Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: 12031 -- Is it a prima facie case of discrimination?

  1. #1
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    12031 -- Is it a prima facie case of discrimination?

    I've been reading a bunch about constitutional law lately (gee, I wonder why) and I came upon the idea of a prima facie case in relation to 14th amendment equal protection civil rights cases. To show that a case is a prima facie case of discrimination, one must show that the law has a disproportionate or disparate impact on a certain group of people as well as that the impact on that certain group of people is intentional in the sense that it results from a discriminatory purpose or design.

    To show the first part (law has a disproportionate effect), one needs only to look at the racial population grouping of California. Where do minorities tend to live in California? I'm presuming the vast number of minorities live within incorporated cities. If anybody has evidence of this, feel free to chime in. Since people who live in unincorporated areas on California can carry loaded firearms, but those who live in incorporated cities cannot, there is a disproportionate effect of the law restricting minorities.

    To show the second part (the impact on the discriminated group is intentional) one normally has to show that "a discriminatory purpose has been a motivating factor in the decision" (Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hons. Dev. Corp.). Well we all know how 12031 came to be, the Black Panthers were regularly patrolling Oakland with armed groups. The representatives in Sacramento caught wind of that and the bill was introduced, the Black Panthers stormed the Capitol with loaded guns, and the scared representatives all voted for the bill. Was there a motivating factor involving race here? It certainly appears so!

    And the best part to all of this, discriminatory cases involving race are challenged using strict scrutiny. So basically, even without McDonald, 12031 is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

  2. #2
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Great question for Alan Gura, Don Kilmer, or Jason Davis and others at the GRPC in SF on Sept. 24, 25, 26. You going to be there?

  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    I'm signed up to attend.

  4. #4
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    I'm signed up to attend.
    Cool! Let's do some beers!

    The only thing that will keep me away is if I get court that week.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    I've been reading a bunch about constitutional law lately (gee, I wonder why) and I came upon the idea of a prima facie case in relation to 14th amendment equal protection civil rights cases. To show that a case is a prima facie case of discrimination, one must show that the law has a disproportionate or disparate impact on a certain group of people as well as that the impact on that certain group of people is intentional in the sense that it results from a discriminatory purpose or design.

    To show the first part (law has a disproportionate effect), one needs only to look at the racial population grouping of California. Where do minorities tend to live in California? I'm presuming the vast number of minorities live within incorporated cities. If anybody has evidence of this, feel free to chime in. Since people who live in unincorporated areas on California can carry loaded firearms, but those who live in incorporated cities cannot, there is a disproportionate effect of the law restricting minorities.

    To show the second part (the impact on the discriminated group is intentional) one normally has to show that "a discriminatory purpose has been a motivating factor in the decision" (Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hons. Dev. Corp.). Well we all know how 12031 came to be, the Black Panthers were regularly patrolling Oakland with armed groups. The representatives in Sacramento caught wind of that and the bill was introduced, the Black Panthers stormed the Capitol with loaded guns, and the scared representatives all voted for the bill. Was there a motivating factor involving race here? It certainly appears so!

    And the best part to all of this, discriminatory cases involving race are challenged using strict scrutiny. So basically, even without McDonald, 12031 is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
    Right on, way to go Bigtoe416 !

    +2 Robin47 !

  6. #6
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    /snip/ Well we all know how 12031 came to be, the Black Panthers were regularly patrolling Oakland with armed groups. The representatives in Sacramento caught wind of that and the bill was introduced, the Black Panthers stormed the Capitol with loaded guns, and the scared representatives all voted for the bill. Was there a motivating factor involving race here? It certainly appears so!
    Excellent observation BT. But just one point of contention. According to the CA Sergeant at Arms website the Black Panthers were carrying UNLOADED GUNS.

    1967
    The legislature was in session, debating a gun control bill, when two dozen armed members of the Black Panthers marched into the Assembly chamber. Then Assembly Chief Sergeant-at-Arms ordered the protesters out while terrified legislators hid behind their desks. The protesters, whose guns where not loaded, complied by leaving the building. Although they were not breaking any laws at the time, the next day legislation was introduced to make it illegal to bring weapons or firearms into the State Capitol.

    http://www2.senate.ca.gov/portal/sit...eantNavHistory

  7. #7
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by coolusername2007 View Post
    According to the CA Sergeant at Arms website the Black Panthers were carrying UNLOADED GUNS.
    It does indeed say that. This PBS page says otherwise: http://www.pbs.org/hueypnewton/actio...itolmarch.html

    Passage of the Mulford Bill would essentially end the Panther Police Patrols, so the BPP sent a group to Sacramento, California on May 2nd, 1967 to protest. The group carried loaded rifles and shotguns, publicly displayed and entered the State Capitol building to read aloud Executive Mandate Number 1, which was in opposition to the Mulford Bill.
    Not that it really matters. The reason the Mulford Act came into existence was because the white politicians were afraid of the Black Panthers lawfully protecting themselves and their supporters with loaded weapons. It wasn't a mere coincidence that as soon as black people in Oakland started carrying loaded guns that the legislature moved to ban the practice of carrying loaded weapons in incorporated areas.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •