Five types of gun laws the Founding Fathers loved

[Bootstrap]

I'd like to keep this thread focused on whether the claims in the following article are true. I think they are, but I'd be open to hearing reason to doubt them. There are relevant links to back the major claims.

Please focus on the history. This is not a thread for a political debate. Here is the introduction. After the introduction, it introduces five kinds of gun laws the Founding Fathers loved, and considered compatible with the Second Amendment.

Five types of gun laws the Founding Fathers loved

Ironically, those on both ends of our contemporary political spectrum cast the Second Amendment as a barrier to robust gun regulation. Gun rights supporters – mostly, but not exclusively, on the right – seem to believe that the Second Amendment prohibits many forms of gun regulation. On the left, frustration with the lack of progress on modern gun control leads to periodic calls for the amendment’s repeal.

Both of these beliefs ignore an irrefutable historical truth. The framers and adopters of the Second Amendment were generally ardent supporters of the idea of well-regulated liberty. Without strong governments and effective laws, they believed, liberty inevitably degenerated into licentiousness and eventually anarchy. Diligent students of history, particularly Roman history, the Federalists who wrote the Constitution realized that tyranny more often resulted from anarchy, not strong government.

I have been researching and writing about the history of gun regulation and the Second Amendment for the past two decades. When I began this research, most people assumed that regulation was a relatively recent phenomenon, something associated with the rise of big government in the modern era. Actually, while the founding generation certainly esteemed the idea of an armed population, they were also ardent supporters of gun regulations.

[Bootstrap]

Here is the first:

#1: Registration
Today American gun rights advocates typically oppose any form of registration – even though such schemes are common in every other industrial democracy – and typically argue that registration violates the Second Amendment. This claim is also hard to square with the history of the nation’s founding. All of the colonies – apart from Quaker-dominated Pennsylvania, the one colony in which religious pacifists blocked the creation of a militia – enrolled local citizens, white men between the ages of 16-60 in state-regulated militias. The colonies and then the newly independent states kept track of these privately owned weapons required for militia service. Men could be fined if they reported to a muster without a well-maintained weapon in working condition.

In the original article, there are links to back up these claims. See the OP for the links.

[Josh]

Blah blah I want guns outlawed blah blah I want guns outlawed in all 50 states blah blah I can't be bothered to move to California, New York, Chicago, Canada, etc.

[ken_sylvania]

Here is the first:

#1: Registration
Today American gun rights advocates typically oppose any form of registration – even though such schemes are common in every other industrial democracy – and typically argue that registration violates the Second Amendment. This claim is also hard to square with the history of the nation’s founding. All of the colonies – apart from Quaker-dominated Pennsylvania, the one colony in which religious pacifists blocked the creation of a militia – enrolled local citizens, white men between the ages of 16-60 in state-regulated militias. The colonies and then the newly independent states kept track of these privately owned weapons required for militia service. Men could be fined if they reported to a muster without a well-maintained weapon in working condition.

In the original article, there are links to back up these claims. See the OP for the links.

The link provided in the article provides no support for the "registration" claim. The claim links to a copy of Rhode Island's militia law, which requires only that each male between the ages of 18-45 be be registered into the militia, maintain a rifle, ammunition, and other gear, and present this minimum gear for inspection at regular intervals. There is no requirement here for any kind of registration of his weapons - it appears he has the right to change them out at will and to accumulate as many as he desires, provided when he turns out for drill he brings the minimum required gear for inspection at that time.

The colonies and then the newly independent states kept track of these privately owned weapons required for militia service.

It is hard to prove a negative, but I find no evidence that this claim is factual.

[Josh]

Indeed, I can't say I'm on board with requiring every male to own and maintain a firearm.

[Bootstrap]

The link provided in the article provides no support for the "registration" claim. The claim links to a copy of Rhode Island's militia law, which requires only that each male between the ages of 18-45 be be registered into the militia, maintain a rifle, ammunition, and other gear, and present this minimum gear for inspection at regular intervals. There is no requirement here for any kind of registration of his weapons - it appears he has the right to change them out at will and to accumulate as many as he desires, provided when he turns out for drill he brings the minimum required gear for inspection at that time.

The colonies and then the newly independent states kept track of these privately owned weapons required for militia service.

It is hard to prove a negative, but I find no evidence that this claim is factual.

You're right, the Rhode Island links, at least, do not provide sufficient evidence for that claim. I think I see more evidence for that claim here:

Gun Law History in the United States and Second Amendment Rights

Table 1, pages 59-60, indicates that there was registration and taxation on guns in 8 states during the period 1791–1867. I will have to look further to see what exactly these laws say, but we have some hints here:

Arms and ammunition trafficking was also a concern as early as the
seventeenth century, just as it is today. Various registration or taxation schemes
sought to address this concern. For example, a 1652 New York law outlawed
illegal trading of guns, gun powder, and lead by private individuals.142 A 1631
Virginia law required the recording not only of all new arrivals to the colony, but
also “of arms and munitions.”143 Twenty years later, Virginia required that “all
ammunition, powder and arms, other than for private use shall be delivered up”
to the government.144 In the 1800s, three southern states imposed taxes on
personally held firearms. Georgia in 1866 levied a tax of “one dollar a piece on
every gun or pistol, musket or rifle over the number of three kept or owned on
any plantation . . . .”145 In 1867, Mississippi levied a tax of between $5 and $15

upon every gun and pistol which may be in the possession of any person . . . which tax
shall be payable at any time on demand, by the Sheriff, and if not so paid, it shall be the
duty of the Sheriff to forthwith distrain [to seize property for money owed] and seize
such gun or pistol, and sell the same for cash

In 1856 and 1858, North Carolina enacted taxes on pistols and other weapons
“used or worn about the person.”147 An 1851 Rhode Island law taxed anyone who
owned or kept a pistol or rifle shooting gallery in certain locations;148 Louisiana
and Mississippi did the same in 1870149 and 1886, respectively.150 Alabama
imposed a tax on firearms dealers in 1898.151 That same year, Florida required a
license for anyone owning “a Winchester or repeating rifle,” and further required
the licensee to “give a bond running to the Governor of the State in the sum of
one hundred dollars, conditioned on the proper and legitimate use of the gun
with sureties to be approved by the county commissioners.”152 Hawaii licensed
firearms for sporting purposes in 1870,153 as did Wyoming in 1899,154 and Georgia
imposed a pistol dealers’ tax in 1894.155 Nebraska granted to city mayors the
power to issue licenses to carry concealed weapons, adding mayoral discretion to
“revoke any and all such licenses at his pleasure.”156

There is also a searchable database on historical gun laws in the United States. Here's what I see when I look for 'registration' between 1776 and 1865:

Gun Registration and Taxation, 1776-1865

I will have to look at that sometime after work. It's too time-consuming for now ...

[Josh]

Boot, let's be honest here - the U.S. did not have a national gun registry, ever. Any attempts to claim such is just historical revisionism.

Registration in the UK and Australia eventually led to widespread confiscation. And certain gun control groups are very upfront and honest about that - they want mandatory, universal registration to pave for the way for an eventual confiscation.

In any even, I'm not sure I should be too concerned with "what the Founding Fathers loved". They made mistakes like anyone else.

[Bootstrap]

Boot, let's be honest here - the U.S. did not have a national gun registry, ever.

No, it didn't. And I am not saying or implying that it did. The gun registration laws I quoted are not a national registry.

Any attempts to claim such is just historical revisionism.

Quoting the laws themselves is one way to escape the danger of historical revisionism. That's why I did that. I'm going to continue trying to track down what the laws looked like back then in this thread. Ken's comments were helpful and sent me looking for more information.

[steve-in-kville]

Boot, let's be honest here - the U.S. did not have a national gun registry, ever. Any attempts to claim such is just historical revisionism.

Yes, but no. Sort of.

The only record of gun ownership is kept by the gun shop. And they can destroy those documents after so many years. Even if you do the instant background check, the feds still keep no record of what you have.

Except if.... you go through the process of obtaining a Class 3 weapon such as full-auto, short barreled shotgun (SBS), short barrel rifle (SBR) and/or suppressors. Then the feds will know what you have.

[Josh]

Boot, let's be honest here - the U.S. did not have a national gun registry, ever. Any attempts to claim such is just historical revisionism.

Yes, but no. Sort of.

The only record of gun ownership is kept by the gun shop. And they can destroy those documents after so many years. Even if you do the instant background check, the feds still keep no record of what you have.

Except if.... you go through the process of obtaining a Class 3 weapon such as full-auto, short barreled shotgun (SBS), short barrel rifle (SBR) and/or suppressors. Then the feds will know what you have.

Good points, Steve.

When the NFA was passed, they wanted to put handguns in it too, which is what the $5 category was for (which continues to be the price for the Any Other Weapon category). That ended up not happening.