Requirement of firearms possession

[Paul Finkelman]

I believe that John was referring to the Colonial period, as was I,
which as even Eugene knows, is before the Federal statutes were written!

"Volokh, Eugene" wrote:

>
>
>         If the requirement of firearms possession was "mythical", it
> was a pretty realistic seeming myth, realistic enough to fool people
> who printed the federal statute books!  The federal Militia Act of
> 1792, 2nd Cong. sess. I, ch. 33, provides that:
>
>         Sec. 1.  Be it enacted . . .  That each and every free
> able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident
> therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under
> the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall
> severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia . . . .  That
> every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months
> thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a
> sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch
> with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges,
> suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to
> contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle,
> knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore
> of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder. . . .
>
>         Sec. 2.  [Exempting the Vice President, federal judicial and
> executive officers, congressmen and congressional officers,
> custom-house officers and clerks, post-officers and postal stage
> drivers, ferrymen on post roads, export inspectors, pilots, merchant
> mariners, and people exempted under the laws of their states.]
>
>         Now I agree that this law was probably highly underenforced --
> but it would surprise me if it were enacted in an environment where
> private gun ownership was extremely rare.  In any event, the
> requirement itself is no myth.
>
> Paul Finkelman writes:
>
>      Two points; First, on Sandy's posting below, I do not want to
>      speak for Michael
>      Bellesiles, except to say that it is my understand that his
>      research on gun
>      ownership and regulation not begun with any political motivation;
>      and in fact began
>      accidentally.  What he has concluded after that research began,
>      and where he places
>      that in modern political discourse, is a different issue.
>
>      On John's point, most males apparently did not own a musket or
>      rifle of any kind,
>      they were VERY expensive and not pleantiful, and my guess is that
>      the "requirement"
>      is in part mythical and was rarely enforced or implemented,
>      however it was written.
>
--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, Oklahoma  74104-2499

918-631-3706 (office)
918-631-2194 (fax)

paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20000822/45ff872c/attachment.htm