It’s clear that our country’s founders didn’t have everyone in mind when they wrote the Declaration of Independence or when they crafted the U.S. Constitution. Women, Native Americans and African Americans were among those left out of many of the rights and protections expressed and codified in those documents.
Nearly 250 years later, we’re still playing catch-up.
The Second Amendment, and how far it should go to protect Americans’ right to bear arms, remains a source of intense debate. It’s also an area where our blind spots remain.
Efforts to curb the purchase or possession of firearms are often met with fierce pushback … well, at least for some of us.
As it was in the past with the right to vote and the right to own property, support for your right to bear arms can shift depending on who you are.
That was the case when two Chicagoans recently made national headlines when they were arrested during a protest against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in west suburban Broadview. During a scuffle with federal officers, it was discovered that both individuals were armed.
They were detained and charged with assaulting and resisting the officers — charges that were later dismissed when a federal grand jury refused to indict them. They didn’t actually face any gun charges, as both were registered to carry concealed weapons. And neither of them brandished their weapons during the incident.
Nevertheless, the fact they were armed was highlighted in politicized social media posts about “armed rioters” threatening the safety of federal officers.
Certainly, it was a questionable move to bring loaded weapons to such a volatile setting. In court, a judge even asked one of them: “Who brings a loaded firearm to an ICE protest?”
If I were to answer the judge’s question, the first name that comes to mind is Kyle Rittenhouse, the Chicago-area man, who at 17, also took a loaded weapon to an August 2020 protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
Civil unrest erupted there in the aftermath of the police shooting of Jacob Blake. Rittenhouse went to help local police protect the area from looters. He openly carried a semiautomatic rifle — which is allowed for adults in Wisconsin — while patrolling the streets, even walking side-by-side with police officers at times.
Tragedy occurred when protesters chased Rittenhouse and he fired his weapon in self-defense, killing two people and wounding another. Rittenhouse was ultimately acquitted of murder charges. He also faced a gun charge, but it was later dropped when his lawyers successfully argued a Wisconsin law barring minors from openly carrying firearms did not apply to his rifle.
Despite the consequences, there were many who stood behind Rittenhouse and his right to carry.
It was fair for the judge to raise the question in the Broadview case about the Chicago couple, but it was their right to carry weapons — just as Rittenhouse supporters argued. Still, the rights of people of color to carry firearms are not vehemently defended by those who backed Rittenhouse.
In fact, people of color with firearms are often feared or even demonized, as was the case with the Chicago couple in the aftermath of the Broadview incident.
Each year, thousands of South and West side residents are arrested for weapons violations. Those arrests are seen as a positive step to curb crime and violence. For sure, there are people who should not be in possession of deadly weapons.
But it seems we’re too accepting of the notion that Blacks and Latinos bear weapons for the purpose of harming someone or committing a crime. The mere possession of a gun, particularly during a traffic stop or a casual encounter with a police officer, sets off alarm bells.
Many carry weapons for protection, particularly in neighborhoods with higher-than-average violent crime rates. But we don’t stand up enough for those people and defend their Second Amendment rights.
Alden Loury is data projects editor for WBEZ and writes a column for the Sun-Times.