Posted on 06/23/2002 4:17:27 PM PDT by Pharmboy
There have been several threads here on FreeRepublic about the author/liar Michael Bellesiles and his "book" Arming America: The Origins of the Gun Culture where the claim is made that gun ownership at the time of the American Revolution was relatively rare. I have come across an interesting refutation of this from an unlikely source.
For Father’s Day this year my son gave me ”A Few Bloody Noses” by Robert Harvey, the subtitle of which is The Realities and Mythologies of the American Revolution.
Early on, Harvey attempts to set the mood on both sides of the Atlantic. He quotes from a letter written by a British patriot-sympathizer, William Gerard Hamilton, who was Secretary for Ireland at the time. Harvey does not supply a date for the letter. Here is an excerpt from the text (p. 77):
As to America, I wish we may not burn our fingers, and do our enemies’ work for them, by quarreling among ourselves. There are, in the different provinces, about a million of people, of which we may suppose at least 200,000 men able to bear arms; and not only able to bear arms, but having arms in their possession, unrestrained by any iniquitous Game Act. In the Massachusetts government particularly, there is an express law, by which every man is obliged to have a musket, a pound of powder, and a pound of bullets always by him: so there is nothing wanting but knapsacks (or old stockings which will do as well) to equip an army for marching, and nothing more than a Sartorius or a Spartacus at their head requisite to beat your troops and your custom-house officers out of the country, and set your laws at defiance.
Harvey makes no reference to it in the text, but I would imagine--as you have--that it had something to do with firearms being allowed only to persons who had a legitimate right to hunt game. But it's only a guess...
See US v. Emmerson for an exact citation. (available on GOA, eg).
Old gun books don't question the extent of ownership during that era.
I inherited a French made flintlock pistol, manufactured circa 1778. The gun is in fair condition. The cost of reconditioning it to 'good' condition was $800.00. The appraisal for this gun in good condition was $400.00.
I asked why only $400.00. The answer was, these aren't rare, there are too many around.
Charles had been following a policy of disarmament "by successive steps" with "a train of enterprizes."[48] But despite the prohibitions Charles had enacted, politically and religiously correct subjects were still allowed to own registered guns. This situation changed, however, with the Game Act of 1671.[49] The initiative for the Act came from Parliament, rather than the King, but he insisted that it be vigorously enforced (p. 56).
This from:
| IT ISN'T ABOUT DUCK HUNTING: THE BRITISH ORIGINS OF THE RIGHT TO ARMS, David Kopel, Second Amendment, Gun Control, Joyce |
I never knew that "gun control" laws started that early in the British Isles. Very interesting.
"In England the older statutes relating to game were all repealed early in the 19th century. From the time of Richard II. (1389) to 1831, no person might kill game unless qualified by estate or social standing, a qualification raised from a 405. freehold in 1389 to an interest of £100 a year in freehold or ~I5o in long leaseholds (1673). In 1831 this qualification by estate was abolished as to England. "
From this site, http://50.1911encyclopedia.org/G/GA/GAME_LAWS.htm
The American colonists exercised their right to bear arms under the English Bill of Rights. Indeed, the English government’s success in luring Englishmen to America was due in part to pledges that the immigrants and their children would continue to possess "all the rights of natural subjects, as if born and abiding in England." MALCOLM, supra, at 138. As in England, the colonial militia played primarily a defensive role, with armies of volunteers organized whenever a campaign was necessary. Id. at 139. Statutes in effect bore evidence of an individual right to bear arms during colonial times. For example, a 1640 Virginia statute required "all masters of families" to furnish themselves and "all those of their families which shall be capable of arms . . . with arms both offensive and defensive." Id. (citing THE OLD DOMINION IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY: A DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF VIRGINIA, 1606-1689, at 172 (Warren M. Billings ed., 1975). A 1631 Virginia law required "all men that are fittinge to beare armes, shall bring their pieces to church . . . for drill and target practice." Hardy, supra, at 588 (quoting 1 WILLIAM W. HENING, THE STATUTES AT LARGE: BEING A COLLECTION OF ALL THE LAWS OF VIRGINIA FROM THE FIRST SESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE IN THE YEAR 1619, at 173-74 (reprint. 1969) (1823). These laws served the twofold purpose of providing individual self-defense while giving England a reserve force available in time of war. Murley, supra, at 20.
From SAF's Files.
What a nice way to introduce yourself. Not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.