William Kirk, president of Washington Gun Law, didn’t mince words in his latest video: gun control in America began as a tool of racial oppression. As Kirk explained, early firearm restrictions weren’t about crime prevention – they were about keeping power in the hands of the dominant class, usually white elites, and disarming marginalized communities. “If we really trace gun control all the way back to its origin,” Kirk says, “it’s racist in its beginning. It truly is.”
This claim isn’t just conjecture. It’s supported by extensive historical documentation, including a 2021 article by The Heritage Foundation, which outlines how nearly every early gun law in the United States targeted Black people, Native Americans, Catholics, and other disfavored groups. What’s more alarming, Kirk argues, is that these racist precedents are now being recycled in modern courtrooms to justify today’s gun control laws.
US v. Duarte: A Court Cites Racist Laws to Justify Modern Disarmament
The most disturbing example, Kirk says, is the 2024 ruling in United States v. Duarte, a Ninth Circuit case that upheld the federal ban on firearm possession by non-violent felons. The decision claimed that America has a “historical tradition” of disarming people deemed dangerous by the government. But here’s the kicker: the historical examples the court relied on were explicitly racist.
According to the ruling, and as cited by Kirk, the government historically disarmed free Black Americans, Native Americans, Catholics, “non-Anglican Protestants,” and even so-called “tramps.” While the court admitted these laws were “abhorrent” and “would not survive legal scrutiny today,” it still used them as valid precedent to uphold current restrictions.
Let that sink in: a modern federal court openly acknowledged the racist origin of the laws it cited – then used them anyway.
New Mexico Jumps on the Bandwagon with “Duarte” Defense
Kirk exposed how the state of New Mexico is now leveraging the Duarte ruling in its defense of a new firearm waiting period law. In the case of Ortega v. Lujan Grisham, attorneys for Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham submitted a letter to the state supreme court, arguing that New Mexico’s law is valid under the same rationale used in Duarte.
The filing explicitly stated that disarmament laws dating back to the 1600s should be considered part of America’s “historical tradition” and can justify modern gun control measures, even if those original laws were aimed at Black people, Native tribes, and religious minorities. In Kirk’s words, “They are quite proud of that racist tradition – because it advances their position.”
This is not a case of overreading. The state of New Mexico literally argued that it should be allowed to disarm citizens who “may present a special danger of impulsive firearm violence” – not “will,” not “do,” but “may.” It’s the exact kind of overbroad, race-adjacent language that has historically been used to profile and oppress.
Heritage Confirms: Gun Control Was Always About Power
The Heritage Foundation agrees with Kirk’s assessment. In a detailed historical review titled “The Racist Roots of Gun Control”, the authors argue that firearm restrictions in America were never about public safety – they were always about control.
Even before the Civil War, colonies and states passed laws specifically to keep slaves and free Black Americans unarmed. After the 14th Amendment was ratified, states couldn’t openly ban Black ownership of firearms, so they implemented “facially neutral” laws, like licensing requirements, that were selectively enforced against Black citizens and immigrants.
One particularly jarring example cited by Heritage comes from a 1941 Florida Supreme Court opinion, which admitted that the state’s handgun law “was passed for the purpose of disarming the Negro laborers.” The justice further admitted that white rural men routinely broke the law and faced no consequences.
“We Support Minorities – But We’ll Use Racist Laws to Disarm Everyone”
The great irony, Kirk points out, is that the same political movement that claims to champion minority rights is now using racist legal precedent to strip everyone’s rights. He says this is a deeply cynical move: “The party that continuously clamors and says that they are the ones that are looking out for people of color… will use the most racist arguments humanly imaginable if it advances the cause of civilian disarmament.”
And he’s not wrong. The idea that a modern progressive administration would turn to colonial-era bigotry to justify a waiting period is not just inconsistent – it’s alarming.
Dangerous Implications: Who Gets Labeled “Dangerous” Next?
Kirk warns that by allowing states to define who is “dangerous”, we are opening the door to widespread abuse. History shows that such labels are almost always subjective and discriminatory. In Duarte, the government cited historical examples where people were disarmed for being Catholic or refusing to swear loyalty oaths.
Now New Mexico is arguing that anyone who isn’t a police officer, gun dealer, or permit holder is “potentially dangerous” and should be subject to a waiting period. That’s a slippery slope – one that could easily be extended to veterans, gun owners, people with unpopular political views, or even entire neighborhoods.
A Return to Second-Class Citizenship?
The Heritage Foundation makes a critical point: “The right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is uniquely important for non-white Americans, who have historically been targets of violent oppression.” In other words, gun rights are not a privilege – they are a protection.
If modern gun control laws are disproportionately applied to minority communities, even unintentionally, then the effect is the same as the old laws: creating second-class citizens who must rely on the state for their security – a state that, as Ida B. Wells once said, has often refused to protect them.
Even Courts Admit These Laws Are Repugnant – So Why Use Them?
One of the most outrageous parts of the New Mexico brief is its admission that the cited laws “reflect overgeneralized and abhorrent prejudices” and “would likely be unconstitutional today under other parts of the Constitution.” Yet the state still argued they should be considered valid precedent in the gun control debate.
Kirk’s reaction was blunt: “They literally said, ‘These laws are completely repugnant, but because they advance our argument, we should give them the most weight possible.’”
This Isn’t About Felons – It’s About Everyone
It’s important to note that the Duarte ruling centered on non-violent felons, not violent criminals. Kirk reminds viewers that many Americans with old, non-violent convictions, like mail fraud or marijuana possession, are permanently barred from owning firearms.
But now those restrictions are being cited to justify new laws that affect everyone, including law-abiding first-time gun buyers. This isn’t about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. It’s about creating a justification to disarm citizens preemptively, based on little more than conjecture or demographic profiling.
Kirk’s Final Warning: No Argument Is Too Low
William Kirk closes his video with a sobering thought: “As the civilian disarmament movement becomes more desperate, we’ll see more arguments like this. There really is no argument too low, no historical precedent too offensive, for them to use if it helps disarm you.”
The use of racist laws to justify modern restrictions should raise red flags for anyone who values liberty, regardless of race, politics, or party affiliation. When the state says “you might be dangerous,” and uses 17th-century bigotry as proof, everyone is at risk.
This Is a Wake-Up Call for Civil Liberties
This controversy isn’t just about guns – it’s about how governments justify taking rights away from people they don’t trust. If courts and politicians are willing to cite centuries-old racism to support modern disarmament, then they are telling us they value control more than equality, safety, or justice.
We can’t erase the past, but we should never weaponize it against today’s citizens. And we certainly shouldn’t pretend that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to people who “might” be dangerous. Either you have rights, or you don’t. If we let them chip away at that principle, we won’t just lose our guns – we’ll lose everything else with them.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.
