Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Racism and the Second Amendment
Denver Post ^ | 9-8-02 | Ken Hamblin

Posted on 09/08/2002 11:45:20 AM PDT by Pat Bateman

Racism and the Second Amendment

Ken Hamblin

Special to the Denver Post

Sunday, September 08, 2002 - After a discussion with my granddaughter about the Second Amendment, I find myself refurbished, eager to probe into the political intrigue that has engulfed the Second Amendment since the Founding Fathers decreed it to be the right of every American to keep and bear arms if he or she should deem it necessary to defend hearth, home and self.

Last week I wrote about my determination to protect my 11-year-old granddaughter, Olivia Christine, from being fooled into believing that none but a constable on patrol is morally and legally enabled to own a gun. Today I want to share some of the racist history linked with keeping the benefit of the Second Amendment out of the reach of black Americans.

I believe this history laid the groundwork for a web of anti-firearms legislation that would eventually embrace every man, woman and child who takes the Second Amendment literally.

In researching this topic, I happened upon "The Racist Roots of Gun Control" by Clayton E. Cramer.

While well-meaning liberals - be they black or white - will deny it, "The Racist Roots of Gun Control" provided compelling evidence that racism underlies many gun-control laws. It documents that throughout U.S. history, gun control has been openly used as a method for keeping firearms beyond the reach of minorities.

"Beginning in 1751, when the French Black Code required Louisiana colonists to stop any blacks, and if necessary, 'beat any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane.' If a black refused to stop on demand, and was on horseback, the colonist was authorized to 'shoot to kill.'

"When the first U.S. official arrived in New Orleans in 1803 to take charge of this new American possession, the planters sought to have the existing free black militia disarmed, and otherwise exclude 'free blacks from positions in which they were required to bear arms.'

"The perception that free blacks were sympathetic to the plight of their enslaved brothers, and the dangerous example that 'a Negro could be free' also caused the slave states to pass laws designed to disarm all blacks, both slave and free.

"Unlike the gun control laws passed after the Civil War, these antebellum statutes were for blacks alone. In Maryland, these prohibitions went so far as to prohibit free blacks from owning dogs without a license, and authorizing any white to kill an unlicensed dog owned by a free black, for fear that blacks would use dogs as weapons.

"In State v. Huntley (1843), the North Carolina Supreme Court had recognized that there was a right to carry arms guaranteed under the North Carolina Constitution, as long as such arms were carried in a manner not likely to frighten people.

"The following year, the North Carolina Supreme Court made one of those decisions whose full significance would not appear until after the Civil War and passage of the Fourteenth Amendment.

"An 1840 statute provided: That if any free Negro, mulatto, or free person of color, shall wear or carry about his or her person, or keep in his or her house, any shot gun, musket, rifle, pistol, sword, dagger or Bowie-knife, unless he or she shall have obtained a license therefore from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of his or her county, within one year preceding the wearing, keeping or carrying therefore, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be indicted therefore."

While most gun grabbers would will deny it, much of the same emotional if not racist antagonism against arming minorities still exists in 21st-century America.

The irony in it all is that the racist opposition to allowing blacks to bear firearms provided the foundation for a cornerstone in America that would ultimately challenge the legitimacy of the Second Amendment itself.

In a great many American cities where large populations of blacks and Hispanics dwell, I believe the gun grabbers live in a state of outright fear that the state legislature might someday pass a law to allow any law-abiding member of a minority group to own or carry a firearm. Colorado is no exception to the anxiety about minorities packing guns.

Ken Hamblin (bac@compuserve.com; www.hamblin.com) writes Sundays in The Post and hosts a syndicated radio talk show.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; US: Colorado
KEYWORDS: banglist

1 posted on 09/08/2002 11:45:20 AM PDT by Pat Bateman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pat Bateman
Colorado is no exception to the anxiety about minorities packing guns.

California included.

2 posted on 09/08/2002 11:52:22 AM PDT by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pat Bateman
As usual, Ken is on the money. I love this man!!
3 posted on 09/08/2002 11:55:27 AM PDT by widowithfoursons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pat Bateman
years ago, when i was a LEO, i was "strongly encouraged" by the chief to attend a meeting of "the Sarah Brady gang".

when a man said that he believed that the Constitution of the USA protected the common man from harm by the government, one of the "officials" of the group said, "we just can't have those N#GGERS & spics carrying guns;they are ALL animals without sense".

when i spoke up against this OBVIOUS racism, i was told to "sit down & shut the (obscenity deleted) up! we don't want any input from (vulgarity deleted) like you".

so much for free speech & fair play.

free dixie,sw

4 posted on 09/08/2002 11:59:09 AM PDT by stand watie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdb3; Khepera; elwoodp; MAKnight; condolinda; mafree; Trueblackman; FRlurker; Teacher317; ...
Black conservative ping

If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)

Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.

5 posted on 09/08/2002 12:29:59 PM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pat Bateman
"An 1840 statute provided: That if any free Negro, mulatto, or free person of color, shall wear or carry about his or her person, or keep in his or her house, any shot gun, musket, rifle, pistol, sword, dagger or Bowie-knife, unless he or she shall have obtained a license therefore from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of his or her county, within one year preceding the wearing, keeping or carrying therefore, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be indicted therefore."

The year 1840 is not all that long ago in the grand scheme of things. This article is a real eye opener. At that time they did not justify gun control as a safety issue for the general population, but as a means to control one group of people. Only a government that fears its citizens wants to disarm them.

6 posted on 09/08/2002 12:44:48 PM PDT by Blue Screen of Death
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blue Screen of Death
You should also be aware New York's infamous Sullivan Law was enacted primarily to keep "the rabble" from bearing arms against the powerful.
7 posted on 09/08/2002 1:00:05 PM PDT by genefromjersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ScottinSacto
ping
8 posted on 09/08/2002 2:19:32 PM PDT by farmfriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pat Bateman
And of interest as well - the National Rifle Association is often implied or portrayed to be racist by the entertainment and news media. Yet it was the NRA which provided firearms and the training to use them to the male, black population of Monroe, N.C. back in the early '50's. The local KKK with the support of the Union County Sheriff was planning on denying these folks their right to vote. The NRA gave them the wherewithal to defend their Constitutional right to vote.
9 posted on 09/08/2002 2:47:49 PM PDT by waxhaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *bang_list
Bang!
10 posted on 09/08/2002 3:37:24 PM PDT by TERMINATTOR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pat Bateman
BUMP!
11 posted on 09/08/2002 3:44:42 PM PDT by adam stevens
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blue Screen of Death
Control over others is a hallmark of gooberment. Whether it be victim disarmament laws or drug prohibition laws, the intent is identical... and WRONG!
12 posted on 09/08/2002 4:05:25 PM PDT by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mhking
One of the biggest secrets is the racism that underlies so many people's support for gun control.
13 posted on 09/08/2002 5:02:59 PM PDT by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mafree
I cannot agree:

"One of the biggest secrets is the racism that underlies so many people's support for gun control."

Was operative a hundred and more years ago, probably as few as sixty years ago.

Today we must realize, as few are capable, that we are ALL in that same category of 'less than equal' to the elite that intends to guide us...

Don't gotta be black, don't gotta be irish, don't gotta be nothing except not in agreement.

It is the right to stand up and defend against government excess (yes, even in a democracy) that is guraranteed by the Second Amendment.

14 posted on 09/08/2002 6:34:53 PM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mafree
I cannot agree:

"One of the biggest secrets is the racism that underlies so many people's support for gun control."

Was operative a hundred and more years ago, probably as few as sixty years ago.

Today we must realize, as few are capable, that we are ALL in that same category of 'less than equal' to the elite that intends to guide us...

Don't gotta be black, don't gotta be irish, don't gotta be nothing except not in agreement.

It is the right to stand up and defend against government excess (yes, even in a democracy) that is guraranteed by the Second Amendment.

15 posted on 09/08/2002 6:34:58 PM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: norton
What I really meant was how some use inner-city crime to scare everyone into giving up their guns.
16 posted on 09/08/2002 6:40:47 PM PDT by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: genefromjersey
New York's infamous Sullivan Law was enacted primarily to keep "the rabble" from bearing arms against the powerful.

I have forgotten many of the details, but several years ago I read a brief account of the origin of the infamous Sullivan law. I believe Sullivan was a corrupt NYC police commissioner who was heavily involved in protection rackets on the NYC waterfront. The Italian and other recent southern European immigrants who worked the docks were being shaken down for protection money by Sullivan's Irish cops and other Sullivan-employed thugs. Many arms and legs were broken when protection money wasn't forthcoming, and quite few uncooperative dockhands went to the bottom of NY harbor wearing "cement shoes". Of course the immigrant workers didn't exactly cotton to that sort of treatment, so many of them began buying and carrying cheap handguns and often using them to poke multiple holes in Sullivan's thugs. That's when Sullivan went to the "right" people in the city government with the "right" kind of persuasion ($) and had the "Sullivan" law enacted. At first the law was selectively enforced against victims of Sullivan's rackets, but it soon came to be a useful tool for helping the NYC establishment keep the lower classes in their "place". Even today 90 years later the wealthy, the "politically well connected", and most celebrities have little trouble aquiring a handgun permit in NYC, but any and all others may as well not bother to apply.

Actually, if memory serves, good ole 2nd amendment-loving TX was one of the first, if not THE first, states to pass a law against "civilians" carrying firearms in public, either openly or concealed. I believe that law, which still exists in a modified form BTW, went into effect sometime in the late 1870's, but I could be off by a few years either way. Apparently, if we are to believe all the shoot'em up tales and movies about frontier times in TX, that law was also enforced on a very selective basis. My grandfather was born and raised in the 1870's and 1880's on a ranch in Bexar county, but I neglected to ask him before he passed away in 1955 about how strictly TX gun laws were enforced in those turbulent days.

I'm sure some New Yorker(s) and Texan(s) out there in FReeperland will kindly correct me if I'm wrong about any of this.

17 posted on 09/08/2002 7:40:57 PM PDT by epow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: epow
Thanks for the interesting follow-up !

New Jersey used to have "strict-but-reasonable" gun laws ( as these things go ! )Unfortunately, the laws were used as a basis to enact incrementally tougher laws, that evolved into the truly draconian code we have today.

In the "Garbage State" , anything you pick up and use to defend yourself is a "weapon", the instant you deploy, or offer to deploy it as such.If Granny threatens a would-be mugger with her cane,she is ( theoretically at least ) chargeable with: possession of a weapon other than a firearm,possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes (eg: threatening another ),and, a NJ invention : terroristic threats.

As might be imagined, any person who actually uses a ( gasp!choke! ) firearm for self-defense is beyond the pale in NJ !

18 posted on 09/09/2002 5:14:08 AM PDT by genefromjersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: genefromjersey
If Granny threatens a would-be mugger with her cane,she is ( theoretically at least ) chargeable with: possession of a weapon other than a firearm,possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes (eg: threatening another ),and, a NJ invention : terroristic threats.

Simply unbelievable that such a state of affairs could exist anywhere in the "land of the free and the home of the brave". I was aware that in recent years NJ has become one of the most liberal, and therefore most anti-gun, states, but I had not realized the situation was as bad as you say.

Thanks for the warning. Since I place a high priority on retaining my liberties and exercizing my rights, including the right to self defence, in the future I will do my best to avoid ever crossing the borders of the Garden State. I am sure there is a very good reason why it is necessary for you to live in such a repressive, anti-freedom environment, and my sympathies go out to you.

19 posted on 09/09/2002 5:54:47 AM PDT by epow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mafree
I do agree.

One of the biggest secrets is the racism that underlies so many people's support for gun control.

Gun grabbers are largely elitists. For many of them, they view minorities condescendingly as useful mascots.

20 posted on 09/09/2002 6:00:58 AM PDT by Tijeras_Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mafree
What I really meant was how some use inner-city crime to scare everyone into giving up their guns

It is hard to generalize about racism and gun control. Politics makes strange bedfellows and a lot of people are logically inconsistent, if not hypocrites.

In the 60's and 70's in Chicago I was in everything anti-da mare. We openly pursued a coalition of anti-communists and communists against Daley. I was peripherally active in the Black Panthers (one of many Whites). Some of my close Puerto Rican friends were super-active in the Black Panthers, dating them, etc. In Chicago, the Black Panthers were not ideologically monolithic. Many were libertarians. Many were statists. Many were confused.

The commonality was harrassment by politicized police units. Some police units worked directly for da mare. Others worked directly for States Attorney Hanrahan. Their job was to arrest, discredit and make ineffective any opposition to da mare, or committeeman. There were many political assassinations prior to the political assassination of Fred Hampton. eg Puerto Rican friends of mine backing RINO Lopez for Alderman against the Boss were shot in the back with the Republican precinct captain as an eye witness too timid to speak up and risk his own life.

I also knew people who saved their own life, or the life of a friend because a policeman backed down from getting into a shootout with them. So what was the crime of these people who used guns in self-defense? It was freedom of speech in opposition to urban removal and support of candidates who opposed urban renewal. So they actively used their 2d amendment rights to protect their first amendment rights.

But like I said at the beginning, people are not always logically consistent and are sometimes hypocrites. If some of the oppressed were to gain power, they would act just like the oppressors they previously denounced.

21 posted on 09/09/2002 6:31:15 AM PDT by spintreebob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: stand watie; stainlessbanner; shuckmaster
An 1840 statute provided: That if any free Negro, mulatto, or free person of color, shall wear or carry about his or her person, or keep in his or her house, any shot gun, musket, rifle, pistol, sword, dagger or Bowie-knife, unless he or she shall have obtained a license therefore from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of his or her county, within one year preceding the wearing, keeping or carrying therefore, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be indicted therefore."

While I disagree with the inherent racism found in this law, it has to be said that at least the state of North Carolina ALLOWED free blacks to live in their state. Unlike the wonderful northern states of Illinois and Oregon to name a few. Of course those states wouldn't have gun laws affecting blacks because to them, blacks didn't even exist!!

22 posted on 09/09/2002 6:36:53 AM PDT by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: epow
We had considered moving many years ago,but, when you're retired, and living on a fixed income, you make the best of what you have.

By the way, the "Granny" bit was theoretical : In practice, no County Prosecutor would accept such a case. However, if Granny whipped out a licensed handgun- assuming she could somehow get a permit (doubtful !)-there would probably be Hell to pay: especially if she were White, and her assailant were " Other Than".

A few years back,in the City of Perth Amboy, NJ, the Police Chief,who, at the time, was a reasonably good-hearted,if rough-edged Irish fellow, was forced to shoot one of that fair city's violent Hispanic drug gang members-who was lunging at him with a knife.

No charges were filed against him-or even seriously contemplated-but the local newspaper decided to go after him: day after day, critical article after critical article.They even insisted on being present for the Chief's annual weapons qualification test ( which he passed with flying colors ).

After hounding him for about 3 months, and probing the department for disaffected officers willing to tip them off to "wrongdoing",they finally "caught him red-handed": using a City-owned car to rescue his daughter, whose car had broken down in the middle of the night a whole five miles outside the City limits !! The Chief, who had his 30 years in-with change left over-paid the City for the use of the police car, and retired. The newspaper, of course, rushed a reporter out to interview him, but did not receive a printable response.

The newspaper, which has since changed hands, had a policy of publicly tormenting anybody who owned or used a gun for any purpose ; and of treating Blacks and Hispanics as if they were endangered species. ( Nowadays, because of semographic changes, Muslims are considered a protected species ! )

23 posted on 09/09/2002 6:44:04 AM PDT by genefromjersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Interesting article on some anti-constitutional laws. I never thought of it this way.
24 posted on 09/09/2002 6:45:53 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: mafree
As a follow up you might look into HOW they use inner city crime and HOW they get people to give up their guns.

Rarely, if ever, do people vote away their self defense.

Town councils, city managers, county & state, however, love to shut the doors, decide on some new draconian restriction and announce that they have saved innocent lives by taking away (identify curse here).

Only sometimes in the name of reducing inner city or even suburbian crime. Remember that a few years back laws were being passed because of the 'radical right wing militia' (or just Christians in general) menace....see below at "limits on the number of arms...".

Current faves include huge taxes on ammo and components, trigger locks, and, of course, trying to make manufacturers responsible for end-use. Then there are the restrictions on selling ammo within three days, seven days, (whatever) of any big event, limits on how many arms can be purchased in any given time, etc.

How many of those were voted on by the public?
25 posted on 09/09/2002 7:14:16 AM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: billbears
YEP and the northern states had "pass through but not tarry" laws that allowed any black person who stayed overnight in their jurisdiction to be jailed W/O TRIAL!

damnyankees have always been really good at sel-righteousness and "speaking with forked tongue"!

free dixie,sw

27 posted on 09/09/2002 8:59:17 AM PDT by stand watie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: A tall man in a cowboy hat
the meeting was at Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX.

people like that make me want to gag!

for dixie,sw

28 posted on 09/09/2002 9:01:06 AM PDT by stand watie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Blue Screen of Death
TRUE!

free the southland,sw

29 posted on 09/09/2002 9:03:31 AM PDT by stand watie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: genefromjersey
and the sullivan law had the effect of allowing CRIMINALS, who were "good democrats" to carry concealed, in all too many cases.

free dixie,sw

30 posted on 09/09/2002 9:04:50 AM PDT by stand watie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mafree
that is NOT a "secret"! see my comment #4.

free dixie,sw

31 posted on 09/09/2002 9:05:58 AM PDT by stand watie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: epow
the anti-carry provisions were passed by the damnyankee-controlled reconstruction government, not by the PRO-CSA mass of Texans. and NO it was NOT enforced, unless the LEO thought you were "up to no good".

free the southland,sw

32 posted on 09/09/2002 9:09:10 AM PDT by stand watie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim
TRUE! see my post #4.<P.free dixie,sw
33 posted on 09/09/2002 9:10:09 AM PDT by stand watie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim
Gun grabbers are largely elitists. For many of them, they view minorities condescendingly as useful mascots.

Yew said it!

34 posted on 09/09/2002 11:53:49 AM PDT by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: spintreebob
Interesting story- thanks for sharing it.
35 posted on 09/09/2002 11:54:55 AM PDT by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: norton
You are right- whatever the gun law/regulation is, we should get to vote on it.
36 posted on 09/09/2002 11:57:01 AM PDT by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
I appreciate your sharing #4- others use more sophisticated language to say the same thing.
37 posted on 09/09/2002 11:58:06 AM PDT by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: mafree
What I really meant was how some use inner-city crime to scare everyone into giving up their guns.

The very place where folks are most likely to need to defend themselves and their homes.

38 posted on 09/09/2002 12:19:57 PM PDT by MileHi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mafree
NOT a secret!

it is my VERY humble opinion that that it is the BASE of most of the damnyankee elitists FEAR/HATRED of both guns & the 2d amendment!

in their view us "coloured folks" just can NOT be trusted!

for a free dixie,sw

39 posted on 09/10/2002 9:35:09 AM PDT by stand watie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mafree
if i have offended any sensitive soul on the forum, let me say i don't give a damn.

damnyankee elitists are, imVho, largely RACISTS/fascists and hatemongers, who use fear/racism/loathing/stereotypes to advance their agenda, against the citizens, who "just aren't smart enough to handle their own affairs;thus the citizens need wise persons to direct their conduct."

free dixie,sw

40 posted on 09/10/2002 9:42:07 AM PDT by stand watie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: MileHi
EXACTLY!

for a free dixie,sw

41 posted on 09/10/2002 9:42:44 AM PDT by stand watie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: stand watie; mafree
In postbellum America, while white men were free to carry long guns in their saddle scabbards or later in their pickup racks, a black man walking abroad with such a weapon could be in deep trouble. Therefore, black men "uppity" enough to arm themselves in readiness to defend their families and their property found it necessary to carry more easily concealable handguns.

Restore Released Felons' Rights -- All Their Rights

42 posted on 09/10/2002 9:43:27 AM PDT by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: genefromjersey
when you're retired, and living on a fixed income, you make the best of what you have.

Being retired myself, I understand completely. I was fortunate enough to recently retire to an area which we had always loved, the Blue Ridge mountains of north GA. The cost of living here is somewhat less than it was in our former location (FL). Still, we have found it necessary to considerably alter our lifestyle to meet our new income level.

One of the factors which attacted me to this area is the relatively low level of restrictive firearms laws. I am free to own as many fireams as I can afford without any licencing or registration hassles, and I have availed myself of the opportunity to aquire a GA concealed weapons permit which is also honored in many of the states we hope to visit. Needless to say, NJ isn't on my short list of places to visit. Anyway, best of luck to you in your retirement Gene, and don't let the gun-grabbing libs up there get you down.

43 posted on 09/10/2002 3:32:16 PM PDT by epow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: epow
Oops, make that "licensing', not "licencing". I have to start using the preview feature.
44 posted on 09/10/2002 3:48:01 PM PDT by epow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
and NO it was NOT enforced, unless the LEO thought you were "up to no good".

Thanks for the info, I kind of thought that was the way it was handled. I know that such characters as Ben Thompson, John Wesley Hardin, and Luke Short regularly carried guns in TX in the old days, and not many people would have tried to disarm those folks.

45 posted on 09/10/2002 4:08:06 PM PDT by epow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: epow
darn near everyone in my home county "carries" at one time or another. even my 89 years YOUNG mother has a long- barrelled Colt's Woodsman, which she carries on the farm for snakes and other critters.

free dixie,sw

46 posted on 09/11/2002 9:24:32 AM PDT by stand watie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
Bump- I hear ya pal.
47 posted on 09/11/2002 9:19:16 PM PDT by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: mafree
thanks.

free dixie,sw

48 posted on 09/12/2002 8:03:11 AM PDT by stand watie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson