by Skip Coryell
A few months ago I was teaching a CCW class and one of my renewal students told this story.
“I was pulled over for rolling through a stop sign and when the police officer asked me for my identification, I told him I was a CCW holder and that I was carrying today, just like I’m supposed to. The officer immediately drew his pistol and pointed it at me. My two little girls were in the back seat and they were terrified! He put me face down on the hood of my car and disarmed me.”
I was shocked by this man’s story, and I spent the next 15 minutes of class trying to calm down the other students, assuring them that this was unusual and that most police officers would treat them with dignity and respect. But it’s true, a few bad apples will spoil it for the whole bunch.
Last month I taught a CCW class to Michigan state legislators and their staff. It is part of an initiative by Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners (MCRGO) to educate the people who make the laws and to give them a greater understanding of what it’s like to be a CCW holder. I especially like teaching law enforcement and legislators, because inevitably, they walk away realizing they have nothing to fear from CCW holders. We’re just honest, law-abiding citizens who want to protect our families. During the break, I was talking to a State Representative who told me he was taking the class, but would not be applying for his concealed pistol license. I was surprised and asked him why. He said, “A friend of mine was hauled out of his car and treated roughly for being a CCW holder and I don’t want that to happen to me.”
I was amazed at his statement. Here was a legislator who was afraid of being abused by law enforcement for following a law he had helped to make. That didn’t make sense to me. But it does show that the fear of police officers is engrained in us all. To some extent, it’s a very healthy and necessary thing. Criminals should be afraid of law enforcement. That’s what we, as a society, want to happen. But the rest of us, the vast majority of the population who are honest, law-abiding citizens, we should have no reason to fear the police so long as we follow the law. After all, we’re on the same team. But still . . . a man walks up to your car at night with a gun. He has the power to handcuff you, search you, arrest you, and throw you in jail. That sounds extreme, and it is, but I’m discovering that many people, even legislators, view law enforcement in that light.
Law enforcement has a tough job. There’s no denying that. But a few dull knives in their ranks make it a lot tougher on all of us. Let’s face it, some of these laws are idiotic, senseless, while others are just downright wrong. Just because it’s the law, doesn’t mean it’s right. I always obey the law, but when I find one I don’t agree with, I work hard to get it changed or abolished. That was the case with CCW; the old “may issue” law was wrong, so ordinary citizens like you and I fought long and hard to get it changed. Remember slavery and women’s suffrage? They were undeniably wrong and immoral, and no reasonable person would defend them in today’s society. The world isn’t flat anymore.
In my experience, the vast majority of law enforcement has used common sense in applying the law. But as in everything, it’s the “gomers”, the “no-loads”, and the “boneheads” that people remember. I can be pulled over ten times and be treated with dignity and respect for nine out of ten of those traffic stops, but it’s the one time I was abused that will stick in my mind forever. That may not be right, but it is human nature. I think for the most part that both legislators and law enforcement have the best of intentions, but that doesn’t mean that they’re always “good at their jobs”. I disagree with the helmet law, the seat-belt law, and most recently the cell phone law. In fact, I take issue with any law that empowers the government to protect people from their own stupidity. The stupid ones aren’t going to buckle up no matter how many laws you pass, and the rest of us, the smart ones, we already buckle up. And there is always that small segment in law enforcement who become overzealous in trying to protect us from ourselves. I get very concerned when I see five state police cruisers lined up on the side of the road, one trooper with binoculars, another with a radio, looking for people who are talking on their cell phones. They call these banes to freedom “enforcement zones” and they even put up a big sign to that effect. This reminds me of those old World War II movies where the Nazi storm troopers would stop people and demand to see their papers. Shouldn’t they be using those binoculars to find drug dealers, muggers, and rapists? I think we would all feel safer if they did.
In closing, let me reiterate my support for law enforcement. I would draw my pistol and defend any police officer in need. I want to thank the vast majority of the police who protect us from crime and spend day in and day out doing a dirty, thankless job. I know it’s tough out there on the streets. I wish that all police officers could take my CCW class. It would help to reassure them that the vast majority of CCW holders are good people who just want to protect their families. And it would help reassure the CCW holders that the police are just doing their job and want to return safely at night to their wife and kids. People fear what they don’t know and don’t understand. My wish is that law enforcement and the CCW holder can come together and understand each other’s perspectives and points of view. To that small segment of law enforcement who feels threatened by CCW holders, please remember this. All of us jumped through a lot of hoops, spent money, filled out forms, took training classes, and waited, just to reacquire our right to keep and bear arms. Don’t be afraid of us. We are the law-abiding citizens. We’re on your side. We’re the ones who would draw our own guns to protect you from the bad guys. I’m not asking you to let down your guard, just that you treat us with respect. And to the small percentage of CCW holders who have developed a bad attitude about law enforcement, I ask you to reevaluate your stance. Don’t shoot the messengers, no pun intended. If you don’t like a law, then fight politically to change it. Find out who the bad legislators are and vote them out of office. If you’re not politically active, then you have no right to complain. The police are the good guys; they’re sheep dogs just like you and I. So treat them with respect. Thanks again to Sheriff Leaf and all the good guys in law enforcement. You put your life on the line for the rest of us, and we thank you. May God keep you safe. Y’all can sit by my fire anytime.
“The mob became nasty and broke out windows in Dr. Sweet’s home and pelted his roof with rocks. The size of the mob was estimated to be in the hundreds. Someone from inside Dr. Sweet’s home fired shots from a gun, and a white man named Leon Breiner was killed.”
The OK Corral
“A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, people had the right to keep and bear arms ….”
I think that’s how a lot of us felt here in Michigan, prior to year 2000 and the passage of Public Act 381, the statute which finally allowed us to carry a concealed pistol here in Michigan for lawful purposes. Prior to that, Concealed Pistol Licenses to ordinary citizens were few and far between. The most notable exceptions were a few rural counties in Northern Michigan and over in Macomb County, which adopted “shall issue” type standards back in the 1990s.
But for the vast majority of us, it was quite simply, “have a nice day, drive safely, but leave your pistola at home.” It was a felony, and even those few who dared to carry for moral purposes, e.g., self-defense, family defense, etc., were risking a felony conviction, loss of firearm ownership, and loss of voting rights. Quite frankly, it wasn’t worth it. And while many of us were infuriated and righteously indignant over the loss of our Second Amendment rights, I never met anyone within the cause who violated the ill-conceived legislation, even for the purpose of self-defense - myself included. This is a credit to the honesty and integrity of all the men and women who fought for the cause. If ever a law cried out to be violated, it was Michigan’s old CCW law. It was, without a doubt, ill-conceived, immoral and unconstitutional. But I am a devout Christian, and the Bible teaches me to respect the law and those charged with enforcing it. So I did, begrudgingly. I was taught that if a law is wrong, a person should
change it – not break it. So, together, the Second Amendment supporters throughout our great state, banded together and fought to right the wrong, to regain our civil liberty and our God-given inalienable right to keep and bear arms.
Thank God we didn’t know how long it was going to take! Thank God we didn’t know how much personal sacrifice and above-and-beyond the call effort it was going to demand from our families and ourselves. But, when all was said and done, the honest, law-abiding citizens of Michigan were once again allowed to carry concealed pistols for defense of themselves and the state. Happy ending!
But, before we jump that far ahead, let’s first examine the course of human events and the circumstances that led up to how we got into such a fine kettle of fish in the first place.
No saying ever rang more true. If there’s one thing I’ve learned over the past 10 years, “it’s easier to defend a right than it is to regain one that’s been lost”. Those military veterans out there will understand this concept all too well. In fact, some of you may have learned it the hard way, through the shedding of blood, in service to our beloved country. It takes more lives to recapture a hill than to successfully defend it. Never give your adversary the high ground. Hold on to it for dear life, and never give your adversary time to dig in and set up defenses.
A long time ago, in 1927, we the people of Michigan, unwittingly and short-sightedly, violated both these two timeless cardinal rules of warfare. For instructional purposes, and to help illustrate my point, let’s just take a few minutes to summarize the roots of gun control laws.
For all practical purposes, gun control wasn’t a major factor in the United States until after the Civil War. During that time, generally known to historians as the Reconstruction Period, the first dangerous gun control laws began cropping up. And, ironically, these first gun control laws had their roots in the Deep South, where the Second Amendment and the use of firearms is championed and defended in today’s world. Who would have ever thought that gun control would originate in the South, a venerable fortress of patriotism and constitutionality. But it did. And life nationwide may never be the same again.
Prior to the Civil War Reconstruction Period, gun control consisted primarily of checking your pistol at the door upon entering the saloon. Some major cities even had city ordinances, which prohibited the carrying of firearms within the city limits. This, however, was the exception, and not the rule. In fact, even prior to the Civil war, during the Antebellum period of history, gun laws were passed sporadically throughout the South, mostly in an effort to keep guns out of the hands of slaves and freed slaves. But the new gun laws in the South after the Civil War were of a different spirit, not rooted in the desire for safety, but rather in hatred, bigotry, and racism. These new laws were called “Jim Crow” laws, and they were designed to deprive newly freed slaves of their civil rights. The general attitude was: “The federal government may be able to emancipate them, but that doesn’t mean we have to treat them as equals!”
As in many cases, these racist attitudes were rooted in fear, resentment, and bitterness. They had lost the war, and they didn’t much like it! Some had mistreated their slaves, and feared retaliation from their former “property”. It was also much easier for night riders and the KKK to oppress former slaves when they were unable to shoot back. So, to deal with the problem, and to get around federal laws and the U.S. Constitution, Southern state and local governments passed laws, which prohibited certain classes of people from possessing firearms. They also passed laws, which, refused blacks the right to vote, and from using the same facilities as Whites. But they were forced to be underhanded about it. They just couldn’t pass a law that said, “Black people can’t vote.” That was way too obvious and wouldn’t have been tolerated by the federal government. They had to phrase it differently. For example, “Anyone not able to pass a written exam, is incapable of voting intelligently and responsibly, and therefore cannot vote.”
Clayton Cramer, noted historian and author of such books as “Firing Back” and “Concealed Weapon Laws of the Early Republic: Dueling, Southern Violence, and Moral Reform” summed it up best in the following quote from his paper in the Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy. The paper was titled “The Racist Roots of Gun Control”. The entire paper can be found at the following web address:
http://www.lizmichael.com/racistro.htm.
“The end of slavery in 1865 did not eliminate the problems of racist gun control laws; the various Black Codes adopted after the Civil War required blacks to obtain a license before carrying or possessing firearms or Bowie knives; these are sufficiently well-known that any reasonably complete history of the Reconstruction period mentions them. These restrictive gun laws played a part in the efforts of the Republicans to get the Fourteenth Amendment ratified, because it was difficult for night riders to generate the correct level of terror in a victim who was returning fire. It does appear, however, that the requirement to treat blacks and whites equally before the law led to the adoption of restrictive firearms laws in the South that were equal in the letter of the law, but unequally enforced. It is clear that the vagrancy statutes adopted at roughly the same time, in 1866, were intended to be used against blacks, even though the language was race-neutral. The former states of the Confederacy, many of which had recognized the right to carry arms openly before the Civil War, developed a very sudden willingness to qualify that right. One especially absurd example, and one that includes strong evidence of the racist intentions behind gun control laws, is Texas.”
So, you see, much of gun control in the United States is deeply rooted in racism. But don’t take my word for it. Go to www.barnesandnoble.com to order Clayton Cramer’s books on the subject. He has studied the matter extensively and has included meticulous documentation and footnoting to back up his thesis. Over the years and decades, this racist attitude and subsequent anti-black laws, began to creep their way north. Eventually, it reached the northern state of Michigan on September 9th, 1925. On that day, a mob of white people, who called themselves the “Waterworks Improvement Association”, marched on the home of a black American named Dr. Ossian Sweet, who had just moved into a white affluent neighborhood in the city of Detroit. (At the time, the KKK claimed to have 100,000 members in the city of Detroit.) The mob became nasty and broke out windows in Dr. Sweet’s home and pelted his roof with rocks. The size of the mob was estimated to be in the hundreds. Someone from inside Dr. Sweet’s home fired shots from a gun, and a white man named Leon Breiner was killed. (Later on, Dr. Sweet’s brother, Henry, admitted to firing the shots.) All eleven black people inside Dr. Sweet’s home were arrested. Prosecutor Robert M. Toms charged them all with murder. But, even then, things were not to go the way of the Klan. To the casual onlooker, it appeared as if Dr. Sweet would soon be bumping butts with Big Bubba in the shower, praying that he never dropped the soap. And he probably would have ended up in prison, had it not been for a famous lawyer named Clarence Darrow who came to his rescue.(Mr. Darrow became famous for his part in the Scopes Monkey trial, which allowed evolution to be taught in school in July of 1925.)
“I have to die a man or live a coward.”
– Dr. Ossian Sweet, 1925 –
In a dramatic and well publicized trial, Dr. Sweet and the other 10 black defendants were acquitted of all wrongdoing. The County Prosecutor then went after Dr. Sweet’s brother, Henry, but was unsuccessful there as well. The presiding Judge, a young man named Frank Murphy, made it clear to the jury that the right to defend one’s home applied to blacks as well as to whites.
The outcome of the second trial infuriated the KKK and other racist whites even more. Once again, they brought their considerable political strength to bear. This time not against just Mr. Sweet, but against every Black American in the state of Michigan. As a result, Michigan Public Act 372 was passed and went into effect on September 5th, 1927. Similar to the Jim Crow laws of the South, it merely said “If the County Gun Board deems the applicant a suitable candidate, then the
y may issue them a permit to carry a concealed pistol”. This “may issue” law, on the surface, appeared to have nothing of a racial nature, but appearances can sometimes be deceiving. Giving the County Gun Board (composed of the County Prosecutor, County Sheriff, and the State Police) sole and unquestionable power to either grant or deny concealed pistol licenses, opened the entire system up to corruption and later elitism. It created two classes of citizen: the “haves” and the “have nots”.
Initially, this didn’t cause widespread problems. Almost anyone could still apply for and receive a concealed pistol license, unless of course, you were black. But, gradually, the spirit of bigotry, racism, and elitism took root and began to fester and grow. Because the law was so subjective and vague, setting no uniform standards or criteria for issuance, it wasn’t long before all 83 of the county gun boards were doing things differently. The Pandora’s box of bigotry and hatred had been opened, and nothing short of legislative overhaul would again close it. Some gun boards began denying CPLs to Catholics, some to Protestants, some to Hispanics, others to Italian or Irish Immigrants. The list was unending, limited only by man’s own ability to discriminate against his fellow citizen. Later on, the list of “have nots” was to grow even larger, until finally, circa 1970, only law enforcement, or prior law enforcement were ensured their right to keep and bear arms, in most counties. All others, with the exception of those who were friends of the Sheriff or Prosecutor, were routinely denied Concealed Pistol Licenses altogether. After a period of years, people ceased to even apply, and in some cases began to believe the elitist stance that “you may have the right to own a gun, but only for home defense or hunting.” This proved to be a very slippery slope. Eventually, certain people in positions of power came to believe and espouse that the Second Amendment applied only to the National Guard, a view which is in direct contradiction with all the correspondence of the founding fathers as well as the Federalist Papers.
