From: [o--iv--r] at [cs.unc.edu] (Bill Oliver) Newsgroups: misc.writing Subject: Political Phil. Gun Control: Uses (was: Fun with Guns) Date: 14 Jun 1995 12:10:20 -0400 This article is extracted from "The Political Functions of Gun Control" by Raymond Kessler, in the Firearms and Violence collection. Kessler notes five political functions of gun control laws, and gives historical examples of their application. The five functions he lists are: 1) Gun control increases citizen dependence on government. One of the functions of the state is to control "disruptive" behavior, some of which is defined as criminal. However, since government does not provide a bodyguard for every citizen and cannot deter, incapacitate, or rehabilitate every criminal, the protection offered by government is supplemented by the activities of groups (e.g. neighborhood patrols) and private individuals. In all American jurisdictions, private citizens are authorized to use force to defend themselves, their families, and their property under certain circumstances... ... [C]onsider a jurisdiction that severely limits possession of firearms. Those who are law-abiding will, by definition, no possess proscribed weapons. If alternative weapons, devices, or techniques are not available (or are not perceived to be effective), the more law-abiding citizens will have to look to government, rather than themselves, for protection. In general, the more citizens are dependent on government, the more likely they are to accept expanded police powers and abuses to deal with crime and the less likely they are to challenge the status quo. 2,3) Gun control helps prevent opposition to, and facilitates repressive action by, government. These political functions have been at least implicitly recognized by individuals and commissions seeking solutions to the problems of riots and terrorism. The Task Force on Disorders and Terrorism of the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals recommends legislation designed to reduce the possibility of illegal acquisition and utilization of firearms by "subversive groups" and effective search policies to implement laws making the carrying of concealed weapons a serious offense. ...If government wants to make a strong, unpopular political move against a population or segments thereof, it would be wise policy to disarm the population first. An armed population may deter government action; a disarmed population is less of a deterrent....Gun control is obviously one way to limit the coercive resources of opponents or, to use Gurr's terms, to influence the "coercive balance."(1) ... There are other more individualized ways in which gun control laws may assist government in dealing with either violent efforts at political change or, as described later, peaceful reform movements. Firearms violations may be trumped up to harass and discredit opponents and justify their arrest, detention, trial, and punishment [see Soviet section]. Searches for weapons... can provide a cover for invading political headquarters and the homes of dissidents [for harassment and intelligence acquisition]. 4) Gun control lessens the pressure for political reform. Another strategy the government can use to defuse potentially explosive situations is to grant reforms beneficial to dissatisfied groups. Gurr points out that if dissidents have arms and sympathy from some of the military and police, the coercive capacity of the dissidents may increase to the point where they can "obtain major concessions without having full-fledged revolutionary organizations or even revolutionary motives." If these groups are poorly armed,... they pose less of a threat [and thus the government must make fewer concessions.] There is another manner in which gun control might lessen the pressures for reform. As a panacea for violent crime, gun control can be touted as the only solution or at least as an alternative to the solutions of eliminating poverty, unemployment, racism, and other possible causes of the violence... 5) Gun control can be selectively enforced. Because gun control offenses involve possessing, carrying, selling and so forth, they are crimes in which the persons involved are participating voluntarily and do not feel victimized. The individuals possessing weapons or those involved in illegal firearms transactions are generally not going to inform on themselves. These are thus "complaintless" crimes, which are not easily detected. The police must seek out these offenses by aggressive techniques such as entrapment and the utilization of undercover agents and informers. Law enforcement personnel can thus choose the individuals or groups they want to investigate. Just as laws against marijuana were selectively enforced against unpopular groups, gun control laws that are seemingly nondiscriminatory and apolitical can be selectively enforced against persons who are perceived to constitute a threat to government(2) ... At the same time, pro-government extremists could be given de facto immunity from gun control and other laws to promote their intimidation of and attacks on opposition groups. For instance, in 1969, hundreds of demonstrators were machine-gunned by right-wing extremists in Mexico City. Both possession of automatic weapons and murder are forbidden by law in Mexico. "Nevertheless, the police made no arrests -- either on the scene or when the attackers later invaded hospitals to finish off the wounded."(3) EXAMPLES 1) England and France In England, from the 1500s through the early 1800s, various governments took numerous steps to disarm religious and political opponents. Further, some of the controversy over the composition, size, utilization, and arming of the militia was related to the political function of gun control.(4) ...Even the game laws in England had political functions. These laws had an inhibiting effect on the ownership of firearms, since mere possession of hunting weapons was sometimes the basis for prosecution. The purpose of the fame laws was at least in part to keep the masses disarmed. The eminent eighteenth-century jurist Sir William Balckstone noted that one of the reasons for the existence of these laws was that they aided in the "prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the bulk of the people..."(5) Later, in response to radical demonstrations in 1819, Parliament passed the notorious Six Acts, which, among other things, empowered magistrates to search homes for weapons, confiscate them, and arrest their owners. [Much of this was in reaction to the French Revolution...] Referring to the Acts, Wellington wrote," Our example will render some good in France as well as Germany, and we must hope that the world will escape the universal revolution which seems to menace us all."(6) Although space limitations prohibit detailed analysis, the French experience during the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries paralleled that of England in many respects... 2) Nazi Germany ....[A]ccording to a commentary of Nazi firearm laws, after the Fuhrer's takeover the government decisively took away "weapons still remaining in the hands of people inimical to the State..."(7) by 1938 the government felt secure enough to pass new gun laws, which would permit some segments of the population to obtain firearms. For instance, under the 1938 "Law of weapons" and subsequent decrees, licenses to obtain or carry firearms could be issued to persons whose reliability was not in doubt and who could prove a need for them. Among the classes who were to be denied licenses were "gypsies", persons for whom police surveillance has been declared admissible, or upon whom the loss of civil rights has been imposed, for the duration of the police surveillance or the loss of civic rights; [and] persons who have been convicted of treason or high treason, or against whom facts are under consideration which justify the assumption that they are acting in a manner inimical to the state.(8) Jews were also excluded from eligibility for firearms licenses, and since they could not depend on the government for protection, unarmed Jews were left virtually defenseless against official and unofficial violence. Another Nazi firearms law denied licenses to trade in, assemble, or repair firearms or ammunition "if the applicant, or the persons intended to become the commercial or technical managers of the operation or trade, or any one of them, is a Jew."(8) Later, when German Jews and those from occupied countries were forced into ghettos in Poland, both individual and collective punishment were meted out when any resident was found in possession of weapons. Although there was violent resistance by many Jews, they were often plagued by lack of arms.(9) [Gun control laws were also harsh in occupied countries and were enforced selectively -- collaborators were allowed to possess weapons.] The Library of Congress concluded: This sampling of German statutes, decrees and other documents concerning firearms indicated two parts: first, the profound importance the German invaders attached to the possession of firearms. Second, the importance of these proclamations and decrees as a technique used by the Germans to obtain and limit weapons in the possession of the nationals of the invaded country... A totalitarian society, and particularly a totalitarian society occupying a country against its will, simply cannot permit the private possession of weapons to any great extent except by those who have proven their loyalty.(8) 3) Soviet Union In the soviet Union, peaceful dissident political activity is subject to severe sanctions, and the acquisition and possession of firearms are "subject to severe restrictions and limitations by the state." (10) The laws essentially ban the private ownership of handguns(11). In 1978 Soviet dissident Alexander Podrabnik was the subject of an alleged blackmail attempt by the Soviet government when the KGB(Soviet Secret Police) arrested his brother Kirill on a trumped-up charge of illegal possession of firearms. Because Alexander was known and respected around the world in the human rights movement and psychiatric profession, the KGB was reluctant to move directly against him. There tactics were to pressure him into emigrating. When he refused, the KGB planted a pistol and ammunition in his brother Kirill's apartment. After Kirill was arrested, the KGB promised to drop the charges if Alexander would leave the country. Podrabnick was later tried, convicted, and sentenced to five years internal exile for is expose of psychiatric abuses in the Soviet Union.(12) Soviet dissidents are often subjected to harassment and assault by vigilantes. Although there is no hard evidence, the dissidents suspect government acquiescence in if not encouragement of the vigilante activity and doubt the police will do anything about it(13). The vigilante action and gun control laws place the dissident in a "can't win" situation. If they arm for protection, they will be arrested for violating the gun laws. If they do not arm, they may not be able to defend themselves and deter the vigilantes. The easiest solution is, of course, the one that would please the government -- stop dissenting. 4) Asia In December 1979, the Soviets occupied Afganistan under two puppet regimes. When the loyalty of some Afgan military battalions was questioned, the Soviet commanders ordered that they be disarmed. [Before full military aid from the US became available, the rebels were surprisingly effective even though their basic weapon was a bolt-action local knockoff of the Lee-Enfeild rifle]. After general strikes, nightly firefights, and ambushes the government declared martial law in the capital city. All residents of Kabul were ordered to surrender their firearms to police within twenty-four hours(14). [More recently, the same order was used in the face of nationalist demonstrations in the Soviet republic of Georgia. All privately held weapons were confiscated in response to riots.] In the Philippines, one of the countermeasures used by the government in dealing with the "Huk" rebellion of the 1950s was gun control. To preclude the possible flow of additional arms and ammunition to subversive hands, the government increased the penalty for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition(15). In 1972, in response to alleged conspiracies to overthrow the government by violence and subversion, President Marcos instituted marital law and announced that "the carrying of firearms outside residences without permission of the Armed Forces of the Phillipines is punishable with death." While this edict was later modified, subsequent measures completely outlawed private possession of most large caliber handguns and other firearms(16)i.... Allegations of violations of firearms law and rebellion were used against at least one prominent political opposition leader, former Senator Benigno S. Aquino [who was later assassinated]. (17) The government of Malaysia has been engaged in an armed struggle with communist insurgents since 1948... After widespread violence in 1975, amendments to the 1960 Internal Security Act included one of the world's most severe gun control laws. A death sentence is mandatory for individuals convicted of possessing firearms in designated "security areas" or in circumstances which give rise to a "reasonable presumption" that the person intends to act or has recently acted in a "manner prejudicial to public security."(18,19) Since enactment, at least seven communist insurgents have been executed and others await execution. 5) South Africa In the Republic of South Africa, 4.4 million whites exercise almost complete economic and political control over 19.4 million Africans, 2.4 million Colored (mixed race), and 0.7 million Asians. Although whites comprise only 16 percent of the population, they alone elect the government (which is entirely white), consume 60 percent of the nation's income, and occupy 86.5 percent of the land(20). The white population, particularly the Afrikaners..., have fashioned "white power into an enduring force based on the Bible and the gun"; officially enforced segregation (apartheid) and the Afrikaners' traditional way of life are aimed at keeping blacks politically powerless. Because of fear of the Africans and Coloreds, whites have developed an internal security apparatus that rivals the Soviet Union in its single-minded and ruthless repression of dissidents(21).Although the government uses a wide variety of means of stifling dissent, such as banning, detention without trial, and torture, it is not above the unnecessary shooting and killing of unarmed demonstrators (including children) for political purposes.(22) A white south African observed that police "think they can shoot, arrest and beat the black back into submission, and on the past record, you have to conclude that they are right."(23) For many segments of the white population, the severe measures taken by the government against nonwhites are not enough to provide security. "Fear of revolution pervades much of South African life."(24) The white community is one of the worlds most heavily armed... While the government and white citizens spend millions to arm themselves, the government has mounted against nonwhites "one of the world's most effective gun control campaigns."(25) Even the black superhero of a black-oriented comic book series published by whites speaks out against firearms ownership; some liberals in South Africa suspect that the comics are aimed at promoting black subservience to white authorities.(25) ...If nonwhites were not hindered from obtaining firearms, they could arm themselves and, because of their superiority in numbers, perhaps obtain concessions. Even though the whites have the military hardware, they are still outnumbered by more than five to one, and armed rebellion might encourage military intervention by surrounding nations to assist the black insurrectionists. Although there is a "Black Power" movement in south Africa, it has "proven no match for the guns and economic pressure" the white power structure uses to destroy it.(26) Even though blacks outnumber whites, Hoagland concludes that the "odds against a black population that is barred form obtaining arms seems enormous." When asked why blacks and Coloreds do not revolt, a Colored leader responded,"The white man has all the tanks, the jets and the guns. We don't have anything. In a revolt, the blood that would be shed would be the blood of nonwhites." A white opponent of apartheid responded:"Power does not grow out of the barrel of a gun if you do not have a gun."(26) 6) United States In the United States, the experience of blacks from slavery through the 1960s was one of the clearest and best-documented examples of the political functions of gun control. Seventeenth through Early Twentieth Centuries. In his study of slave revolts, Aptheker concludes that a ruling class, often subjected to periods of crisis arising from doubt of its ability to maintain its power, may be expected to develop complete and thorough systems of control.(27) America's slaveocracy developed a number of methods of suppression and oppression: one of these was gun control. In fact, the first recorded legislation concerning blacks in Virginia (1640) excluded them from owning guns.(28) Throughout the South, the intense fear of slave revolts resulted in additional legislation, which included provisions further restricting the access of slaves to firearms. The political functions of these laws were often indicated in their titles, for example, "An Act for the better preventing of Insurrections by Negroes." In 1850 an Alabama legislator recognized the political functions of gun control when he attempted to minimize fears of the slave population by pointing out that the slaves were disarmed, unaccustomed to the use of arms, and thus could be easily suppressed.(27) ... At the close of the Civil War, Frederick Douglass was concerned that legislatures in the South still had power to pass laws discriminating against blacks and predicted that, in addition to other disabilities, freedmen would be restricted in their access to firearms.(29) Immediately after the war, provisional governments set militia organizations that excluded former slaves and were used to disarm freedmen. [These militia were dissolved in some states, but .. ] One contemporary observer stated, "It is no longer with them [anti-Reconstruction forces] the number of votes but the number of guns." When white supremacists captured the legislatures, they confirmed Douglass' fears. (30) The use of firearms by blacks had "social and political implications," and among the laws designed to maintain what Southern legislators "considered due subordination of freedmen" were prohibitions against Negroes handling firearms. for blacks, firearms had been both a symbol and a means of keeping their freedom and political power; they were also instruments of suppression by whites seeking to reestablish the old order. In the end, the whites triumphed, and the blacks were effectively disarmed. Since they were forbidden to possess firearms, blacks "were rendered defenseless against assault," and in "parts of the country remote from observation, the violence and cruelty engendered by Slavery found free scope for exercise upon the defenseless Negro."(31) Public officials "sttod by while murders, beatings and lynchings were openly perpetrated."(28) From the 1870s until well into this century, the handgun laws of "Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas deprived citizens of the means of self-defense, cloaking the specially deputized Klansmen in the safety of their monopoly of arms."(32) The Black Panthers The 1960s saw the beginnings of a militant black power movement and one of the most controversial segments of that movement was the Black Panther Party (BPP). In response to perceived oppression by white society and alleged brutality by its agents, the police, the BPP organized for radical reform and black consciousness-raising and armed themselves for self-defense.(33) The Panthers were anti-racist, anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, and openly hostile to the police. The opposed the Viet Nam war, offered aid to the Viet Cong, and talked openly about obtaining weapons to use in violent revolution(34). [The federal government considered them a threat, and] Attorney General Mitchell ruled that the Panthers were a threat to national security and thus subject to FBI wiretapping.(35) A number of observers concluded that at least some of the government activity against the Panthers was not justified by legitimate law enforcement concerns and was aimed at destroying the Panthers as a political force(36). The BPP was one of the main targets of the FBI's nationwide counterintelligence operation known as COINTELPRO. Though some of COINTELPRO's activities were politically neutral, one of its objectives was to neutralize, disrupt, and destroy various groups such as the BPP. The programs unexpressed major premise was that "a law enforcement agency has the duty to do whatever is necessary to combat perceived threats to the existing social and political order."(37) As the BPP and police engaged in a steadily escalating cycle of confrontation and violence, the Panthers sought and obtained arms -- partly at least for self-defense.(38) obtaining weapons, however, rendered the Panthers vulnerable to both bona fide and politically motivated enforcement of firearms laws. Although the Panthers were raided, arrested, prosecuted, and punished for a wide variety of alleged offenses, enforcement of firearms laws played a large part in the campaign against the BPP. Between 1967 and 1969, BPP members were charged with at least 130 firearms and weapons offenses(39). In additions, anti-Panther sentiment was a factor in the enactment of some new firearms laws. The BPP was formed in Oakland in 1966, and by 1967 a bill was introduced in the California legislature to prohibit the carrying of loaded weapons withing incorporated areas in the state. The bill -- later enacted -- was, in fact, and anti-Panther bill instigated by the Oakland police and given impetus by the appearance of numerous armed Panthers in Contra Costa County (33). The Panther response to the bill recognized the political functions of gun control. The party condemned the bill as "fascist" and contended that its aim was to keep "black people disarmed and powerless at the same time that racist police agencies are intensifying the ... repression of black people."(40) When carrying weapons legally, the Panthers were sometimes harassed and falsely charged with weapons offenses. In a number of cases, undercover agents offered and/or provided illegal guns to BPP numbers. For example, in April 1969, undercover agents sold machine guns to party members and then arested them.(41) The mayor of Seattle turned down a request by the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Unit of the IRS that the city cooperate in an "information gathering" raid on Panther headquarters where illegal firearms were allegedly being stored. While the raid never occurred, a number of actual raids were based on searches for weapons and resulted in seizures of weapons and arrests for weapons offenses. Some of these raids were justified or facilitated by COINTELPRO information. The most controversial raid, however, occurred on December 4, 1969, in Chicago. Since at least 1960 the relationship between Chicago police and the black community had been one of increasing tension and distrust. In 1969, police-community relations had reached crisis proportions, and violence between Panthers and police has escalated steadily.(42) A paid COINTELPRO informer who had infiltrated the BPP urged the party to obtain more weapons and, when they did so, reported to authorities that illegal weapons could be found at a particular Panther apartment. The informant also provided a diagram of the apartment and other intelligence. A search warrant for sawed-off shotguns and illegal weapons was then obtained. The Comission of Inquiry concluded that it was probable that the real purpose of the raid was to conduct a surprise attack and that the execution of the search warrant for weapons was merely a guise(43). The Commission determined that, contrary to police testimony, the first shot was fired accidently by a police officer and that only one shot was fired by the Panthers. After the police had fired between 80 and 100 shots, the shooting stopped. Some of the raiders began seizing not only Panther weapons but also Party books and files. Two policement had suffered minor injuries. Dead were Chicago BPP leader Fred Hampton and member Mark Clark. The body of Fred Hampton was found on his bed. He had been shot four times -- twice in the head. There was evidence that at the time of the raid Hampton was in an unconscious, drugged state. The Commission of Inquiry concluded that there was probable cause to believe the Hampton was murdered -- shot by an officer or officers who could see his prostrate form lying on his bed.(44) Federal Gun Laws aimed at Blacks Robert Sherril's analysis of the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 suggests that congress passed the Act because of its anticipated political functions. Sherrill points out that in the 1960s, white America became concerned about the "black problem." The black population had a high rate of illegitimacy, was blamed for the welfare problem, and was growing faster than the white population. The high index crime rates for blacks caused concern, and the intelligence of blacks was openly questioned(45). Because of the massive riots by blacks, reports of snipers, and threats of revolution.... many Americans, both liberal and conservative, were apprehensive of black insurrection and guerilla warfare.... After the 1967 riot in Plainfield, New Jersey, Governor Hughes ordered a warrantless house-to-house search of black areas by the National Guard to find forty-six carbines allegedly stolen from a nearby arms factory. No carbines were found, but many residences were left in shambles(46). In an editorial entitled "Disarm the Sniper," the New York Times called for federal regulation of the domestic gun traffic.(47) The National Advisory commission on civil disorders recommended further restrictions on the sale of firearms and the emergency closing of stores selling firearms during civil disorders. (48) In reaction to this domestic crisis, Congress panicked and passed the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- a law they hoped would close the routes by which blacks were getting guns. Congress assumed that ghetto blacks were getting cheap imported military surplus and mail-order guns and thus decided to cut off these sources while leaving over-the-counter acquisition open to the affluent. although the Gun Control Act cam shortly after the murders of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., the Act did nothing about the types of guns used in those assassinations. Sherrill thus concludes that the law was directed against "the other threat of the 1960s more omnipresent than the political assassin -- namely the black rioter." In sum, Sherrill's thesis is, quite simply, that the Act was passed not to control guns, but to control blacks. [While Sherrill's assessment may exaggerate the role of white fear in the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, ] there is another piece of firearms legislation whose roots in white reaction to the riots and threats of black militants were quite explicit. Section (a) (2) of the Civil Obedience Act of 1968 provides criminal penalties for "Whoever transports or manufactures for transportation in commerce any firearm, or explosive or incendiary device knowing or having reason to know that the same will be used unlawfully in furtherance of a civil disorder..." The Act was offered on the floor of the Senate by conservative Democrat Russell Long of Louisiana as an amendment to the Civil rights Act of 1968. In the Senator's remarks and articles he placed in the record there is frequent mention of riots and black militant leaders H. Rap Brown and stokley Carmichael, and references to "open revolt," "violent and bloody revolution," "aggressive guerilla warfare," and the stockpiling of arms for use in next summer's riots. Long stated that his proposal of the Civil Obedience Act stemmed from the "riotous conditions that have plagued the United States for the past four years, and which were predicted for the summer of 1967."(49) Although there was at the time some exaggeration of the use of firearms by and the political consciousness of rioters, as well as of the potential for black revolt, those perceptions helped secure reform beneficial to blacks (e.g. the Fair Housing Provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1968) as well as new criminal laws such as the Civil Obedience Act. If Sherrill's thesis and the above analysis are correct, the parallel with the slaveowner's response to slave revolts is striking. In both cases more firearms control follows outbreaks of violence by blacks. The difference is, of course, that by the 1960s, gun laws directed only at blacks would have been held unconstitutional and would have damaged the nation's image abroad. There can be little doubt, however, that all concerned knew quite well that the rioters and snipers were overwhelmingly black. Black crime, rioting, and revolutionary movements indicate problems in the black community and white dominated society that certain vested interests would prefer to ignore. If this crime, rioting, and threats of revolt can be minimized by gun control without the necessity of major reform beneficial to blacks, it is a victory for those who have an interest in the political and economic status quo. If the black population is armed and potentially volatile, it cannot be ignored as it was for so many years. Such a population places tremendous pressure on government to grant beneficial reforms and can defend itself against white vigilantes as it did in the South in the 1960s. 1) T.R. Gurr. Why Men Rebel. Princeton University Press. Princeton, N.J., 1970. 2) John Kaplan. Marijuana: The New Prohibition. World. N.Y. 1970. 3) J Salter, and D.B.Kates. The Necessity of Access to Firearms by Dissenters and Minorities Whom Government is Unwilling or Unable to Protect., in Kates, ed. Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out. North River Press, Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y., 1979. 4)L Boynton. The Elizabethan Militia. Routledge and Kegan Paul. London. 1967. 5) Sir William Blackstone. Commentaries on the Laws of England. 1783. Garland, N.Y., 1978. 6) F.B. Artz. Reaction and revolution, 1814-1832. Harper, N.Y. 1934. 7) Library of Congress. Gun control Laws in Foreign Countries. 8) Library of Congress. Federal Firearms Legislation Hearings Before the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, GPO, 1968. 9) Yuri Suhl, ed. They fought Back. Schocken Books, NY, 1967 and B. Mark. Uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto. Shcoken Books. 1975. 10) Amnesty International, Report 1980. Also Library of Congress, Gun Control in Foreign Countries. 11) C.J. Hanley, "Gun Controls More Stringent Abroad", Kansas City Star, 2 Dec. 1980. 12) St. Louis Dispatch, 29 Jan 1978. 13) L.A. Times, 29 Sept 1980. 14) Time 3 Mar 1980. 15) J Vargas and R Tarciano. Communism in Decline: The Huk Campaign. SEATO, Bankok, 1957. 16) FD Pinpin. The first 107 Presidential Decrees Consequent to Proclamation Nos 1081/1104. Mandaluyong, Rizal, Philippines, 1972. 17) NY Times, 9 May 1980. 18) US Dept of State. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. GPO, Washington, 1981. 19) Amnesty Intl. Report 1980. 20)United Nations. Women and Apartheid. Objective Justice 12 (Aug 1980); J. Hoagland, south Africa . Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, 1972. 21) Washington Post, 11 Jan 1977, and 14 Jan 1977. 22) Amnest Intl. Report 1980, Washington Post (ref 21), A Reeves. "A Massacre Recalled" Objective Status, 2, (Jan 1970), D. Herbstein. White Man, We Want to Talk to You!, Andre Dutch, London, 1979. 23) Washington Post. 14 Jan 1977. 24) Washington Post 13 Jan 1977. 25) "Africa: The Caped Crusader" Newsweek, 14 June 1976. 26) Hoagland. South Africa.. 27) H Aptheker. American Negro Slave Revolts. International Publishers. N.Y. 1963. 28) Kennet and Anderson. The Gun in America: The Origin of a National Dilemma. Greenwood Press, Westport, Conn, 1975. 29) Frederick Douglas, speech, May 9, 1865. in H. Hyman, ed. The Radical Republicans and Reconstruction, 1861-1870. Bobs-Merrill, N.Y. 30) OA Singleterry. Negro militia and Reconstruction. McGraw-Hill, NY. 1957. 31) L Abbott. "survey of the Freedman's Bureau Work." in Hyman, ed. Radical Republicanism and Reconstruction. 32) D. Kates, "Hand Gun Prohibition in the United States" See also D. Kates "Abolition, Deportation, Integration: attitudes Towards Slavery in the Early Republic" Journal of Negro History 53 [Jan 1968]:37. 33) G. Marine. The Black Panthers. New American Library, NY, 1969. 34) L.G. Heath. Off the Pigs! Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, NJ, 1976. 35) Commission of Inquiry into the Black Panthers and the Police. Search and Destroy. Metropolitan Applied Research Center, Inc. NY, 1973. 36)LF Palmer, Jr. "Out to get the Panthers" The Nation, 29 (28 July 1969); RJ Golstein. Political Repression in Modern America. Schenkman, Cambridge, Mass, 1978. 37) US Senate. Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. Senate Report No. 94-775, book III, GPO, Washington, DC, 1976. 38) E Cray. The Enemy in the Streets. Doubleday. Garden City, NY 1972. 39) MR Haskell and L Yablonsky. Criminology. Rand McNally, Chicago, 1978. 40) R Major. A Panther is a Black Cat. William Morrow, NY 1971. 41) Waldroon, "Militants Stockpile Illegal Guns" in Golstein, Political Repression. 42)Edward Epstein. "The Panthers and the Police: A Patterns for Genocide?" The New Yorker, 13 Feb, 1971. Also Waldron, and Heath. 43) Commission of Inquiry, Search and Destroy. 44) Commission of Inquiry. Also see Hampton v. Hanrahan for a review of the legal action following the incident. See also Goldstein, Political Repression. 45) R. Sherrill. The Saturday Night Special. Charterhouse. NY 1973. 46) National Advisory Commission Report. 47) NY Times 2 Aug 1967 48) National Advisory Committe Report. 49) US Congress, Senate. Congressional Record, 90th Congress, second sess., vol 114. GPO, Wash DC, 1968.