5 types of gun laws the Founding Fathers loved

"The framers and adopters of the Second Amendment were generally ardent supporters of the idea of well-regulated liberty. Without strong governments and effective laws, they believed, liberty inevitably degenerated into licentiousness and eventually anarchy.

"Consider these five categories of gun laws that the Founders endorsed:

"1. Registration...

"All of the colonies — apart from Quaker-dominated Pennsylvania, the one colony in which religious pacifists blocked the creation of a militia — enrolled local citizens, white men between the ages of 16-60 in state-regulated militias. The colonies and then the newly independent states kept track of these privately owned weapons required for militia service.

"2. Public carry...

"The American colonies inherited a variety of restrictions that evolved under English Common Law. In 18th-century England, armed travel was limited to a few well-defined occasions such as assisting justices of the peace and constables.Members of the upper classes also had a limited exception to travel with arms. Concealable weapons such as handguns were subject to even more stringent restrictions. The city of London banned public carry of these weapons entirely.

"The American Revolution did not sweep away English common law. In fact, most colonies adopted common law as it had been interpreted in the colonies prior to independence, including the ban on traveling armed in populated areas. Thus, there was no general right of armed travel when the Second Amendment was adopted, and certainly no right to travel with concealed weapons. Such a right first emerged in the United States in the slave South decades after the Second Amendment was adopted. The market revolution of the early 19th century made cheap and reliable hand guns readily available. Southern murder rates soared as a result....

"3. Stand-your-ground laws

"Under traditional English common law, one had a duty to retreat, not stand your ground. Deadly force was justified only if no other alternative was possible. One had to retreat, until retreat was no longer possible, before killing an aggressor....

4. Safe storage laws

"Although some gun rights advocates attempt to demonize government power, it is important to recognize that one of the most important rights citizens enjoy is the freedom to elect representatives who can enact laws to promote health and public safety. This is the foundation for the idea of ordered liberty....

"In 1786, Boston acted on this legal principle, prohibiting the storage of a loaded firearm in any domestic dwelling in the city. Guns had to be kept unloaded, a practice that made sense since the black powder used in firearms in this period was corrosive....

5. Loyalty oaths...

"In fact, the Founders engaged in large-scale disarmament of the civilian population during the American Revolution. The right to bear arms was conditional on swearing a loyalty oath to the government. Individuals who refused to swear such an oath were disarmed."
https://www.hcn.org/articles/guns-five-types-of-gun-laws-that-the-founding-fathers-loved

The modern opposition to gun control appears to be more recent in origin than some would like to admit.

 

Wow. That's a lot of revisionist history for one article.

 

"XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state"

Pennsyvania's state constitution of 1776, affirming the individual right to keep and bear arms. Suck that, Quakers.

 

he's unable to comprehend federal vs state powers. he also cannot understand there is a difference between registering what a militia needs vs what else members own

 

All we have to do is look at #4 in your examples.

The storage requirements were for the POWDER because it was EXPLOSIVE, not "corrosive" as you tried to claim.

They did it to stop fires.

Please continue with your fictional tale.

 

Black powder is both corrosive and explosive as the article accurately acknowledges. It absorbs moisture from the air which makes it corrosive. Regardless, the point is that Americans of that era were okay with gun storage laws.

 

It's not revisionist history. A well-respected historian who has done years of research on the matter wrote the article.

 

Modern powder and ammunition isn't subject to the same issues that black powder is.

 

And yet neither you nor your article cited the actual reason black powder storage was controlled, for obvious reasons.

And no, they weren't controlling guns, they were controlling fire.

 

Regardless, there are other valid concerns about the safe storage of guns such as children being able to easily access the guns of their parents.

 

You're just playing word games.

 

The Bill of Rights was ratified in late 1791. That is the pivotal juncture for gun rights.

1 thru 5 above pre-date the enumerated right to bear arms.

 

I'm not playing anything. You are. Allow me to give you an example.

You, and the author, tried to present the storage requirements of powder as a form of gun control, when it was anything but.

As usual, lies through omission is the gun banner's meat and potatoes.

Allow me to show you an example. You see, I do my research.

The story you're referencing in your OP doesn't include a link.

I went and found it.

https://theconversation.com/five-types-of-gun-laws-the-founding-fathers-loved-85364

Clearly, you edited the story to remove the note regarding the fire hazards.

Here's the paragraph in the actual story, and highlighted are the parts you intentionally omitted when you posted your little story.

#4: Safe storage laws

Although some gun rights advocates attempt to demonize government power, it is important to recognize that one of the most important rights citizens enjoy is the freedom to elect representatives who can enact laws to promote health and public safety. This is the foundation for the idea of ordered liberty. The regulation of gun powder and firearms arises from an exercise of this basic liberty.


In 1786, Boston acted on this legal principle, prohibiting the storage of a loaded firearm in any domestic dwelling in the city. Guns had to be kept unloaded, a practice that made sense since the black powder used in firearms in this period was corrosive. Loaded guns also posed a particular hazard in cases of fire because they might discharge and injure innocent bystanders and those fighting fires.

Modern firearms do not represent this hazard, because modern ammunition doesn't have this problem.

 

Not to mention that firearms weren't really as useful as a good axe or knife at that time, which is what most carried for self defense purposes.

 

So guns were controlled because they could discharge in case of a fire. You're still playing dishonest word games if you're trying to argue that that somehow is not gun control.

 

Nope. They do the same thing today. In WA if you have more than 50 lbs of gunpowder (black or smokeless or both) it has to be stored in an approved container.

Because they're worried about explosions. Not crime.

 

I was hoping you would bring that up.

Please explain how a gun could discharge in a fire in colonial time. Did a fire manually crank the striker back and pull the trigger?

 

Did colonials store their guns loaded?

Were colonials limited in the types and numbers of guns they could own?

 

And of course, here's the real reason.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/Safety Regulation in Early America.html

A careful reading of the statute, however, reveals that its purpose was not a general ban on loaded guns in Boston, but leaving unloaded guns unattended in buildings. The preamble to the law explains: "Whereas the depositing of loaded arms in the houses of the town of Boston, is dangerous to the lives of those who are disposed to exert themselves when a fire happens to break out in the said town...."8 The text does not prohibit carrying loaded firearms within the city of Boston--only taking them into a building--and one could infer from the preamble, the law only prohibited depositing loaded firearms in buildings. As the preamble makes clear, this law was for the protection of those fighting fires, not to prevent criminal misuse of guns, and certainly not to prevent citizens from defending themselves on the streets. Unloading a flintlock firearm (except by firing it) was a considerably more tedious task than with a metallic cartridge weapon. It is easy to see why the city felt that it was appropriate to require guns not be kept loaded and unattended, especially because Boston had little crime at the time--and I suspect few, if any, home invasions.

 

The infantry at that time was not commanded to aim prior to firing, but to level [your weapon]. That was good enough for government work with a musket. The bayonet probably killed more men than balls did.

 

It would have been hard to aim without sights anyway

 

Some times I barely understand what is going on here discussion wise, Guns with no sights ?

 

Only "well-respected" by gun banners. His "research" is bunk.

 

Not "no sights" per se; but muskets like the Brown Bess were not aimed in the traditional sense because they were smoothbore. They were generally pointed in the general direction of the enemy by the front row of soldiers and fired en masse. Hitting a man-sized target at 50 yards was a challenge.

The Brown Bess does have something on the barrel that looks like a rudimentary "sight" but it turns out it was actually used to facilitate the standard method for soldiers to stack their muskets together for quick retrieval while in camp.

Rifles, on the other hand, such as the Pennsylvania rifles, obviously had sights and were very accurate, but they were much slower to reload than the average musket because the ball was just dropped down the barrel of the musket and tamped onto the powder, while the rifle's bullet had to be forced down the rifling to the powder.

 

Colonial weapons of the time didn't have sights.