Gun control in the United States has never truly been about public safety—it has been about control. Throughout history, firearm restrictions have been disproportionately used to disarm Black Americans, marginalized communities, and anyone deemed a "threat" to the government’s power.

One of the most glaring examples of this was the disarming of the Black Panther Party in 1967 through the Mulford Act, signed into law by then-California Governor Ronald Reagan. This law was not about stopping crime—it was a direct response to Black Americans exercising their legal right to bear arms in self-defense against state violence.

Fast forward to today, and Oregon’s Measure 114 is following the same dangerous pattern. Though marketed as a gun control measure to curb violence, it empowers the state to decide who can and cannot own a firearm, creating barriers that will disproportionately harm marginalized communities. To understand why Measure 114 is so dangerous, we must examine the historical roots of gun control in America and its direct ties to racial oppression—including Oregon’s own history of disenfranchising Black communities through restrictive laws.

Gun Control Was Never About Crime—It Was About Disarming the Vulnerable

The Black Panthers and the Mulford Act: How Reagan Helped Push Gun Control

In the 1960s, the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense took a bold stance against police brutality by legally carrying firearms in public, monitoring police activity, and organizing armed patrols to protect Black neighborhoods. At the time, open carry was completely legal under California law.

This public display of armed Black Americans was met with immediate backlash from the state’s white political establishment. California lawmakers—who previously had little interest in gun control—suddenly decided guns were a problem when Black citizens started carrying them.

The result was the Mulford Act of 1967, which banned open carry of loaded firearms in public places. The bill was explicitly written to target the Black Panthers, and it passed with bipartisan support. Reagan signed it into law, stating:

“There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.”

This law effectively disarmed the Black Panthers and any other Black Californians who wanted to legally exercise their Second Amendment rights. It set a dangerous precedent: Gun control was not about preventing violence—it was about controlling who had access to weapons.

While the NRA is now seen as a staunch defender of the Second Amendment, its stance was very different in the 1960s when gun control was being weaponized against Black Americans. In fact, the NRA supported the Mulford Act, which was designed to disarm the Black Panther Party after they lawfully exercised their right to bear arms.

Just one year later, this trend expanded nationwide with the Gun Control Act of 1968, which placed new federal restrictions on firearm ownership, many of which disproportionately impacted Black and low-income Americans.

Oregon’s History of Racial Disenfranchisement and Gun Control

Although California’s Mulford Act is one of the most well-known examples of gun control being used to suppress Black self-defense, Oregon has its own history of weaponizing laws against marginalized communities.

1. Oregon’s Black Exclusion Laws (1844-1926)
   • Unlike most states, Oregon was explicitly founded as a “whites-only” state. The Black Exclusion Laws prohibited Black Americans from settling in Oregon, and even those who defied the law could not own property or firearms.
   • These laws remained on the books until 1926, and even after they were repealed, the state’s overwhelmingly white institutions ensured that Black Oregonians faced severe legal and economic barriers—including barriers to gun ownership.
2. Ku Klux Klan Influence in Oregon
   • By the 1920s, Oregon had one of the largest KKK memberships per capita in the United States. The Klan had deep ties to local law enforcement and politics, ensuring that gun laws were selectively enforced.
   • White supremacist groups remained armed and unchallenged, while any Black Oregonian attempting to exercise their right to bear arms would likely face intimidation and legal consequences.
3. The Black Panther Party in Oregon
   • In 1969, the Black Panther Party established a Portland chapter to combat police brutality and provide community support.
   • Like their counterparts in California, the Portland Panthers advocated for armed self-defense, which led to constant harassment from local police.
   • Oregon law enforcement used similar surveillance and intimidation tactics as those employed against the California Panthers, making it clear that armed Black citizens were seen as a threat to the system.
4. Oregon’s History of Restrictive Gun Laws
   • Even before Measure 114, Oregon had a history of restrictive gun laws that made it more difficult for certain groups to own firearms.
   • The state has long had discretionary concealed carry laws, meaning that local authorities could deny permits for vague or arbitrary reasons—a practice historically used in other states to keep guns out of the hands of Black and immigrant communities.
   • Measure 114 takes this even further, giving the government unprecedented control over who can purchase a firearm.

How Measure 114 Continues the Legacy of Disarming Marginalized Communities

Oregon’s Measure 114, narrowly passed in November 2022, is one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country. It includes:

• A permit-to-purchase requirement, requiring fingerprinting, government-mandated training, and an extensive background check before a person can buy a firearm.
• A ban on magazines over 10 rounds, criminalizing commonly owned firearms and accessories.
• More government discretion over who gets to own a gun, increasing the risk of bureaucratic bias and delays.

This law follows the same historical pattern as the Mulford Act, creating obstacles that will disproportionately affect the people who need self-defense the most.

How Measure 114 Will Harm Marginalized Communities

🔴 Government-Controlled Permitting – The permit-to-purchase system means the state decides who gets to buy a firearm and who doesn’t. Given Oregon’s history of racial bias in law enforcement, there is no reason to believe this system will be enforced fairly.

🔴 Financial Barriers to Gun Ownership – Mandatory safety classes cost money and require time, creating a paywall for the Second Amendment. Wealthier individuals can easily comply, while lower-income Oregonians—who often live in higher-crime areas—may be priced out of self-defense.

🔴 Disarming Communities While Police Stay Armed – Historically, gun control has been used to disarm civilians while law enforcement remains heavily armed. With Measure 114, this trend continues, making it harder for people to protect themselves while expanding police power.

Conclusion: Gun Control Is About Control, Not Safety

Measure 114 is not about preventing crime—it’s about empowering the state to decide who is “allowed” to own a firearm. It continues the long history of gun control being used to disenfranchise Black Americans, working-class citizens, and anyone deemed a “threat” to the status quo.

From the Black Panthers being disarmed by Reagan’s Mulford Act to Oregon’s history of racial exclusion and targeted policing, the pattern is clear: Gun control has always been a tool to suppress the most vulnerable while ensuring the government remains in control.

If we truly care about protecting marginalized communities, we should be empowering people to defend themselves—not creating more obstacles that only serve to benefit the state.