Gun Laws in Early America: The Regulation of Firearms Ownership, 1607–1794

1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 567-589 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Bellesiles
Keyword(s):  
The Self ◽  
Early America ◽  
Gun Ownership ◽  
Original Intent ◽  
James I ◽  
Early American ◽  
Second Amendment ◽  
Official Position ◽  
Gun Laws ◽  
The Right

King James I stated the official position of the English governing elite on gun ownership succinctly. When it was suggested that more of England's subjects should enjoy the right to hunt and own firearms, James responded that “it is not fit that clowns should have these sports.”Discussion of early American gun laws begins with consideration of the English legal heritage. In the last few years, adherents of the self-described “standard model” of the meaning of the Second Amendment have constructed a paradigm of an uninterrupted tradition of legally sanctioned individual gun ownership in America. Such a construction starts with the idea that the British brought an acceptance of the universal ownership of firearms with them to the Americas. That cultural norm gave form to the meaning of the Second Amendment, which institutionalized an individual right to bear arms for purposes of personal and communal defense and as a security against a tyrannical government. This history matters greatly to these scholars in establishing an original intent in the Second Amendment to protect an individual's right to own guns.

Mandatory Gun Ownership, the Militia Census of 1806, and Background Assumptions concerning the Early American Right to Arms: A Cautious Response to Robert Churchill

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 187-196
Author(s):  
William G. Merkel
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Substantial Contribution ◽  
Early America ◽  
Gun Ownership ◽  
Early Nineteenth Century ◽  
Early American ◽  
Second Amendment ◽  
Early National ◽  
The Right ◽  
Over Time

In “Gun Ownership in Early America,” published in theWilliam and Mary Quarterlyin 2003, Robert Churchill drew on probate inventories and militia records to make the case that arms ownership was pervasive in late colonial, revolutionary, and early national America. Churchill concluded with the observation that “[i]t is time to ponder what these guns meant to their owners and how that meaning changed over time.” In his substantial contribution to this volume ofLaw and History Review, Churchill takes up that challenge himself and advances the claim that widespread arms ownership engendered a sense of possessory entitlement, and that this notion of right informed constitutional sensibilities respecting guns and the Second Amendment. He acknowledges that a civic republican understanding focused on the militia was central to the framers' conception of the right to arms, but urges that another stream of discourse—individualistic, personal, and divorced from militia linked obligations—was present from the beginning. By the early nineteenth century, Churchill argues, this purely private view of the right to arms had become ascendant.

The Right to Bear Arms

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh Lafollette
Keyword(s):  
Gun Control ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Moral Issue ◽  
Gun Ownership ◽  
Second Amendment ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
The Right ◽  
Proper Interpretation

I summarize the most prominent arguments for a right to bear arms; then I evaluate them. Many ordinary citizens claim that this right is fundamental. They often cite the Second Amendment to the US Constitution to support their contention. I briefly discuss the Supreme Court’s ruling on the proper interpretation of this amendment. I show that even though it is thought to support pro-gun advocates, it is expressly compatible with a wide variety of gun control measures. It is also tangential to the moral issue. I then explore two philosophical arguments that the right to bear arms is fundamental I focus on the more common and most promising argument: private gun ownership is a vital means of self-defense. I evaluate these arguments. None are wholly convincing.

scholarly journals The Law and Politics of Firearms Regulation in Reconstruction Texas

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-122
Author(s):  
Mark Anthony Frassetto
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
Historical Record ◽  
Racial Violence ◽  
Texas History ◽  
Second Amendment ◽  
Law And Politics ◽  
Narrow View ◽  
Gun Laws ◽  
The Right

In District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Scalia instructed that the historical understanding of the right to keep and bear arms should inform our present day understanding of the Second Amendment. This means an accurate accounting of the history of firearms regulation is essential for understanding the scope of the Second Amendment. The current state of scholarship on Second Amendment history paints post-Civil War firearms regulations as racist efforts by Southern states to prevent blacks from defending themselves against racial violence. This reading distorts the historical record by ignoring the actors responsible for numerous gun laws across the former Confederacy. This article is, in part, a response to such inaccurate accounts. More fundamentally, this article provides an in-depth account of the political views of the Republican Unionists, who followed their ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment with strict regulation on publicly carrying firearms to protect freedmen from racial violence. This article’s account of Texas history makes clear that the Republican Unionists who ratified the Fourteenth Amendment held a narrow view of the right to carry firearms in public, and believed public carry could be broadly regulated. By contrast, it was the Southern Democrats — who had fought relentlessly against the Fourteenth Amendment after losing the Civil War — who advocated an expansive view of the right to carry guns in public, a view which gun rights proponents continue to espouse today.

Early American Gun Regulation and the Second Amendment: A Closer Look at the Evidence

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 197-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saul Cornell
Keyword(s):  
The State ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
State Control ◽  
Collective Rights ◽  
Early American ◽  
Second Amendment ◽  
New Variant ◽  
American Law ◽  
Ardent Supporter ◽  
The Right

The scholarly debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment and the scope of gun regulation has been marred by ideological distortions. Michael Bellesiles, an ardent supporter of collective rights theory, argued that state control over weapons was virtually unlimited. Now Robert Churchill, a champion of individual rights theory, stakes out an equally bold position. In his view, a distinct and separate right to keep arms evolved under American law. According to this new variant of individual rights theory, the state might regulate bearing arms, but it was prohibited from regulating the right to keep arms.

Why Regulate Guns?

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (S4) ◽  
pp. 11-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reva B. Siegel ◽  
Joseph Blocher
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Public Safety ◽  
District Of Columbia ◽  
Social Good ◽  
The Public ◽  
Second Amendment ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Gun Laws ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Right

Courts reviewing gun laws that burden Second Amendment rights ask how effectively the laws serve public safety — yet typically discuss public safety narrowly, without considering the many dimensions of that interest gun laws serve. “Public safety” is a social good: it includes the public's interest in physical safety as a good in itself, and as a foundation for community and for the exercise of constitutional liberties. Gun laws protect bodies from bullets — and Americans' freedom and confidence to participate in every domain of our shared life, whether to attend school, to shop, to listen to a concert, to gather for prayer, or to assemble in peaceable debate. Courts must enforce the Second Amendment in ways that respect the public health and constitutional reasons a democracy seeks to protect public safety. Lawyers and citizen advocates can help, by creating a richer record of their reasons in seeking to enact laws regulating guns. This inquiry is urgent at a time when the Supreme Court's new conservative majority may expand restrictions on gun laws beyond the right to keep arms for self-defense in the home first recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008.

Gun Regulation, the Police Power, and the Right to Keep Arms in Early America: The Legal Context of the Second Amendment

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert H. Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Early America ◽  
Police Power ◽  
The North ◽  
Second Amendment ◽  
Legal Context ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Town

On April 19, 1775, the town of Concord, Massachusetts was the scene of an interesting confrontation. After the militia of Concord and the surrounding towns had driven the British back from the North Bridge, some of the militiamen began to disperse. The wife of Nathan Barrett, captain of one of Concord's militia companies, spotted one of her husband's men skedaddling home. She went out of her house to confront him, and when he explained that he was feeling ill, she responded that he must not take his gun with him. When he replied simply, “Yes, I shall,” she exclaimed, “No, stop, I must have it.” The militiaman refused and began to walk off. Mrs. Barrett gave chase, but her quarry was too quick.

Where Are the History Books for Palestinian Children?

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemary Sayigh
Keyword(s):  
Native Americans ◽  
The Self ◽  
Educational Systems ◽  
Refugee Camps ◽  
Culturally Relevant Education ◽  
Palestinian Children ◽  
The Right ◽  
Authentic Curriculum ◽  
History Books ◽  
Relevant Education

Colonialism deprives colonised peoples of the self-determined histories needed for continued struggle. Scattered since 1948 across diverse educational systems, Palestinians have been unable to control their education or construct an authentic curriculum. This paper covers varied schooling in the Palestinian diaspora. I set this state of ‘splitting through education’ as contradictory to international declarations of the right of colonised peoples to culturally relevant education. Such education would include histories that explain their situation, and depict past resistances. I argue for the production of histories of Palestine for Palestinian children, especially those in refugee camps as well as in Israel and Jerusalem, where curricula are controlled by the settler-coloniser. Black and Native Americans have dealt with exclusion from history in ways that offer models for Palestinians.

Guns on Campus: Surveying a rugged post-Heller/ McDonald landscape

2013 ◽  
Vol 45 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 77-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leif Magne Lervik
Keyword(s):  
Local Governments ◽  
Public Colleges ◽  
Concealed Weapons ◽  
Second Amendment ◽  
Academic History ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Public Colleges And Universities ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S

In June 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees an individual the right to keep and bear arms. Two years later, this decision was also made applicable to state and local governments. Today, seven U.S. states have provisions allowing the carrying of concealed weapons on their public senior high school campuses. This article, introduced by a brief comment on the Second Amendment’s legal and academic history, traces several recent developments of legal change. It discusses relevant arguments and attitudes towards guns on campus, and explores issues of future concern for public colleges and universities within the realm of firearms and campus safety.

The Dynamic Free Speech Clause

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Zick
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Relational Dynamics ◽  
Free Exercise ◽  
Second Amendment ◽  
The Press ◽  
The Common ◽  
Rights Discourse ◽  
The Right ◽  
Speech Clause

This book examines the relational dynamics between the U.S. Constitution’s Free Speech Clause and other constitutional rights. The free speech guarantee has intersected with a variety of other constitutional rights. Those intersections have significantly influenced the recognition, scope, and meaning of rights ranging from freedom of the press to the Second Amendment right to bear arms. They have also influenced interpretation of the Free Speech Clause itself. Free speech principles and doctrines have facilitated the recognition and effective exercise of constitutional rights, including equal protection, the right to abortion, and the free exercise of religion. They have also provided mediating principles for constructive debates about constitutional rights. At the same time, in its interactions with other constitutional rights, the Free Speech Clause has also been a complicating force. It has dominated rights discourse and subordinated or supplanted free press, assembly, petition, and free exercise rights. Currently, courts and commentators are fashioning the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in the image of the Free Speech Clause. Borrowing the Free Speech Clause for this purpose may turn out to be detrimental for both rights. The book examines the common and distinctive dynamics that have brought free speech and other constitutional rights together. It assesses the products and consequences of these intersections, and draws important lessons from them about constitutional rights and constitutional liberty. Ultimately, the book defends a pluralistic conception of constitutional rights that seeks to leverage the power of the Free Speech Clause but also to tame its propensity to subordinate, supplant, and eclipse other constitutional rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document