"To me as an American, they are un-American. To me as a Negro, they are anti-Negro." From American Rifleman, March 1968: "Why Anti-Gun Laws 'Hit Hardest At The Negro.'"

I found the following article by William J. White, of Hempstead, L.I., N.Y., in a stack of old American Rifleman back issues that I lucked into at a thrift store. A Major with the US Army Reserve, at the time of this writing MAJ White was employed by "an electronics corporation." The disclaimer says, "He gives here his individual views on an issue of national significance."

It appears that the distinguished gentlemen pressing for the strongest anti-gun bills either know absolutely nothing about firearms or are using the bills as a cover for some less obvious venture.

Anti-gun measures would have the effect of disarming the American citizen in general and the Negro in particular. That is why I, as an American citizen and as a Negro, oppose them.

If passed and obeyed, such laws will effectively make the law-abiding Negro citizens defenseless and especially vulnerable to crime. This should cause deep concern among all Americans of good will, as a recent U.S. Department of Justice (FBI) Uniform Crime Report states that 54% of U.S. murder victims were Negroes and they are much victimized also in other types of crimes.

Law-abiding Negroes, nearly all of them extremely scrupulous, are likely to flock to register their firearms rather than risk being in violation of the law. Many know, too, that in certain areas there is a practice of "cracking down" harder on Negroes than on others in any form of law enforcement. While enforcement has made strides toward fairness, there are still enough misfits in police uniforms to reinforce the Negroes' long-standing mistrust of policemen.

If there were reason to believe that the issuance of permits to purchase or keep firearms would be on a non-discriminatory basis, like automobile driving permits, the proposed anti-gun laws could be considered as just another nuisance. But experiences in the American past do not support this.

These proposals are similar in some respects to the old poll tax. Although the Negro has the same right to vote as any other American citizen, the power structure knew that few Negroes could pay the poll tax to vote and that those few whp tried could be prohibited from actual voting in a number of ways.

While the bills now before Congress do not impose a gun permit system, some of their sponsors make no bones about wanting just that and the President's Crime Commission has advocated firearms registration -- which means permits -- in every state. Any and all such permit systems, I firmly believe, can be used against the right to bear arms, and to discriminate against Negroes.

Because I am a Negro, I conceive that I would have little or no chance of obtaining a firearms permit in most of the 50 states. I think this would prove true although I hold a field grade commission in the Infantry Reserve, and saw combat service in World War II and Korea.

Two organizations of which I am a member -- the Disabled American Veterans and the National Rifle Association -- oppose the kind of firearms bills that would lead to registration, taxation and confiscation.

One of the thinnest arguments advanced in support of anti-gun bills is that Negroes used firearms extensively in riot sniping. That simply does not hold true and is like a low blow to all those men who saw military service as snipers. Guns played a very minor role, actually, and those who assert otherwise should know better.

Anti-gun bills could in fact disenfranchise the Negro of his right to bear arms and to protect himself and his property. To me as an American, they are un-American. To me as a Negro, they are anti-Negro. I take no please in saying so, but feel it is my duty and right to express my views. -- William J. White.