Previous Post
Next Post

Convicts leased to harvest timber in Florida, 1915 (courtesy

“The original Act of 1893 [requiring persons carrying or having in manual possession a concealed pistol to obtain a license from the state of Florida] was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied.” – Watson v. Stone, 4 So. 2d 700, 703 (Fla. 1941) (Buford, J., concurring), cited in Robert J. Cottrol and Raymond T. Diamond, “‘Never Intended to be Applied to the White Population’: Firearms Regulation and Racial Disparity–the Redeemed South’s Legacy to National Jurisprudence?”, 70 Chi-Kent L. Rev 1307, 1307 (1995).

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Unfortunately, the liberals would have the entire populous, black or white, unarmed. All of this because it gives politicians a “better feeling of security.” I would rather I feel secure in my 2nd amendment rights and that I didn’t have to fight my government to uphold the constitution.

  2. The context was also what Florida, especially Southern and Central Florida, were at that time. Swamp.
    Mosquito infested swamp. There was no I-95, turnpike, South Beach,
    Etc… Mr. Flagler was still building a railroad south along the east coast.
    There also was little or no law enforcement except hired armed security by developers. Crime was rampant and highwaymen robbed everybody. It wasn’t all racially motivated as the post War Of Northern Aggression brought a lot of bad elements to Florida. Most are still here, aka white Northern Carpetbaggers. Now you just need a little Habla Espanol to help.

    • Your post is eager to blame white northern transplants for this law disarming blacks, but why do I suspect that blacks in Florida before the War of Southern Rebellion were no better off from a second amendment rights standpoint?

  3. “… the Act [of 1901] was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and … to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security.”

    Thus feelings of perceived security are a “legitimate” reason to infringe on someone’s rights. Got it.

    Well, I feel afraid of gun grabbers’ ability to falsely yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater — leading to stampeding deaths. And I feel afraid of gun grabbers’ ability to call the police and falsely say, “He has a gun and is pointing it at people!” — leading to the police shooting me on sight. I would feel 100 times safer if gun grabbers were legally required to wear a non-removable muzzle over their mouths in public to ensure that they never falsely yell “Fire!” or “He’s got a gun and pointing it at people!” When will our legislatures pass a law requiring gun grabbers to wear muzzles over their mouths in public?

    • Saw Ted Cruz’ speech at the Iowa Freedom Summit yesterday. Then this morning Dirty Dianne was on Face the Nation. I wanted to give my wife some perspective on Feinstein’s tyranny so I replayed for her the firearms hearing exchange between her and Cruz.
      In that video they try to evade Cruz’ spot on analysis of the 1st amendment vs. the 2nd by once again bringing up the pornography argument.
      My take on the freedom of speech compared to the the right to keep and bear arms is that with the press, or media, the words and images are the bullets. You can limit speech, such as pornography in the way that you limit who, where, when and why you can shoot somebody. No law should have any bearing on what type of weapons I can own per the 2nd amendment ,however, I am not allowed to shoot an innocent person then claim protection from prosecution under those rights.

      • There is also the issue of prior restraint. We don’t do background checks on digital camera purchases on the basis that someone might use them to create child pornography. We don’t require a website owner to get a license or permit on the off chance they might make child porn available on their website. We only go after people who actually engage in the production, transmission, or possession of child pornography. Also, the suggestion that this is somehow a limit on freedom of speech or expression is absurd. It’s illegal because it does tremendous harm to the children forced to participate. We punish people who cause harm to others, not people who have the ability to cause harm (which would be basically anyone and everyone).

      • So yes, IOW the 2nd amendment protects the ownership and carry of arms, not specifically the use (esp. indiscriminate) of arms

      • Michael in GA,

        Senator Cruz was on the right track. However, he failed to clarify the improper comparison of child pornography and possession of “dangerous” firearms.

        People who make child pornography need cameras to make their product. Does that justify banning all cameras? Of course not. Manufacturing, owning, and possessing a camera does not harm anyone. Thus it is improper if government endeavors to interfere with anyone who manufactures, owns, or possesses cameras. The fact that someone could use cameras to create child pornography does not empower government to have any say about how or who can manufacture, own, or possess a camera. Creating child pornography is a crime because it harms the children who are the subjects of the pornography. It is the harmful act which is illegal, not tools.

        Now replace the word “camera” with the term “dangerous firearms” in the previous paragraph. Only harmful acts should be illegal in connection with firearms. Manufacture, ownership, and possession of firearms should be legal because those activities harm no one. The fact that someone could use firearms to attack people does not empower government to have any say about how or who can manufacture, own, or possess firearms — even “dangerous” firearms. Using a firearm — even “dangerous” firearms — to attack someone is already illegal. And then it is the attack itself which is illegal, not tools.

        Capacity for misuse is not a righteous reason for government to prohibit something. Any fit man has the capacity to seriously injure and even kill people with their fists and feet. Should government thus ban fit men from having hands and feet? Any fit man has the capacity to sexually assault almost any woman. Should government thus ban fit men from having their male parts? Neither should government ban “dangerous” firearms. Instead, ban their misuse. (Pro tip: misusing firearms to attack people is already illegal.)

        • Yes, he did not use the analogy in the way you and I did. But his point was just as valid. He said that the legislators do not treat people differently under the law regarding the 1st and 4th amendments so why do they treat people differently under the 2nd amendment. I believe it was Dickhead Durbin you can hear blurting out the child pornography reference which is an old and dirty trick by the progressives every time they start losing the debate on guns. Cruz was then cut off before he could rebut the shameful analogy. In the end, the only answer Feinstein had was that it is okay for congress to pass any law they want, constitutional or not, because that is the job of the Supreme Court to sort out bad laws from good ones. Pathetic!

        • Imagine trying to have that conversation with a person who denied that any camera had ever been used for anything other than child pornography, or that it was even possible to do so. Further imagine that this person believes such nonsense to their very core and not even numerous scientific studies could change their mind. Now imagine that the very same person hired a team of men to follow them around with cameras and do the very thing they believe to be impossible. Now imagine a world where this person is not only allowed outside of a mental institution unsupervised, but can actually hold public office.

  4. Check this out from the decision of the court case referenced above …

    “Buford, J., concurring specially
    … We have no statistics available, but it is a safe guess to assume that more than 80% of the white men living in the rural sections of Florida have violated this statute.” [“this statute” was Florida’s ban on carrying firearms.]

    Almost everyone was armed as they traveled on foot and in automobiles!

    “It is also a safe guess to say that not more than 5% of the men in Florida who own pistols and repeating rifles have ever applied to the Board of County Commissioners for a permit to have the same in their possession and there has never been, within my knowledge, any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people, because it has been generally conceded to be in contravention to the Constitution and non-enforceable if contested.

    So much for gun-grabber claims that the courts have only considered the 2nd Amendment to apply to individuals in the last 10 to 20 years.

  5. That photo is a pretty good graphic of the way that barry, slow joe, feinstein, kapo bloomberg, shannon etc see us, the American citizen.

    Zip code does not negate the constitution and bor. Neither does states rights.

  6. That decision gets even better. Here are some gems from a dissenting judge …

    “Terrell, J., dissenting
    [Florida’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms] … was not designed as a shield for the individual outlaw, ‘pistol toter,’ and irresponsible man who is prone to load his stomach with liquor and rum, his pockets with pistols and his automobile with machine guns and make himself a nuisance to society.”

    Wow. Just, wow.

    Using Mr. Terrell’s “logic”, every man could be a knuckle-dragging Viking berserker out to rape and pillage. Should we set out to screen every man and require licenses for them to be in public? Sheesh!

    I have a novel idea: let’s constrain ourselves to arresting and prosecuting people who actually harm someone … and leave everyone else alone.

  7. Okay, last one.

    “Terrell, J., dissenting
    The statute in question [Florida’s law requiring a license to be armed in public] … was designed to put a stop to ‘pistol toting’ by irresponsible characters floating about the country in search of a pretext to shoot some one.”

    Let me get this straight. Judge Terrell’s position is that a person who has no qualms violating murder laws will feel compelled to comply with license to carry laws … and possessing said license, will suddenly feel compelled to comply with murder laws.

    And I thought only young children believed that wishful thinking is guaranteed to become reality.

    • It is known in developmental stages as “magical thinking” oddly enough and tends to apply to 2-5 year olds before the onset of concrete thinking skills.

      • Interesting … how can we conclude anything other than that gun grabbers have the intellectual maturity level of a toddler?

        • All wrong. Terrell knew what he was doing he was a tyrant plain and simple. Any person with a gun is a threat to the system and rightfully so if it becomes corrupt which is why that judge had to come up with some excuse to justify his position seeing as how he probably not only had some kickbacks but got a hard on being able to control a man’s fate. Only people like that judge seek positions of power which is why we have the laws we did then and now because good people want to leave others alone to live their lives not become control freaks ruining people’s lives to get their jolly’s off.

  8. It has always been about control. Around 3000 years ago the Hittites decreed that no one was to teach Hebrews how to make or sharpen iron edged weapons. 300 years ago the British said you had a right to have firearms, unless you were Catholic or poor. In North America the first laws in the 1600’s forbade French traders from trading guns with the Native Americans. As soon as black slaves arrived, Massachusetts made it illegal for them to carry a firearm with out written permission of their master.
    Nothing new here folks.

    • This is why the definition of a free person versus peasant, peon and slave; through all of history; is those that can carry the best personal defense weapon legally of the time and those that can’t.

      The fact that even in states that have constitutional carry or shall issue; still only have single digits percentage wise of people that carry a PDW is why we still live in a world of the predatory few( both in government and in the streets) that terrorize and control the many.

  9. Yep nothing new to see here folks. Except a lot of so-called black “leaders” and self-ordained reverends are on the slave master or Jim Crow side now…and I have noticed I get little or no argument from the black folks I know no matter how left or dominated by Barry Soetoro they are. So I see a little hope…

  10. Somebody should’ve given the freed slaves their own country in North America so they wouldn’t have to deal with this crap.

    • In the 60s black revolutionaries claimed a large land area in the south as the homelands. It was known as Kush if I am not mistaken.

    • Well that is what Liberia in Africa was created for, a new home for blacks in America to return to. Of course it looks like the descendants were not into liberty or personal responsibility. That ex-dictator Charles Taylor being a prime example.

      If many African-Americans feel they are being oppressed maybe they should return to Liberia or Africa in general. No one is stopping them. I felt oppressed in Maryland hence why I left it.

  11. My response: “good, you finally admit that gun control is racist. And you seem to be close to admitting that carrying a firearm is a right by your implication that blacks were denied that right through permitting. I agree we should get rid of gun permits and licenses and switch to nationwide constitutional carry.”

  12. This issue has moved from one of race to one of social standing and class. Statists want their subjects disarmed just like racists wanted minorities disarmed. Same motivation, different people. Those who are tricked into believing it’s for the public good are simply useful idiots.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here