Not bad, but I don’t know about this “carried in a coat” business. Certain very wealthy individuals owned their own cannon at the time of the Revolution. Nor were they carried in coats!!
Halbrook has very foolishly gone down a false trail here and is in deep doo-doo if some anti-gunner challenges him on it.
"to wear; name; to bear arms in a coat"; refers to the other meaning of "bear arms - the right to display a coat of arms"
Of course in essence the granting of a coat of arms was equivalent to an unrestricted carry license - it gave the holder the right to carry whatever arms they chose, wherever and under what circumstances they chose (and granted a similar right to all their acknowledged descendants in perpetuity)
Those not possessing "a coat of arms" - ie commoners, could be charged if suspected of carrying for unlawful purpose, ie poaching or engaged in insurrection (gentlefolk could shoot whatever game they liked and had to be charged with treason)
However all men were required to keep militia arms under common law
By the Assize of Arms of 1181, Henry II required all free men to possess arms, according to their class.2Edward's 1285 Statute of Westminster also extended those militia obligations to the "un-free" - Villeins and SerfsBut the militia had police duties as well as military. In 1285, Edward required "that every man shall have in his house arms for keeping the peace according to the ancient assize," and holding himself ready for service when summoned. Edward also provided for biannual inspection of those arms.3
Were cannon very expensive at the time of the Civil War?