For the second time in one week the Washington Post has found a group of armed citizens that are acceptable to the paper’s reporters and editors, which makes me wonder if Jeff Bezos’ edict to start promoting personal liberties on the editorial side is also being heeded by the newsroom.

Earlier this week the Post offered a positive portrayal of trans gun owners, many of whom have decided to pick up a gun after the election of Donald Trump. Now the paper is casting an approving eye towards those residents of Lincoln Heights, Ohio who’ve started to open carry rifles after a group of neo-Nazis marched on the town several weeks ago. 

Many of the town’s residents are adamant that taking up arms is the only solution, even as some have questioned whether they want their neighbors taking advantage of Ohio’s open-carry law to begin an armed watch program.

“An American individual protecting his homeland with a firearm — I thought that was the most American thing that we [could] do,” said Daronce Daniels, a spokesman for the newly formed Lincoln Heights Safety and Watch Program, which coordinates the guards.

Well, community self-defense is certainly a part of the American tradition of gun ownership, particularly when it comes to defending against race-based attacks. As U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn wrote in his recent decision striking down the bulk of the gun and magazine bans included in the Protect Illinois Communities Act: 

Too often, the perils we face are forced upon us by other people. By people who are negligent, reckless, insane, impaired, or evil. Sometimes it is the proverbial lone wolf; sometimes, it is the whole wolf pack. Truly, life comes at you quickly. And who comes to our aid in times of peril? Sometimes, it is the police or first responders; other times it is healthcare professionals; and sometimes it is family, friends, or neighbors. Sometimes, it is no one. 

Many residents in Lincoln Heights say local law enforcement wasn’t proactive enough when the neo-Nazis came to town, though it’s not clear that they actually did anything that would have led to arrests or criminal charges. Racists have rights too, including the right to publicly protest and spew their vitriol. But throughout U.S. history, and particularly since the days of Reconstruction, the Black tradition of arms and community self-defense has regularly been exercised; a fact that McGlynn highlighted in his decision. 

At the conclusion of the bench trial on September 19, 2024, this Court invited the parties to tour the twenty-four sacred sites of the East St. Louis Race Riot of 1917. Some of those sitesare adjacent to the federal courthouse, either across the street or within a few blocks. Heading into the July 4, 1917 celebration of Independence Day, racist impulses ignited a several-day pogrom to kill Blacks. Over one hundred Black men, women, and children were killed, lynched, burned alive, and drowned. Thousands were dispossessed of their homes. The National Guard was present but did not actively suppress the pogrom until the third day. 

Worth noting is Sacred Site #5, where white rioters killing and burning houses approached 10th and Trendley Avenue. There, several armed Blacks took up sniper positions. After a few shots were fired, the white mob retreated. 

Sacred Site #11 is a place where “over 100 African American barricadedthemselves in two homes.” “They were armed and resisted the white rioters—so much that the rioters complained to the Illinois National Guard standing nearby.” “An officer lectured the rioters, ‘they are playing the game the way you are.’ He arranged a cease-fire and the African Americans were escorted to St. Louis.” 

Pleading for mercy because one is innocent, unarmed, and under-armed is, sadly, too often a losing strategy in confrontation, especially when the confrontation is catalyzed by evil, hatred, or psychosis. Disarming law-abiding citizens does not also bring about happy endings. Disarming law-abiding citizens does not inoculate us from the evil, hatred, and psychosis or from the tyranny of others.

For the most part, the armed citizens of Lincoln Heights are acting within their rights and as part of the national tradition of gun ownership by bearing arms in defense of their community. The only issue that I have is the fact that at least some of these armed citizens are actively stopping cars driving into the village and questioning those inside about their intentions. The Second Amendment protects our right to protect ourselves and our communities, but it doesn’t empower us to block traffic or keep people out of public right of ways. Those actions are as annoying and illegal as climate change protesters shutting down traffic by lying down on the interstate, and are not only counterproductive but could lead to these community defenders facing criminal charges of their own.

It’s good to see the Washington Post acknowledging to any degree at all that the Second Amendment is a good thing to have in place. Now the paper just needs to follow this line of thinking to its natural conclusion: the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a boon and benefit to both individual liberty and public safety… and is worth defending, just like the communities we call home.