Colonial Firearm Regulation

saf.org ^ | Clayton E. Cramer

[WhiskeyX]

Colonial Firearm Regulation Clayton E. Cramer Recently published scholarship concerning the regulation of firearms in Colonial America claims that because Colonial governments distrusted the free population with guns, the laws required guns to be stored centrally, and were not generally allowed in private hands. According to this view, even those guns allowed in private hands were always considered the property of the government. This Article examines the laws of the American colonies and demonstrates that at least for the free population, gun control laws were neither laissez-faire nor restrictive. If Colonial governments evinced any distrust of the free population concerning guns, it was a fear that not enough freemen would own and carry guns. Thus, the governments imposed mandatory gun ownership and carriage laws.

[....]

I. THE LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF COLONIAL FIREARM REGULATION TODAY In much the same way that an understanding of the limits of free speech in Colonial America may provide insights into the intent of Congress and the states when they adopted the First Amendment, so an understanding of colonial firearms regulation has the potential to illuminate our understanding of the limits of the right protected by the Second Amendment. What types of firearms laws were common, and might therefore have been considered within the legitimate scope of governmental regulation? In the last several years, widely publicized scholarship by Michael Bellesiles has asserted that the English colonies strictly regulated the individual possession and use of firearms. While acknowledging that the English government ordered the colonists to own firearms for the public defense as a cost-cutting measure, he asserts:

[....]

An examination of the Colonial statutes reveals that, contrary to Bellesiles‟s claim of distrusted and disarmed freemen, almost all colonies required white adult men to possess firearms and ammunition.

[....]

[strings6459]

It is pre-revolution and reflects the policy of our English masters.

[Quality_Not_Quantity]

So, at what point in Colonial America did these regulations promulgate? If before the Revolutionary War, I might view them as resulting from British fears of armed uprising.

[reg45]

And we dumped those Colonial governments in 1776. Today, we have 0bama usurping powers and ruling as if he were Louis XVI.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

bkmk

[WhiskeyX]

“It is pre-revolution and reflects the policy of our English masters.”

That is very incorrect. The concept of having police forces was an uncommon concept in those periods of history. The legal principle of hue and cry was common to most Western societies, and not just the English/British. This was particularly true of the American colonists regardless of whether they were English, French, Spanish, Dutch, or Swede. The colonists were expected to defend themselves against raids by other Europeans and by the Amerindian tribes. So much so, there were laws regarding the requirement to come to church with their arms mandated by law. These laws continued after the Revolutionary War had ended.

[WhiskeyX]

“So, at what point in Colonial America did these regulations promulgate?”

These laws have origins going back into the ancient eras. The Anglo Saxon fyrd preceding the invasion and conquest of England by William the Conqueror of Normandy in 1066, the conquest of the Danelaw in Britain, the Romano-Celt resistance to the Anglo-Saxon invasions, the Celts, the Romans, the ancient Greek city states, and so on back in time.

[Lion Den Dan]

I did not know about this until now buit have often advocated for such laws today. In fact, in support of women’s rights, I would include them in the requirement to be armed. Further, were I king, one would be required to be armed in order to travel including on public transportation.

[WhiskeyX]

It should also be recalled that the right to vote, suffrage, was limited to White males who owned real property. Along with that right to vote came the duty to serve in the unorganized militia, keep, and bear arms, even to church.