The idea of regulating constitutional rights is a timely subject at both the state and national levels. Opponents to oppressive legislation rightly take umbrage to the idea that burdensome steps can be placed in the path of voting, a behavior so core to our citizenship — especially with the regulation targeting racial minorities.
There are similar issues in regards to gun control, and it’s curious that the most vehement arguments against requiring voter ID are often ignored by those who would foist ridiculous gun control measures on the American people.
It’s true that many historical attempts to regulate voting and firearms were racially motivated. Disenfranchisement through poll taxes, literacy tests and outright intimidation are well known in the canon of the United States’ sordid history of voters’ rights.
Less known are the similarly racist roots of gun control, stretching back to the Dred Scott decision of 1857, which denied African Americans citizenship. The idea of allowing African Americans to vote played a large part of the court’s decision, but the majority also noted that according African Americans citizenship would frighteningly allow them “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”
There was no vagueness in the second amendment here, and the absence of the 14th, 15th, 19th and 23rd amendments made it open season to deny these inalienable rights of citizenship. Indeed, it wasn’t until the 14th amendment was passed in 1868 and African American’s were granted citizenship that disenfranchisement and disarmament shifted toward economic measures. Poll taxes and excise taxes on firearms created economic barriers that were insurmountable by many African Americans.
At the state level, restrictions on voting and the purchase and possession of weapons was similarly racially charged. Inspired by the St. Louis Race Riots of 1917, gun control became de rigueur in many states including North Carolina, and the passage of the pistol purchase permit laws in 1919 had everything to do with providing North Carolina sheriffs capricious (racial) latitude in determining who could and couldn’t purchase a handgun.
State poll taxes had a similar disenfranchising effect on African Americans — taxes that existed in this state until 1970. Durham County was particularly notorious for its desire to disarm African Americans; in 1935 it became (and remains) the only county in the state that requires its citizens to register handgun with the sheriff, further empowering the office of the county sheriff to restrict gun ownership as it saw fit.
North Carolina had a long and complex relationship with the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v Board of Education, which culminated in the 1970 decision in Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education that ended the de facto segregation in North Carolina’s public schools. But oppressive gun control would experience no similar renaissance; the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 came on the heels of the Black Panthers’ political activism in 1967 that culminated in their armed stand in the California Legislature — loaded rifles firmly in hand.
Make no mistake: Even during the civil rights movement, the only thing more frightening than a group of enfranchised African Americans was a group of armed African Americans.
The response was swift: As disenfranchising legislation was dismantled and outlawed, the foundation for modern gun control was cemented in place. The 1968 Gun Control Act was, and remains the foundation of modern gun control in the U.S. It enumerated specific prohibitions on the ownership and possession of firearms, it established a licensing system for the sales of firearms, and it created the “sporting purposes” test for imported firearms that had nothing to do with the original intent of the Second Amendment.
A steady expansion of voter rights since the civil rights movement has empowered more voters to participate in elections. The rights of gun owners have been steadily and continuously regulated since the Gun Control Act of 1968 — balancing the inherent rights outlined in the Second Amendment with a legitimate desire to protect the public.
But let’s not forget that gun control was rarely about protecting the public. Indeed, many examples of gun control stemmed from a desire to suppress a racially identifiable segment of the population. Many of these racist laws are still on the books; Durham County still has a handgun registry, and it was only in 2013 that North Carolina pistol purchase permit laws were changed from “may issue” to “shall issue” — curbing the capriciousness that some sheriffs may be wont to exercise.
Indeed, nobody is suggesting that the right to keep and bear arms is immune from any regulation whatsoever. Background checks help prevent criminals and the mentally ill from acquiring firearms. Presenting identification and documenting firearms sales on standardized forms at the point of sale help law enforcement track the ownership of a firearm used in a crime.
Requiring a voter to show identification is no different than requiring a citizen to present ID and submit to a background check when purchasing a firearm. Voting and the right to bear arms are both innate rights protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Both are required to be “colorblind,” insomuch as they cannot be limited on the basis of gender, race, religion or ethnicity. And both are subject to reasonable regulations, including the need to identify one’s self to exercise the right.
I’m fairly certain that the majority of opponents to voter ID support strong gun control measures. Is it not reasonable to protect both rights by requiring people to show identification — ensuring that the people who lawfully exercise these rights are not unduly burdened, and those who would abuse these rights are prevented from doing so?