U.S. Founding Included Gun Control
In yesterday’s article, I mentioned that governments always want more gun control. One reader commented: “don’t know that ALL our past governments wanted more gun control. as a matter of fact, i don’t believe gun control was much of a big deal (knowing our country’s gun slinging past) until of late, historically speaking. [sic]”
Some well-meaning, pro-rights readers nevertheless need to review history, which brings us to today’s lesson.
I reiterate: Governments will always want more gun control, because there will always be this us/them bias that somehow pervades the human condition. That’s true even before America became…America.
Here’s some examples:
Joseph J. Ellis, in his George Washington biography His Excellency: George Washington, wrote about gun control attitudes during the Revolution. Presuming that patriotic fervor would provide plenty of enlistments for the Continental Army during the Revolution, Black slaves and freemen were not allowed to enlist. But once it became clear that there would not be enough volunteers, George Washington became more conciliatory and gave Blacks permission to join the army.
This is a key concept, because Washington hailed from Virginia, where a 1640 militia law excluded Blacks as an excuse to ban gun ownership: “All persons except negroes to be provided with arms and ammunition or be fined at pleasure of the Governor and Council.” This law was expanded in 1723 to include other people besides Blacks: “no negro, mulatto, or Indian whatsoever; (except as hereafter excepted) shall hereafter presume to keep, or carry any gun…”
Even after the Revolution, this desire to keep Blacks out of the military–and prevent Black gun ownership–persisted. For example, the Militia Act of 1792 allowed only whites to enroll:
[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years… shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia…every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock…
This all set the stage for Antebellum black codes, which further restricted firearms ownership for all but white Americans, which according to some states, were America’s only citizens.
From their inception, our federal and state governments promoted gun control as a way to control undesirables, in this case Blacks. And that’s why there will always be government-sponsored gun control, because there’s always somebody the government feels is a threat to its existence, as noted in yesterday’s piece.
(For more details, see 400 Years of Gun Control: Why Isn’t It Working? Also available in Amazon Kindle lending library.)
And on the opposite end of the spectrum males of age could be fined if they did not own a rifle. So much for gun control.
Actually, fining somebody for not owning a rifle is still a government mandate. Government regulation on guns is gun control. You don’t address the issue of black bans.
If you search for an exceptional condition that counters the rule, it’s just an excuse to ignore the majority of the evidence. Wouldn’t go far in a fair debate.
So much for not being gun control.
“For example, the Militia Act of 1792 allowed only whites to enroll:”
Not allowed, required.
And not of the individuals volition, but by the actions of the officers under the authority of the State.
“This law was expanded in 1723 to include other people besides Blacks: “no negro, mulatto, or Indian whatsoever; (except as hereafter excepted) shall hereafter presume to keep, or carry any gun…””
But do you note the “(except as hereafter excepted)” conditions?
XV, Provided nevertheless, That every free negro, mullatto, or indian, being a house-keeper, or listed in the militia, may be permitted to keep one gun, powder, and shot; . . .
And that all negros, mullattos, or indians, bond or free, living at any frontier plantation, be permitted to keep and use guns, powder, and shot, or other weaponss, offensive or defensive; having first obtained a licence for the same, from some justice of the peace of the county wherein such plantations lie; the said licence to be had and obtained, upon the application of such free negros, mullattos, or indians, or fo the owner or owners of such as are slave; any thing herein contained to the contrary thereof, in any wise, notwithstanding.
Definitely a race based limitation, but significantly less than a complete ban, including a “shall issue permit” for dangerous regions, and a definitive exemption for homeowners.
Good point, but you also see there’s a race-based limitation. Only some blacks allowed. Government says. That’s gun control. Otherwise, any Black could own a gun, independent of militia service, like they can today.
Oh, absolutely.
The thing is noting the context to prevent subversion of the point.
For example:
With the militia law, while it only applies to “whites”, the mandate is the more critical element. Otherwise one could argue that the 1903? version of the law is discriminatory against women because it only automatically enrolls men in the unorganized militia.
It should also be noted that the mandate to own a gun in the 1792 Militia Law came with a permanent exemption, both public and private, for it. NOBODY could take that gun from you; not the government for taxes, not your creditors for debts.
One might consider a more general application of that to be a useful thing.
If you consider the context of the time with women being unable to vote, perhaps it is reasonable to consider the militia act update sexist. After all, my research found that after their gun bans went into effect, rape in the UK and Australia skyrocketed. Since American gun control is the history of government-supported oppression, it’s not a reach to consider oppression of women as part of locking them out of the Second Amendment as well as the political process.
In any case, I don’t see the message being subverted. Gun control always benefits some at the expense of others, and that remains the case with changing gun control laws.
Also, if you study the exceptions, you will find they tend towards “useful Blacks.” In other words, if the Black in question was serving Whites in some useful manner (e.g. protecting the plantation/homestead, serving in militia to protect whites’ property) he could be granted some degree of gun ownership. White government still controlling policy = gun control.
Also quite true.
It is clear that even in the midst of setting up a racial exclusion they were forced to recognize that when trouble comes calling it is best for everyone to be armed, and to worry about servile insurrection and apartheid later.
From that point of view the later law is an improvement, however slight, and the sad part is it never evolved further.
Sounds sounds to me like today’s gun owners in most states live under the same restrictions as blacks, indians, and other “undesirables” did back in Ol’ Virginny. Isn’t progress wonderful?
Texas Constitution:
Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.1.htm
Since 1995, legislature said it’s okay to carry a concealed handgun, IF you pass mandated training, pass the background check, pay the class and license fees, and fill out all forms properly. EXCEPT you can’t carry in a number of places anyway.
Indeed.
Apparently some people didn’t get the memo that “equal rights” wasn’t supposed to mean “equally slave”, but rather “equally free”.
Fortunately we now have McDonald v Chicago as a critical step in correcting that.
234 years late perhaps, but infinitely better than never.
For some, history begins with their world. Responding to that comment was difficult because I didn’t know where to begin. At the dawn of history? Pre-history? American history?
And there was the chance it was an Andy Kaufman like roper dope.
My purpose was to show how easy it is for people to ignore, minimize, excuse, and deny reality. We are not so much rational as rationalizing. Hench the comments above. By their logic, NYC gun control is okay, because Jack Nicholson can get a concealed carry license there.
Actually, understanding the full context shows why only someone like Jack Nicholson getting a concealed carry license in NYC proves that the laws here are an overt violation of the Constitution.
Rights by class and connection are an abomination to liberty.
Yes, exactly. The purpose of this article was to shine a light on what we’ve accepted as Liberty. The whole point of gun control is to preserve preferential treatment for some. I don’t begrudge Nicholson’s CCW; I begrudge Baron Bloomberg’s treatment of law-abiding tax-payers who are denied equal access under the law, and the fact that there’s been no NYC 14th Amendment case similar to McDonald.