Ferguson and the Constitution: Being a Second-Class Citizen.

This is an American citizen aiming his gun as protesters gather around the base camp for the Bureau of Land Management near Cliven Bundy’s ranch in Nevada in April of 2012.

This is an image of two American citizens participating in “open carry” in Texas in December 2013.

This is the police in Ferguson, MO, mobilizing against the citizens as peaceful protests involved riots and looting overnight during the first weekend after the killing of Michael Brown. 

When I see the reactions people are having to the protests in Ferguson, MO, I can’t help but think of the first two images, the armed protest against the Bureau of Land Management for Cliven Bundy and open carry. And I can’t help but think of all the reasons we have heard over the past two years about why the Second Amendment is so imperative for our democracy. And I can’t help but be appalled by the hypocrisy of it all.

An individual's right to arm and protect oneself is sacrosanct by many in this country. That right is often buttressed by its enumeration in our Constitution and the notion that it provides a limit to the executive powers of our government. In essence, our self-armament ensures the freedom to criticize the government, in particular its executive action - the law enforcement. As someone who disagrees with this right, I can only surmise that the protection to possessing lethal force as a counter-measure to an overbearing state ... well... necessitates the intent to use that lethal force when and if the time comes.

Cliven Bundy and the protesters that supported him provided a very ostentatious show of force. They brought their guns. They invited the press to take pictures of them with their guns. And those guns were aimed at the Bureau of Land Management, the executive branch – the law enforcement. And they were called patriots by many for doing this.

The people of Ferguson felt that the killing of Michael Brown was the final straw in a long string of violence against their community by the police. They feel an overbearing state that does not enforce a law designed to protect their rights. So they engaged in the most sacred right of our democratic nation, voicing grievances - in this case protest. They did not, however, take advantage of the second amendment to take up arms. They did not arm themselves. They did not show guns. They did not invite the press to take pictures of their arsenals. They did not wear legal assault rifles on their backs.

Some within their ranks broke laws, certainly, but it still isn't clear who, how, or what caused those instances. They did not attack law enforcement. They did not brandish guns. They did not do the very thing the Second Amendment was purportedly designed for. They did, however, take advantage of their First Amendment rights (the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances), which it seems to most – including the journalists present in Ferguson – was responded to with an extreme show and then use of force.

I guess my confusion and question is: when is it necessary to defend your rights against the state, even in a lethal way, and what about the Ferguson situation has not met that standard? What did Cliven Bundy do or have done to him that those in Ferguson did not?

I mean, can you imagine if the citizens of Ferguson armed themselves like the first two photos? Can you imagine if they used the language of “refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants?” Can you imagine?

This is what it means to be a second-class citizen. Do black people have Second Amendment rights? Do they even have First Amendment rights?