Editorial: History Shows Gun Control Inevitably Becomes a Political Weapon

Amid the snow-covered debate on Friday over a bill that would allow the state to seize firearms from Maine residents under certain conditions, an exchange between Sen. Eric Brakey (R-Androscoggin) and the bill’s sponsor, House Speaker Rachel Talbot Ross (D-Portland), flew under the radar.

However, the substance of Sen. Brakey’s question deserves fulsome consideration in light of the drastic new powers Speaker Talbot Ross’s bill would grant to government agents when it comes to seizing firearms and abrogating constitutionally protected rights.

The bill in question — a so-called “Red Flag” law — would allow anyone to complain about anyone and cause agents of the State to forcefully seize not only their firearms, but any “dangerous weapons” they might have.

Brakey’s question, to paraphrase, was essentially: Given that gun control laws have historically been used to target and disempower racial minorities, what protections do we have in this bill that would prevent history from repeating itself?

Here’s the video of the exchange:

Talbot Ross dodged the question — or was unaware of the racist history of gun control — and the rest of the committee seemed content to move on, but the issue remains worth considering: Is the Maine Legislature about to give the state a radical new power that will be abused in the future to punish political out-groups?

For starters, Brakey was 100 percent right about the history of gun control laws in the United States. From the Founding of the country, through the Antebellum Era, throughout Reconstruction, during the Civil Rights movement and well after, gun control laws have been used to target racial minorities, especially African-Americans.

In every case, the proponents of those measures presented them as necessary for public safety, but the real aim was to create a mechanism to oppress and control racial minorities and political dissidents.

From the “Slave Codes” that prohibited enslaved Africans from owning firearms, to the “Black Codes” and Jim Crow laws that sought to disarm African-Americans post-Civil War, the intent was clear: to maintain a power structure that left racial minorities defenseless. The Ku Klux Klan and other supremacist groups enforced these laws with vigilante violence and intimidation, specifically targeting black individuals to suppress their civil rights and their means of self-defense.

The 20th century wasn’t much different. Tammany Hall Democrats in 1911 used the “Sullivan Act” and selective enforcement as a means to disparately disarm Italian immigrants. Laws like the 1967 Mulford Act, signed into law by Calif. Gov. Ronald Reagan, were enacted to disarm political groups like the Black Panther Party, which wanted firearms for self-defense against state violence. And let’s not overlook the federal National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968, both of which have been criticized for their disproportionate impact on racial and ethnic minorities, often leading to higher arrest and prosecution rates within these communities.

This history reveals a disturbing pattern: when governments impose strict controls on firearm ownership, it’s not just an issue of public safety. It’s also about control. And all too often, that control has been wielded to suppress minority groups and silence political dissent. Beyond the letter of the laws, the legal mechanism are almost always selectively enforced by political authorities for political aims. Maine’s proposed legislation, therefore, should be evaluated both within the historical context of gun control laws and within the context of more recent abuses of state power.

In Maine, we’ve seen business owners targeted for harassment for criticizing draconian COVID-19 lockdown policies. We’ve seen a medical doctor stripped of her license for daring to criticize the Mills Administration in radio interviews. We’ve seen the Maine State Police punish a whistleblower who exposed illegal, warrantless spying. Nationally, the politically-motivated abuses of state power — from lawfare against pro-lifers to illegal spying on the Trump campaign — are almost too numerous to list. Even as transnational organized crime proliferates throughout Maine, the FBI is busying itself chasing down the last grandma who happened to be at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

The lesson of history is that a power, once granted to a government, will invariably be abused in the future when it can serve the ends of whatever political group is in control. In Maine, the prospect that the so-called Red Flag law would be used disproportionately against racial or ethnic minorities may seem slim today.

But what about pro-life Christians who peacefully pray outside of abortion clinics? Would an abortionist be within her rights to have firearms seized from peaceful protesters if she felt threatened by their prayers?

What about parents who voice complaints about local school policies? Could a school board member, feeling threatened, enlist the local police to seize any firearms those parents might own?

What about parents who home school their children or do not want their children forced into receiving experimental mRNA shots? Could such an “anti-vaxx” position be considered a mental illness or a danger to children that warrants forced disarmament?

You don’t have to have a vivid imagination to see how the very gun control laws which have been thoroughly abused in the past could be thoroughly abused in the future. And given the abuses of the power the current Administration has gotten away with scot free, there’s no reason to give any future politicians the benefit of the doubt.