot citizens and detonate bombs all the time. Not much difference between the two. Except that cops are much more of a danger to the average American than the Black Panthers are.

        • “. Except that cops are much more of a danger to the average American than the Black Panthers are.”

          Oh what a load of crap. Black militants murder thousands of people a year, and none of them were resisting arrest. Why don’t you faint on some other couch, Ms. Dubois?

        • @ The Ruester

          I’ve been beaten by trespassing plain clothed cops before, I do not recall ever being beaten by a black man. I get dirty stares from minorities a lot, but none have laid a finger on me. Of course, I also look like I belong on an old viking battlefield so it doesn’t surprise me.

          @ the article…

          From what I gather, they were in violation of some obscure, unconstitutional, county ordinance about carrying weapons, as well as ‘wearing face masks while gathering/assembling’. Seems there aren’t any victims here aside from the panthers and there isn’t any crime aside from violating the right to K&B arms / peacefully assemble. Wearing masks is debatable under the 1st and 4th amendments, as its both expression and security of person.

          The majority of this looked like the locals, esp the cops, are just mad their inane scribbles weren’t followed to the letter. That said, there is usually more to these stories, and that extra tid-bit is the fact the press conference of a whole whopping 25 people was held on the courthouse steps. Technically government *cough* Taxpayer property, but in reality, a very cheap excuse to try and start something, or provoking a fight via confiscation.

          No, I don’t support any race supremacy groups, etc, and I really don’t care what they do as long as they aren’t making trouble, violating the rights of others, blocking commerce, that ten yards. I see no indications that the assembly was interfering with anything, they don’t seem to be pointing scary weapons at anyone, and they don’t seem to be violent, provoking people, or blocking anyone from entering or leaving the courthouse. Rights are for all Americans, even the ones that act like fools, have disagreeable speech, etc.

          Seems like another case of respect my authority…

          – retired 03 -.-

        • no 2nd amendment for negroes is a wise and prudent move.

          Behold, the genesis of gun control in the United States: the denial of rights to human beings based upon the color of their skin.

        • @Arc – no wonder they leave you alone when you run around naked, covered in blood and gore and carrying huge axe!

    • “According to a Lieutenant J.J. Brewer, spokesperson with the New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office, members of the Revolutionary Black Panther Party were in violation of local county ordinance section 38-31 by possession of a weapon. The ordinance states “The Display of Firearms and Possession of Concealed Handguns Prohibited on this Property”

  2. Being a CA resident I understand their frustration at having their rights trampled. I’m white. Trampling our rights is not race based these days. We’re all in the same boat. And it’s leaking.

  3. Thing about the Black Panthers is that even when they’re right they’re still the Black Panthers. They only make you question your values when they agree with you. Kind of like the Nazis, you don’t really want them on your side.

    • It’s like Skokie. You can support their right to march while still thinking they’re a bunch of human garbage.

      • Not really. I support “reasonable restrictions” on the first amendment so long as I can’t walk into a hardware store and walk out the door with an M240G and 1000 rounds of belted ammo in five minutes.

        • The ‘reasonable restrictions’ on speech only involve the misuse of speech. For instance you can’t use your speech to commit fraud, just as you can’t use your 2nd Amendment right to commit murder. Otherwise, there’s no ‘reasonable restrictions’ on what speech you may posses or where you can take that speech. 2nd Amendment restrictions are much less reasonable.

    • Thats just the truth of it about these guys and their history of occasional good deeds – they may get it right once or twice a day but that clock is still broken…

  4. Apopros of nothing in particular, why the name “Black Panthers?”

    Why are they discriminating against albino panthers?

    • Came across this information somewhere recently, can’t remember the source: Black panthers are actually Jaguars that have developed a genetic over-abundance of melanin. Black or spotted, I’d still shoot the sumbitch if he showed his teeth.

  5. This was in my town. They were standing on the court house steps. That’s why they took them. Not sure if they said they could leave with them or stay by giving them up. 8 of the 10 firearms were returned on Monday. One was stolen and the other guy had a record of some kind. That said, if it was me I would have refused and left the area assuming that was an option, as it should have been.

    • Was the ordinance in question (i.e. the ordinance that prohibited the display of firearms and possession of concealed firearms on the courthouse property) lawful?

      If so, then I support the actions of law enforcement. If not, then I support the free exercise of rights by the Black Panthers, and oppose the infringement of those rights by law enforcement. For me, it is as simple as that.

      • Ok, so you’re using the old Rosa Parks litmus test.
        Fair enough.

        But the question of whether the ordinance was lawful, Constitutionally speaking, needs to be answered. And unless those “victims” who had their guns confiscated are willing and able to test that ordinance in the court system, then that question won’t be answered, and the confiscations will continue.

      • Pretty much this. If they are open carrying then they may be carrying their agenda, but at the same time they are also part of a pro carry agenda. I don’t have to agree with the other aspects of what they say or stand for to agree with the idea that it’s their right to keep and bear arms too provided they’re not hurting others, just like I don’t have to agree with hate speech to say that people still have a right to say it.

        • There is a difference between free speech and inciting an armed uprising. The reality is that every “speech” I’ve heard from these black supremacist pieces of shit has involved illegal calls to action.

      • So you outsourced your morality to the government, because legality is now equated with morality.

        Good one. 🙂

        • Not in the least. But I can see how shallow thinking could lead to one drawing such a conclusion.

          For deeper thought processes, I would suggest one focus on the term lawful .

        • Your statement is totally worthless. You opine on your test of lawfulness but do not state what they entails. Plain reading of “lawfulness” is legality. If you want to expound on an alternate reading, that is your own responsibility.

          Also the irony of you attempting an insult of deeper thought processes when you fail utterly to explain your statements. 🙂

        • Your statement is totally worthless. You opine on your test of lawfulness but do not state what they entails. At the basic level lawfulness is simply legality.

          “At the basic level…”

          Also the irony of you attempting an insult of deeper thought processes when you fail utterly to explain your statements.

          I was making an observation*, not levying an insult. That you made a specious assumption is not my fault. I left my comment without further explanation intentionally – in part, hoping that it might spur some discussion regarding the lawfulness of the ordinance.

          * Said observation appears to be supported by your admission that you considered my comments based upon a “basic level” of understanding of the term lawful.

        • Logical arguments are constructed with foundations, one of which is plain reading of words. That is the reference to “basic level”. Unlike what you insinuate, that does not mean elementary, it means the commonly accepted meaning.

          Your lack of explanation for the alternate reading means your observation is meaningless to anyone except yourself. That is why debate sessions start with clearly stated questions and positions, as opposed to vague personal interpretations.

          So, good job with the post and run. 🙂

        • Your lack of explanation for the alternate reading means your observation is meaningless to anyone except yourself.

          No, not really.

          You see, someone genuinely interested in legitimate discussion/debate likely would have said something like, “Was the ordinance lawful? There’s the rub. To be lawful (even assuming that it isn’t superseded by a state preemption statute), an ordinance must derive its legitimacy from constitutionality. So, the real question should perhaps be: is the ordinance in question constitutional?”

          And that comment/question would have led to some interesting discussion.

          But, interesting discussion wasn’t – never is – your intent; so I had no expectation that you would rise to the occasion.

        • “an ordinance must derive its legitimacy from constitutionality”

          That would be your opinion. Not that I disagree, but modern jurisprudence has abandoned this quaint notion of constitutionality, along with many people in the law-and-order fetishist faction of the 2A community. Ergo, use of the term “lawful” is presumed to be “legal” unless stated otherwise.

          “is the ordinance in question constitutional?””

          If only you asked this to begin with. 🙂

    • “…One was stolen and the other guy had a record of some kind.”

      *Sigh*.

      That wasn’t exactly a helpful thing to do when making a point like that…

    • The article is quite vague on the subject, but it seems there is a local county ordinance that bans the possession of firearms on county property. So these people could speak, just not armed. I have no knowledge as to the validity of the ordinance, i.e., whether there is a state law that supersedes it.

    • I hope not actually the Black Panthers were one of the motivations used to push gun control through in California back in the day. I hope they are well behaved like any pro carry activist should be.

  6. So, no guns near a courthouse … except for the guns they’ll use to disarm n coerce you.

    It’s almost like this isn’t about safety, or politics, or even race, but simply, the overlords n the ruled.

    Naaah.

  7. No permit required to open carry in NC. But there’s an ordinance against carrying at the courthouse. The whole wearing a mask while protesting doesn’t sound like something that would hold under strict scrutiny.

    • >wearing a mask while protesting

      Ironically, I believe that was put into the the law as an anti-KKK measure.

      • Here’s the relevant NC statute: § 14-12.8. Wearing of masks, hoods, etc., on public property. No person or persons shall in this State, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the State, or of the State of North Carolina. (1953, c. 1193, s. 7.)

        • So, when it is 28 degrees outside and the windchill is 12 degrees, people cannot wear balaclavas, ski masks, or scarves on public property? You have to expose yourself to frostbite when you walk on public sidewalks, streets, parks, etc.?

          That would be wrong and a huge fail.

        • Here’s a link which addresses the NC laws outlining the ban on guns in courthouses and certain state buildings, G.S. 14-269.4, and the ban on guns at parades and demonstrations, G.S. 14-277.2. From what I read, the former was posted at the courthouse. http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/open-carry/

          I’m somewhat surprised that only one of the guns, a shotgun, was reported stolen (in Wisconsin). Another one was not returned because the owner had a domestic violence protection order filed and in effect against him. Interestingly enough, that was also in Wisconsin.

  8. Were the Black Panthers wearing masks? Were they inside the courthouse where guns are not to be? It is always the same old story. People can carry/own guns unless they aren’t the right people.

  9. Another state:

    Alabama’s Firearms and Weapons Law

    § 13A-11-59.
    Possession of firearms by persons participating in, attending, etc.,
    demonstrations at public places.
    (a) For the purposes of this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings
    respectively ascribed to them in this subsection, except in those instances where the context
    clearly indicates a different meaning:
    (1) DEMONSTRATION. Demonstrating, picketing, speechmaking or marching, holding of vigils
    and all other like forms of conduct which involve the communication or expression of views or
    grievances engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which has the effect, intent or
    propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers. Such term shall not include casual use of property by
    visitors or tourists which does not have an intent or propensity to attract a crowd or onlookers.
    (2) FIREARM. Any pistol, rifle, shotgun or firearm of any kind, whether loaded or not.
    (3) LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. Any duly appointed and acting federal, state, county or
    municipal law enforcement officer, peace officer or investigating officer, or any military or
    militia personnel called out or directed by constituted authority to keep the law and order, and
    any park ranger while acting as such on the grounds of a public park and who is on regular duty
    and present to actively police and control the demonstration, and who is assigned this duty by his
    department or agency. Such term does not include a peace officer on strike or a peace officer not
    on duty.
    (4) PUBLIC PLACE. Any place to which the general public has access and a right to resort for
    business, entertainment or other lawful purpose, but does not necessarily mean a place devoted
    solely to the uses of the public. Such term shall include the front or immediate area or parking lot
    of any store, shop, restaurant, tavern, shopping center or other place of business. Such term shall
    also include any public building, the grounds of any public building, or within the curtilage of
    any public building, or in any public parking lot, public street, right-of-way, sidewalk right-ofway,
    or within any public park or other public grounds.
    (b) It shall be unlawful for any person, other than a law enforcement officer, to have in his or her
    possession or on his or her person or in any vehicle any firearm while participating in or
    attending any demonstration being held at a public place.
    (c) It shall be unlawful for any person, other than a law enforcement officer as defined in
    subsection (a) of this section, to have in his or her possession or about his or her person or in any
    vehicle at a point within 1,000 feet of a demonstration at a public place, any firearm after having
    first been advised by a law enforcement officer that a demonstration was taking place at a public
    place and after having been ordered by such officer to remove himself or herself from the
    prescribed area until such time as he or she no longer was in possession of any firearm. This
    subsection shall not apply to any person in possession of or having on his or her person any
    firearm within a private dwelling or other private building or structure.
    (d) Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
    and shall be punished as provided by law.
    (Acts 1979, No. 79-455, p. 743; Code 1975, § 13-6- 131.)

  10. The criminal enterprise known as “The Black Panthers”(or are they NEW?) is nothing more or less than the black Klan. Save your hand wringing and wailing. I’m with Serge…

  11. I’m supposed to be concerned about the rights of militants being violated as it somehow implies I could be next. I really can’t generate any sympathy for a group that proudly claims to be against the United States through any means necessary.

    • We should support these actions(not motivations), because one day, it could be “us” “protesting” the government.

    • “I really can’t generate any sympathy for a group that proudly claims to be against the United States through any means necessary.”
      Not attributable to the Black Panther Party!

      The accurate and factual quote your speaking of is as follows is:
      “We declare our right on this earth…to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary.”
      ~Malcolm X

      And if you disagree with that statement then you’re just anti human rights.

  12. Looks a lot like 48 years ago in Olympia, WA

    http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/images/bpp/wsa/black%20panthers%202-28-69.jpg

    As the state legislature debated a bill that made it a crime to exhibit firearms “in a manner manifesting an intent to intimidate others,” a contingent of armed Panthers led by Elmer Dixon traveled to the state capitol on February 29, 1969. These pictures belong to the Washington State Archives.

    http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/BPP_photos.htm#wsa

  13. This story is why I err on the side of freedom.

    The county ordinance banning the carriage of firearms on public property is unconstitutional. Easy.

    I don’t support the Black Party cause, or members, but they have every right to protest their grievances armed or not, in any manner that does not endanger or impede another or would otherwise cause another to discharge additional duties to inadvertently support the protestors (i.e. don’t trash the place and force city works to clean up after you)

    • ^ This!

      If a group of people want to hold a peaceful rally, issue a statement to the press, and petition government for a redress of grievances, they have every right to be armed while they do it. Why is that important? What if a group wants to forcibly silence that rally, press conference, and petition? Or, even worse, what if opponents take advantage of the fact their political enemies are all gathered in one place and decide to murder all of them?

      We have to get this notion — that people will always be nice to us if we are not out to attack anyone — out of our heads. Recent history provides ample examples of nasty and vile people attacking their political enemies, quite often with deadly results for the victims.

  14. Don’t forget that, unlike everyone on this board, the Black Panthers actually were being oppressed by government agents, as in being assasinated in their sleep for organizing peaceful protests. And led some of the first open carry demonstrations in California’s capitol, while in response Governor Ronnie Raygun . . . zap! and the NRA were eagerly passing gun control legislation. Don’t know what they’ve been up to since, but they deserve some respect.

    • Exactly. They’ve demonstrated more cajones than the majority of people who’s biggest contribution is bitching on the Internet.

    • Please, let’s be serious. The Black Panthers of the 1960s are all drawing Social Security these days. Nobody has “oppressed” these particular clowns in decades if ever.

        • No, I just enjoy not having to have racist Demokkkrats show up at my house to get shot attempting to kidnap or kill me because of my exercise of my right to free speech.

        • Curious, Mr. Proud, do you know Serge’s actual history?

          The part of the world he is from?

          What was an everyday reality for him and his family back there?

          I’d be fairly confident Serge is his actual name, and his nick here is a clever combo of his name and his profession in electrical machinery.

          The name I post on here is my actual name, missing some letters, like TTAG writer Jeremy S.

          Why do you feel the need to be anonymous? 🙂

  15. The New black Panther Party in 2017 is imitating the Klu Klux Klan in 1870s. In the NC pictures, some of the panthers are wearing mask, while holding guns. I’m glad their guns were taken. If their guns are not returned, then we will cross that bridge when we come to it. If you have felons in your gun group they had better not be carrying a gun in your groups public protests. The new black panther party of today is not helping blacks learn about legal gun carry. But the group, Black Guns Matter, is helping.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/25/black-guns-matter-founder-nra-stood-blacks-democrats-attacked-1960s/

    But if you don’t violate the law then the police won’t take your guns at a peaceful protest. TTAG has covered the New black panther party protests before. Go back and look at those pictures. Where they wearing masks?
    Is it ok to wear a mask and carry a gun in protest, in Texas???

    As a black kid in California, after the Mumford Act was past, I was told by white people the KKK had every right to march through black neighborhoods while carrying guns. It seems the shoe is on the other foot now, isn’t ?

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/08/robert-farago/black-panthers/

  16. Maybe they were occupying a polling station and telling white people they weren’t allowed???

    Seriously, being armed on government property when their are signs everywhere gets you this result. I note, however, that contrary to claimed police SOP, nobody got shot with their hands up, and no dogs were harmed.

    I’m sure the result would have been the same if the Klan had shown up with guns.

  17. The “old” Black Panthers were a bunch of criminals pretending to be political activists. The New Black Panther Party is a bunch of pvssies pretending to be the old Black Panthers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *