American Legal History

View   r35  >  r34  ...
GunCulture 35 - 20 Apr 2010 - Main.JuliaS
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="WebPreferences"
"Then came, Oscar, the time of the guns.
    And there was no land for a man, no land for a country,
Line: 97 to 97
  * 1756 Chap. IV - "An Act for disarming Papists, and reputed Papists, refusing to take the oaths to the government." [Vol 7, 35-38]
    • III. No Papist or reputed Papist so refusing [to take an oath denying] "shall, or may have, or keep in his house or elsewhere, or in the possession of any other person to his use, or at his disposition, any arms, weapons, gunpowder or ammunition, (other than such necessary weapons as shall be allowed to him, by order of the justices of the peace at their court, for the defence of his house or person) and that any two or more justices of the peace, from time to time, by warrant under their hands and seals, may authorise and impower any person or persons in the day-time, with the assistance of the constables where the search shall be (who is hereby required to be aiding and assisting herein) to search for all arms, weapons, gunpowder or ammunition, which shall be in the house, custody, or possession of any such Papist, or reputed Papist, and seize the same for the use of his majesty and his successors; which said justices of the peace shall from time to time, at the next court to be held for the county, where such seizure shall be made, deliver the said arms, weapons, gunpowder and ammunition, in open court, for the use aforesaid." (36-37) Penalty for violation was three months in jail and forfeiture of arms. (37) Anyone discovering and turning in such a Papist is awarded the value of the arms discovered. (37)
Added:
>
>

Broader Implications

Colonialism and Power

Class, Race and the de facto caste system

Modern Parallels

 
Line: 108 to 118
 
Changed:
<
<

Documents

  • The Colonial Laws of Massachusetts
  • This document contains selections from the Colonial Laws of Massachusetts, 1641 - 1686. Blank pages indicate where parts have been omitted from the original text. The full text can be found at Archive.org.
  • The Blue Laws of Connecticut
  • This document contains selections from the Connecticut Code of 1650, know as the "Blue Laws". Blank pages indicate where parts have been omitted from the original text. The full text can be found at Archive.org.
>
>

Op-ed

A letter to the editor of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, in response to these articles. _________________________________________________

Yesterday you reported on a rally organized in Virginia by gun-rights advocates. As a gun enthusiast who supports responsible gun ownership and sensible gun control regulation, I find this rally and its message disturbing.

The idea that the state is coming to take our guns away is simply false. This is especially true in the commonwealth of Virginia, where just a few months ago the General Assembly passed a bill dramatically scaling back many of the state’s gun control restrictions. We are now among the most liberal states in the country in terms of purchase and carry restrictions.

Things look good for gun-rights advocates on the national level as well. As we await the Supreme Court’s opinion in the case of McDonnell? v. Chicago (which challenges a Chicago gun ban), it should please us to remember that all five Justices who joined the majority opinion in DC v. Heller still sit on the Court today. Heller, of course, was the 2008 case that struck down the DC gun ban and emphatically declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual, rather than collective, right. We have every reason expect that the forthcoming McDonnell? decision will incorporate that right as binding against the states. I get the impression that those attending yesterday’s rally do not understand how huge a coup this is for gun-rights advocates; we will soon be living in a time of unprecedented constitutional protection of the right to bear arms. The man quoted in your article who suggested that the right to bear arms is “in jeopardy of being taken out of our Constitution” could not be more wrong.

Moreover, it behooves us to remember that the right of the state to restrict gun rights in certain ways is an American tradition as deeply-rooted as the general right to bear arms. The General Assembly of Virginia has placed restrictions on the manner and means of arms bearing for nearly 400 years, both before and after the passage of the American Constitution and its second amendment. Who could own guns, where they could bring them, what type of guns were allowed, and how guns could be sold and traded have been matters clearly within the state’s regulatory domain since long before our nation’s founding. In fact, under a 1677 Virginia law – which recognized that the unrestricted liberty to bear arms “hath been found to be very prejudicial to the peace and welfare of this colony” – armed men who assembled in groups of five or more were deemed to be “riotous and mutinous.” During the colonial era, everyone who attended yesterday’s rally could have been arrested for mutiny.

Of course, under our modern laws, the right of yesterday’s protesters to assemble with their arms in tow is fully protected. As it should be. My point is that the so-called founding principle of arms bearing that these people seek to defend was at least as limited during the founding era as it is now. To romanticize gun rights as some kind of fundamental and unfettered freedom throughout American history is a serious misrepresentation of what arms bearing meant to our nation’s founders, and a disservice to those of us who take seriously the traditions of our great democracy.

Finally, even if the fear of losing our gun rights was justified (it's not), and even if gun rights were truly a vital element of the American tradition (they’re not), the rhetoric of yesterday’s rally would still be a completely inappropriate way to respond. Spreading the idea that “we are in a war,” or that “they’re coming for everything because they’re a bunch of socialists” is malicious and irresponsible. That’s the kind of talk that really does incite violence.

Ultimately, I am writing to remind those who attended yesterday’s rally that no one is coming for your guns. Not only that, but our nation wasn’t founded on the principle that you get to carry your gun anywhere you want. It was founded on the principles of open discourse, democratic decision-making, and respect and tolerance for the opinions of our fellow citizens. And when you use the rhetoric of war to oppose some illusory political desire to restrict gun rights, you do a grave injustice the democratic principles of our great nation.

 

-- JuliaS - 25 Oct 2009


Revision 35r35 - 20 Apr 2010 - 21:30:13 - JuliaS
Revision 34r34 - 20 Apr 2010 - 09:52:33 - JuliaS
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM