Reagan Signs Mulford Act Gun Control Law With NRA Support to Disarm Black Panthers Armed Patrols

Governor Ronald Reagan signs the Mulford Act into law, prohibiting the public carrying of loaded firearms in California without a permit. The legislation, crafted by Republican Assemblyman Don Mulford with assistance from the National Rifle Association, specifically targets the Black Panther Party’s armed police patrols in Oakland. Both Republicans and Democrats in the California legislature support the gun control measure, as does the NRA—marking a dramatic departure from the organization’s typical opposition to firearms restrictions.

The Act emerges in direct response to the Black Panthers’ practice of conducting armed patrols to monitor police interactions with Black citizens. Panther Police Patrols follow police vehicles and, when officers stop Black individuals, Panthers park nearby, exit their vehicles with visible firearms, and shout legal advice to detained persons. The patrols’ purpose is not to incite violence but to discourage police harassment of Black citizens by acting as armed witnesses exercising their Second Amendment rights under California’s open-carry laws.

On May 2, 1967, approximately 30 armed Black Panthers led by Bobby Seale march to the California State Capitol in Sacramento to oppose the Mulford Bill. The group enters the assembly chamber openly carrying rifles and shotguns before being ordered to leave by authorities. The demonstration garners national media coverage and, rather than deterring the bill’s passage, accelerates its progress and encourages Mulford to make the legislation even stricter.

The NRA supports the Mulford Act and contributes notes to guide Mulford in drafting the bill. In a letter defending the legislation, Mulford writes: “This legislation was specifically designed with the help of the National Rifle Association to protect our constitutional right to bear arms and yet to assist the law enforcement people.” Senator John Schmitz, who unsuccessfully opposes the bill, pens an editorial stating: “Members of the National Rifle Association in California should know that their organization, despite its record of opposing gun control bills in the past, favored this bill and that without NRA support it almost certainly would have been defeated.”

Governor Reagan comments that he sees “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons” and characterizes guns as a “ridiculous way to solve problems.” This position contrasts sharply with Reagan’s later staunch opposition to gun control as president and conservative icon. The discrepancy reveals how concerns about armed Black citizens override ideological commitments to gun rights.

The bill passes both the state Assembly and Senate with bipartisan support. The legislation’s passage with NRA backing demonstrates how Second Amendment absolutism has limits when Black Americans exercise gun rights in ways that challenge police authority. The NRA’s support for disarming the Panthers exposes the racial politics underlying gun rights advocacy: defending white gun ownership while supporting restrictions on Black gun ownership.

The National Rifle Association later hardens its stance against any limitations on the right to bear arms during the 1970s and becomes the uncompromising gun rights organization familiar today. However, in 1967, when the Black Panthers emerge as the most militant defenders of the right to bear arms, the NRA takes a very different position—one that prioritizes racial control over consistent Second Amendment principles.

The Mulford Act effectively ends the Panthers’ armed police patrols, eliminating one of the organization’s most visible and effective tactics for challenging police brutality. The legislation demonstrates how the state can rapidly mobilize to restrict constitutional rights when those rights are exercised by Black Americans to challenge racial hierarchies, even when the same restrictions would face fierce opposition if applied to white gun owners.

The episode establishes a pattern of selective enforcement and selective advocacy regarding gun rights. The same politicians and organizations that oppose gun control in general support it when the specific purpose is to disarm Black political organizations. This selective application reveals that commitments to constitutional rights often depend on who exercises them and for what purposes.

The contrast between the Mulford Act’s swift passage with NRA support and the organization’s later absolute opposition to gun control exposes the political and racial calculations underlying gun rights advocacy. When armed white militias or gun owners face restrictions, the NRA characterizes it as tyranny. When armed Black Panthers exercise identical rights, the NRA helps draft legislation to eliminate those rights.

The Mulford Act demonstrates how legal mechanisms can be deployed to neutralize political challenges to racial hierarchy while maintaining plausible deniability about racial motives. The legislation is facially neutral—it applies to all Californians—but its specific purpose and effect is to disarm the Black Panthers. This pattern of facially neutral laws with racially disparate intent and impact becomes a standard tool for maintaining racial control while avoiding explicit racial classification.

Reagan’s signing of the Mulford Act reveals how conservative politicians’ positions on constitutional rights shift based on who exercises them. The same Reagan who supports gun control to disarm Black Panthers later becomes an icon of gun rights advocacy when appealing to predominantly white conservative constituencies. The transformation illustrates how political commitments to constitutional principles are often subordinate to maintaining racial hierarchy and appealing to white voters.