Mike Irwin
Staff
"In fact in at least cursory web research it seems quite difficult if not imposible to find even a suggestion that regulations of firearms was an accepted idea. (by the founders)."
Many colonies/states and communities had a few laws regulating the possession and carrying of firearms.
In Massachusetts I believe it was illegal to carry a firearm into a house of worship as early as 1800, well within the lifespan of the Framers. Oddly enough, in the early days of the colonies, many had laws specifically REQUIRING those attending church to be armed.
But, in either case, wouldn't requiring either be an infringement? Or are you being infringed upon only when you're told you can't do something, as opposed to being told you must do something?
It was also illegal in many colonies to sell or give firearms to slaves or indians, laws that carried right thorough to the United States. Seems like a violation not only of free choice but also RKBA. But, then again, slaves and indians weren't very human, or so the thinking went.
Obviously, most of the EARLY colonial laws required that colonists be armed and maintain stocks of powder and bullets along with the guns, all of this as a defense against indian attacks. As the threat of indian attack faded, however, these laws grew considerably laxer.
Another obvious "infringement" occurred in the town of Boston when indiscreet discharge of firearms was made illegal in 1714. What the hell is the point of having a gun if you can't shoot at whatever you want?
Clayton Cramer has a discussion on early firearms regulations in America here:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/GunControlColonialNewEngland.PDF
Many colonies/states and communities had a few laws regulating the possession and carrying of firearms.
In Massachusetts I believe it was illegal to carry a firearm into a house of worship as early as 1800, well within the lifespan of the Framers. Oddly enough, in the early days of the colonies, many had laws specifically REQUIRING those attending church to be armed.
But, in either case, wouldn't requiring either be an infringement? Or are you being infringed upon only when you're told you can't do something, as opposed to being told you must do something?
It was also illegal in many colonies to sell or give firearms to slaves or indians, laws that carried right thorough to the United States. Seems like a violation not only of free choice but also RKBA. But, then again, slaves and indians weren't very human, or so the thinking went.
Obviously, most of the EARLY colonial laws required that colonists be armed and maintain stocks of powder and bullets along with the guns, all of this as a defense against indian attacks. As the threat of indian attack faded, however, these laws grew considerably laxer.
Another obvious "infringement" occurred in the town of Boston when indiscreet discharge of firearms was made illegal in 1714. What the hell is the point of having a gun if you can't shoot at whatever you want?
Clayton Cramer has a discussion on early firearms regulations in America here:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/GunControlColonialNewEngland.PDF