I know it's unbelievable, but I actually just did. The Ordinary (now called the Probate Judge) to this day is the party who issues carry permits in Georgia, unlike every other state where a Sheriff or a state body issues them. The prohibition on carrying to a "public gathering" is another example of such a law still on the books (and still enforced) today.
There are, of course, more recent "gun control" laws that disproportionately affect minorities, although it is no longer permissible to explicitly state that such is their intent. Bans on so-called "Saturday night specials" (the very term being racist) serve to disarm primarily the poor, a larger percentage of whom are minorities. These laws generally do not disarm criminals, who steal their weapons or obtain them illegally on the street and so prefer larger-caliber high-quality weapons like Glocks or S&Ws. So the main target of these laws is law-abiding poor people, who are disproportionately minorities.
Another example: the so-called "assault weapons ban" targeted the type of weapon most useful for self-defense in a situation of civil disorder or rioting. You may recall during the Rodney King riots seeing the Korean shopkeepers defending their stores with ARs; those were the stores that survived. That type of civil disorder doesn't strike in the suburbs of Mayberry; it occurs in areas that are overwhelmingly populated by minorities. I would be surprised if you could find a large-scale civil disturbance in the U.S. in the past 50 years that didn't occur in a majority-minority area.
You seem to be working under the misapprehension that for a policy to have a racist or biased background or overtones, it needs to explicitly state that it applies only to a given race, and that it is enforced exclusively against members of a given race. Neither is true, and Jim Crow laws aren't acceptable today just because they get enforced against some white folks now too.
That would be like saying that treating far more sickle cell anemia cases among black people [who in fact are afflicted with that condition then other races in far greater numbers than any other race] makes treating more blacks with that ailment a racist thing to do.
You seem to be working under the misapprehension that for a policy to have a racist or biased background or overtones, it needs to explicitly state that it applies only to a given race, and that it is enforced exclusively against members of a given race.
If you want to discuss this mess with me, please read what I say, and naot twist it all out of shape. I DID NOT say anything that could possibly be construed as meaning anything close to that nonsense.
Neither is true,....
At least that makes sense.
... and Jim Crow laws aren't acceptable today just because they get enforced against some white folks now too.
No, honest to God, I an not that damned dumb, even if you think I am. I became aware of their unconscionability many years before I finished High School in Virginia; and way long before I took to court my first case against the bigotry and racism of those extremely cruel laws. In fact I was fighting against that asinine cruelty probably before you were even a gleam in your daddy's eye.
You seem to be working under the misapprehension that for a policy to have a racist or biased background or overtones, it needs to explicitly state that it applies only to a given race, and that it is enforced exclusively against members of a given race. Neither is true, and Jim Crow laws aren't acceptable today just because they get enforced against some white folks now too.