| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
>
> | work in progress. | | | "Then came, Oscar, the time of the guns.
And there was no land for a man, no land for a country,
Unless guns sprang up
| | | Civilian Regulations | |
<
< | One of the first gun regulations promulgated by the new legislature was the 1629 decree that "[a]ll men that are fitting to beare armes, shall bringe their peices to the church." In concert with earlier provisions which mandated attendance at the Anglican church, this law ensured that the entire colony would be gathered, and armed, on Sundays. As a society born from the English common law tradition, the obligation to carry arms was nothing new. Though the phrase "men fitting to bear arms" is not defined in this or any prior Virginia provision, the English tradition tells us that it likely referred to free, able-bodied white men. In 1629, the population of the colony of Virginia overwhelmingly fit that description. Thus, initially, few men were excluded from of the legal obligation to bear arms. The legislature later revised the law to apply only to "the masters of every family," who were now required specifically to bring "one fixed and serviceable gun with sufficient powder and shott" to church with them on Sundays. They would face a fine of ten pounds of tobacco for failing to do so, while "servants being commanded and yet omitting shall receive twenty lashes."
Notes
:
:
:
:
| >
> | One of the first gun regulations promulgated by the new legislature was the 1629 decree that "[a]ll men that are fitting to beare armes, shall bringe their peices to the church." In concert with earlier provisions which mandated attendance at the Anglican church, this law ensured that the entire colony would be gathered, and armed, on Sundays. As a society born from the English common law tradition, the obligation to carry arms was nothing new. Though the phrase "men fitting to bear arms" is not defined in this or any prior Virginia provision, the English tradition tells us that it likely referred to free, able-bodied white men. In 1629, the population of the colony of Virginia overwhelmingly fit that description. Thus, initially, few men were excluded from of the legal obligation to bear arms. The legislature later revised the law to apply only to "the masters of every family," who were now required specifically to bring "one fixed and serviceable gun with sufficient powder and shott" to church with them on Sundays. They would face a fine of ten pounds of tobacco for failing to do so, while "servants being commanded and yet omitting shall receive twenty lashes."
Notes
:
:
:
| | | | |
<
< | The earliest statutes required arms bearing specifically in church because the church was a major community gathering place. Later provisions required arms bearing in courts as well [Vol.2, 333], and required that "[n]oe man shall goe to worke in the grounds without theire armes."[Vol 1, 198]. That same act went on to demand that no man "shall spend powder unnecessarilie" and required that each plantation owner take an annual census of his men and his assets, including his arms an munition. [Vol 1, 198,200]. Men too poor to buy their own arms would have them furnished by the community treasurer. [Vol 5, 93, at III] Arms and ammunition, it seems, were viewed as indispensable resources - to be counted and saved carefully, and carried always. When, in 1675, the legislature passed an act providing for the naturalization of a specific citizen, it made a broad declaration that he shall be afforded all the privileges of a natural born Englishman. Interestingly, the only other specific provision made was for the expedient provision of his arms: "that the late act for provideing armes and ammunition be putt into strict and effectuall execution." [Vol.2 339] The intent, it seems, was to ensure that every man be armed at all times. | >
> | The earliest statutes required arms bearing specifically in church because the church was a major community gathering place. Later provisions required arms bearing in courts as well , and required that "[n]oe man shall goe to worke in the grounds without theire armes.". That same statute went on to demand that no man "shall spend powder unnecessarilie" and required that each plantation owner take an annual census of his men and his assets, including his arms an munition. . Men too poor to buy their own arms would have them furnished by the community treasurer. Arms and ammunition, it seems, were viewed as indispensable resources - to be counted and saved carefully, and carried always. When, in 1675, the legislature passed an act providing for the naturalization of a specific citizen, it made a broad declaration that he shall be afforded all the privileges of a natural born Englishman. Interestingly, the only other specific provision made was for the expedient provision of his arms: "that the late act for provideing armes and ammunition be putt into strict and effectuall execution." The intent, it seems, was to ensure that every man be armed at all times.
Notes
:
:
:
:
:
:
| | | | |
<
< | By 1643 however, the residents of Virginia had begun to acknowledge that firearms could occasionally create a nuisance. Act XI of that year declared it a crime to hunt on a neighbor's land without permission, [Vol. 1, 248] while Act XXXV commanded that, in observance of the Sabbath, no guns shall be shot on Sundays, except in defense against the Indians or when necessary for the safety of the plantation. [Vol. 1, 261] A 1655 provision the made it a crime to "shoot any gunns at drinkeing (marriages and ffuneralls onely excepted)"; [Vol.1, 401-402] a few years later the law was amended to outlaw shooting at marriages and funerals as well (but allowing an exception for "buryalls"). [Vol. 2, 126] Eventually the legislature announced that any man who makes a false alarm in the camp or quarters or who shoots his musket at night time would be put to death. (Vol.2, 335*) Notably, these provisions explicitly cited the danger of Indian attacks and the false alarm caused by celebratory gunshots as the purpose for these restrictions. That is to say, the laws proscribing gunfire were not motivated by the intrinsic danger of the weapons themselves, but instead by the danger of Indian incursions. This purpose can be seen throughout the body of colonial legislation. In a 1644 provision, the legislature cited recent raids by Indians as its motive for requiring that no man may plant an outlying plantation ("seate above the plantations already seated") without at least four able, well armed men prepared to protect it.[Vol.2, 209*] The 1675 act that reiterated the duty to attend church and court armed explicitly cited arms as an imperative for "greate security" in "tymes of danger." [Vol.2, 333] (Taken together, these provisions show that the carrying of arms was viewed as an indispensable safeguard, and that the regulation of their use justified only as a matter of protection from enemies.)(<-delete?) | >
> | By 1643 however, the residents of Virginia had begun to acknowledge that firearms could occasionally create a nuisance. Act XI of that year declared it a crime to hunt on a neighbor's land without permission, while Act XXXV commanded that, in observance of the Sabbath, no guns shall be shot on Sundays, except in defense against the Indians or when necessary for the safety of the plantation. A 1655 provision the made it a crime to "shoot any gunns at drinkeing (marriages and ffuneralls onely excepted)"; a few years later the law was amended to outlaw shooting at marriages and funerals as well (but allowing an exception for "buryalls"). Eventually the legislature announced that any man who makes a false alarm in the camp or quarters or who shoots his musket at night time would be put to death. Notably, these provisions explicitly cited the danger of Indian attacks and the false alarm caused by celebratory gunshots as the purpose for these restrictions. That is to say, the laws proscribing gunfire were not motivated by the intrinsic danger of the weapons themselves, but instead by the danger of Indian incursions. This purpose can be seen throughout the body of colonial legislation. In a 1644 provision, the legislature cited recent raids by Indians as its motive for requiring that no man may plant an outlying plantation ("seate above the plantations already seated") without at least four able, well armed men prepared to protect it. The 1675 act that reiterated the duty to attend church and court armed explicitly cited arms as an imperative for "greate security" in "tymes of danger." (Taken together, these provisions show that the carrying of arms was viewed as an indispensable safeguard, and that the regulation of their use justified only as a matter of protection from enemies.)
Notes
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
| | | | |
<
< | The next year however, after Nathaniel Bacon and a group of armed rebels lead a revolt in Jamestown, the legislature's attitude about arms bearing changed. In 1677 the General Assembly declared that the liberty of arms bearing "hath beene found to be very prejudiciall to the peace and wellfaire of this colony," and ruled that if "any person or persons shall, from and after publication of this act, presume to assemble together in armes to the number of five or upwards without being legally called together in armes the number of ffive or upwards, they be held deemed and adjudged as riotous and mutinous, and that they be proceeded against and punished accordingly." [Vol.2, 386] | >
> | The next year however, after Nathaniel Bacon and a group of armed rebels lead a revolt in Jamestown, the legislature's attitude about arms bearing changed. In 1677 the General Assembly declared that the liberty of arms bearing "hath beene found to be very prejudiciall to the peace and wellfaire of this colony," and ruled that if "any person or persons shall, from and after publication of this act, presume to assemble together in armes to the number of five or upwards without being legally called together in armes the number of ffive or upwards, they be held deemed and adjudged as riotous and mutinous, and that they be proceeded against and punished accordingly."
Notes
:
| | |
| | | As noted above, the stated motivation for much of the early legislation requiring arms bearing (and restricting arms use) was the imminent threat of Indian incursion. Indeed, the Virginia settlers had quickly discovered that the native inhabitants of America could pose a serious threat to their colonial project. The key to subduing the natives, it seemed, was to ensure the maintenance of superior weapons. As John Smith explained in his instructions for the settling of Virginia:
And how weary soever your soldiers be, let them never trust the country people with the carriage of their weapons; for if they run from you with your shott, which they only fear, they will easily kill them all with their arrows. And whensoever any of yours shoots before them, be sure they may be chosen out of your best marksmen; for if they see your learners miss what they aim at, they will think the weapon not so terrible, and thereby will be bould to assault you. | |
<
< | The General Assembly heeded Smith's warning. In 1633 it ruled that any person who shall "sell or barter any guns, powder, shott or any armes or ammunition unto any Indian or Indians within the territorie," shall "forfeite to publique uses all the goods and chattells that he or they then have to theire owne use, an shall also suffer imprisonment duringe life." In order to incentivize reporting, the law provided that half of any such forfeiture shall go to the informant. In 1639, the prior act making it a felony to barter with Indians was repealed, "and enacted that for trading with them for arms and amunition shall be felony, and for other commodities imprisonment at discretion of the Governor and Council." At the time, the standard punishment for a felony conviction was death. [see Vol. 1, 255]. The legislature later retreated a bit from this harsh penalty, enacting revisions in 1642 which restored the original sentence of half of the convict's estate. The 1642 act also made it a crime to furnish Indians with arms for the purposes of hunting game, in the process of which "not onely the Indians (to the great indangering of the collony) are instructed in the use of our arms, but have opportunity given them to store themselves as well with arms as powder and shott." Anyone encountering such and Indian so furnished could lawfully "take away either peece, powder or shott . . . [and] carrie the same to the comander of the county," who was instructed to make a "a strict inquire and examination to find out such person that did lend or give such peece, powder or shott to the Indians." The guilty party must forfeit two thousand lbs. of tobacco for his first offense, and his entire estate for his second. [Vol. 1, 255-256]
Notes
:
:
| >
> | The General Assembly heeded Smith's warning. In 1633 it ruled that any person who shall "sell or barter any guns, powder, shott or any armes or ammunition unto any Indian or Indians within the territorie," shall "forfeite to publique uses all the goods and chattells that he or they then have to theire owne use, an shall also suffer imprisonment duringe life." In order to incentivize reporting, the law provided that half of any such forfeiture shall go to the informant. In 1639, the prior act making it a felony to barter with Indians was repealed, "and enacted that for trading with them for arms and amunition shall be felony, and for other commodities imprisonment at discretion of the Governor and Council." At the time, the standard punishment for a felony conviction was death. . The legislature later retreated a bit from this harsh penalty, enacting revisions in 1642 which restored the original sentence of half of the convict's estate. The 1642 act also made it a crime to furnish Indians with arms for the purposes of hunting game, in the process of which "not onely the Indians (to the great indangering of the collony) are instructed in the use of our arms, but have opportunity given them to store themselves as well with arms as powder and shott." Anyone encountering such and Indian so furnished could lawfully "take away either peece, powder or shott . . . [and] carrie the same to the comander of the county," who was instructed to make a "a strict inquire and examination to find out such person that did lend or give such peece, powder or shott to the Indians." The guilty party must forfeit two thousand lbs. of tobacco for his first offense, and his entire estate for his second.
Notes
:
:
:
:
| | | | |
<
< | The colonists' changing relationship with the Indian natives is reflected in the progression of their laws. In 1645, the House of Burgesses passed an Act establishing Fort Henry and instructing the inhabitants of the Norff counties and the Isle of Wright to "undertake the warr against the Nansimum Indians, or any other neighbouring Indians, by cutting up their corne and doing or performing any act or acts of hostility against them."[Vol. 1, 315 at XIII] Another act passed during the same legislative session "prohibit[ed] any terms of peace to be entertained with the Indians."[Vol. 1, 333, XVII] By 1656, however, hostilities with the Indians had cooled. The legislature's first act of that year dramatically decreased the anti-Indian regime, repealing the law which allowed for the killing of trespassing Indians and declaring that an Indian may only be lawfully killed when committing an act that would be a felony for an Englishman (who would also face death for such a crime). It also allowed unarmed Indians to gather fruits and berries within the colony grounds, and declared that all free men could trade non-restricted items (that is, not guns) with the Indians. [Vol. 1, 415 (add this to pdf!)] | >
> | The colonists' changing relationship with the Indian natives is reflected in the progression of their laws. In 1645, the House of Burgesses passed an Act establishing Fort Henry and instructing the inhabitants of the Norff counties and the Isle of Wright to "undertake the warr against the Nansimum Indians, or any other neighbouring Indians, by cutting up their corne and doing or performing any act or acts of hostility against them." Another act passed during the same legislative session "prohibit[ed] any terms of peace to be entertained with the Indians." By 1656, however, hostilities with the Indians had cooled. The legislature's first act of that year dramatically decreased the anti-Indian regime, repealing the law which allowed for the killing of trespassing Indians and declaring that an Indian may only be lawfully killed when committing an act that would be a felony for an Englishman (who would also face death for such a crime). It also allowed unarmed Indians to gather fruits and berries within the colony grounds, and declared that all free men could trade non-restricted items (that is, not guns) with the Indians.
Notes
:
:
:
| | | | |
<
< | In this climate of improving relations between the Indians and the settlers, the General Assembly even acknowledged that there existed certain threats more hazardous than an Indian with a gun. In 1657, recognizing that "of late yeares the wolves have multiplied and increased exceedingly to the greate losse and decrease of cattell and hoggs," the Assembly empowered the county commissioners to take initiative to destroy the wolves "in what way they shall best agree, by imploying Indians or otherwise, Provided they arme not the Indians with English armes and gunns contrary to act of Assembly." [Vol. 1, 457] Notably, an act passed during the same legislative session reiterated the ban on selling, bartering or lending arms to Indians, and even increased the penalties for doing so. [* 1657, Act XVII, Vol. 1, 441] Thus, the county commissioners were permitted to hire armed Indians to hunt the menacing wolves, but only if those Indians had somehow acquired their guns in a way that did not violate this ban. The explanation for this seemingly contradictory set of laws can be found in the statutes from the following year. In 1658 the legislature enacted a law allowing free trade with the Indians, noting in the preamble that, despite legislation in place prohibiting trade of arms with Indians, "neighbouringe plantations both of English and fforrainers do plentifully furnish the Indians with gunns, powder & shott." The act went on to explain that those dealing arms with the Indians "do thereby drawe from us the trade of beaver to our greate losse and their profitt, and besides the Indians [are] being furnished with as much of both gunns and ammunition as they are able to purchase." [Vol. 1, 525, xxiv] It was therefore enacted: "That every man may freely trade for gunns, powder and shott: It derogateing nothing from our safety and adding much to our advantage." [Vol. 1, 525, xxiv] | >
> | In this climate of improving relations between the Indians and the settlers, the General Assembly even acknowledged that there existed certain threats more hazardous than an Indian with a gun. In 1657, recognizing that "of late yeares the wolves have multiplied and increased exceedingly to the greate losse and decrease of cattell and hoggs," the Assembly empowered the county commissioners to take initiative to destroy the wolves "in what way they shall best agree, by imploying Indians or otherwise, Provided they arme not the Indians with English armes and gunns contrary to act of Assembly." Notably, an act passed during the same legislative session reiterated the ban on selling, bartering or lending arms to Indians, and even increased the penalties for doing so. Thus, the county commissioners were permitted to hire armed Indians to hunt the menacing wolves, but only if those Indians had somehow acquired their guns in a way that did not violate this ban. The explanation for this seemingly contradictory set of laws can be found in the statutes from the following year. In 1658 the legislature enacted a law allowing free trade with the Indians, noting in the preamble that, despite legislation in place prohibiting trade of arms with Indians, "neighbouringe plantations both of English and fforrainers do plentifully furnish the Indians with gunns, powder & shott." The act went on to explain that those dealing arms with the Indians "do thereby drawe from us the trade of beaver to our greate losse and their profitt, and besides the Indians [are] being furnished with as much of both gunns and ammunition as they are able to purchase." It was therefore enacted: "That every man may freely trade for gunns, powder and shott: It derogateing nothing from our safety and adding much to our advantage."
Notes
:
:
:
:
| | | | |
<
< | But despite the proclamation that it "derogate[d] nothing from [their] safety," this free trade with the Indians was short lived. In 1665 the legislature repealed the free trade provision and reinstated the prohibition on the sale or trade of arms and ammunition to the Indians, upon penalty of ten thousand pounds of tobacco or two years in jail. The act noted that the reason for the free trade provision was that at the time it was "thought impolitick to debarre ourselves from soe greate an advantage as might accrue to us by the Indian trade, when we could not prevent their supply," and explained that the policy was now being reversed "since those envious [Dutch] neighbours are now by his majesties justice and providence removed from us, and the trade now likely to be in our hands, and none to furnish them besides ourselves, who in these times of eminent danger have scarce ability to furnish our owne people." [Vol.2, 215] Note that the law makes no appeal to the danger of Indians being armed, but rather cites only the short supply of weapons in a time of imminent danger. Of course, history tells us that in 1675 the most imminent threat to the Virginia colony was probably its own citizens, as Bacon's Rebellion would soon erupt in the the capital. [...] | >
> | But despite the proclamation that it "derogate[d] nothing from [their] safety," this free trade with the Indians was short lived. In 1665 the legislature repealed the free trade provision and reinstated the prohibition on the sale or trade of arms and ammunition to the Indians, upon penalty of ten thousand pounds of tobacco or two years in jail. The act noted that the reason for the free trade provision was that at the time it was "thought impolitick to debarre ourselves from soe greate an advantage as might accrue to us by the Indian trade, when we could not prevent their supply," and explained that the policy was now being reversed "since those envious [Dutch] neighbours are now by his majesties justice and providence removed from us, and the trade now likely to be in our hands, and none to furnish them besides ourselves, who in these times of eminent danger have scarce ability to furnish our owne people." Note that the law makes no appeal to the danger of Indians being armed, but rather cites only the short supply of weapons in a time of imminent danger. Of course, history tells us that in 1675 the most imminent threat to the Virginia colony was probably its own citizens, as Bacon's Rebellion would soon erupt in the the capital. [...]
Notes
:
| | | | |
<
< | With the reversal of the free trade law in 1665, the Virginia legislature entered another cycle of the intensification of restrictions, following by their gradual liberalization. In 1675, after noting that trade of arms with the Indians continued despite being outlawed, the General Assembly enacted more comprehensive restrictions and steeper penalties. It was now illegal to "trade, truck, barter, sell or utter, directly or indirectly, to or with any Indian any powder shott or armes," and those in violation "shall suffer death without benefitt of clergy, and shall forfeite his or their whole estates."[Vol.2 337-338, Act II] Moreover, any person found in any Indian town or more than three miles outside of the English plantations "with powder, shott or other armes and ammunition, except one gunn and tenn charges of powder and shott for his necessary use, although he or they be not actually tradeing, trucking, bartering, selling or uttering to or with the Indians, he or they soe found, and thereof lawfully convicted shalbe adjudged guilty of selling and suffer accordingly." The statute went as far as to assert that any Indians living peacefully amongst the colonists "if they be not supplyed with matchcoates, hoes and axes to tend their corne and fence their ground, must of necessity perish of ffamine or live on rapine."[Vol.2 337-338] A single exception to the strict provisions of this statute was made for the furnishing of a small quantities of arms to Indians employed by whites, such that "shall reasonably be thought to be usefull and to be expended by them in such their service and not otherwise."[Vol.2 337-338] Natives could not be trusted with arms, it seems, except in the service of white men. The following year, the legislature revoked provisions which had allowed for the trade of certain non-restricted goods with the Indians, and banned all trade of any kind. An exception, however, was made for Indians in the employ of Englishmen, who could continue to collect the value of their wages. [Vol 2, 350-351] | >
> | With the reversal of the free trade law in 1665, the Virginia legislature entered another cycle of the intensification of restrictions, following by their gradual liberalization. In 1675, after noting that trade of arms with the Indians continued despite being outlawed, the General Assembly enacted more comprehensive restrictions and steeper penalties. It was now illegal to "trade, truck, barter, sell or utter, directly or indirectly, to or with any Indian any powder shott or armes," and those in violation "shall suffer death without benefitt of clergy, and shall forfeite his or their whole estates." Moreover, any person found in any Indian town or more than three miles outside of the English plantations "with powder, shott or other armes and ammunition, except one gunn and tenn charges of powder and shott for his necessary use, although he or they be not actually tradeing, trucking, bartering, selling or uttering to or with the Indians, he or they soe found, and thereof lawfully convicted shalbe adjudged guilty of selling and suffer accordingly." The statute went as far as to assert that any Indians living peacefully amongst the colonists "if they be not supplyed with matchcoates, hoes and axes to tend their corne and fence their ground, must of necessity perish of ffamine or live on rapine." A single exception to the strict provisions of this statute was made for the furnishing of a small quantities of arms to Indians employed by whites, such that "shall reasonably be thought to be usefull and to be expended by them in such their service and not otherwise." Natives could not be trusted with arms, it seems, except in the service of white men. The following year, the legislature revoked provisions which had allowed for the trade of certain non-restricted goods with the Indians, and banned all trade of any kind. An exception, however, was made for Indians in the employ of Englishmen, who could continue to collect the value of their wages.
Notes
:
:
:
:
| | | | |
<
< | By the end of 1676, however, relations with the Indians had improved significantly. The legislature declared that "all persons have hereby liberty to sell armes and ammunition to any of his majesties loyall subjects inhabiting this colony, and that the Indians of the Easterne shore have like and equall liberty of trade or otherwayes with any other our ffriends and neighbouring Indians." [Vol.2, 403] The following year the legislature endorsed free trade with friendly Indians and even provided for the establishment of marts or fairs to facilitate such trade. It noted, however, "that it shall not be lawfull or permitted any Indian or Indians resorting to or meeting at any those aforesaid marts or ffaires to travell with or carry armes, or appeare there armed, except only the carrying home such armes or ammunition as they shall then and there purchase." [Vol.2, 412*] By the early 18th century, Indians in Virginia enjoyed nearly unfettered access to guns. The only legal restriction remaining, it seems, was the requirement that Indians be unarmed when they exercises their licenses to fish in English waters. [vol 3, 467] | >
> | By the end of 1676, however, relations with the Indians had improved significantly. The legislature declared that "all persons have hereby liberty to sell armes and ammunition to any of his majesties loyall subjects inhabiting this colony, and that the Indians of the Easterne shore have like and equall liberty of trade or otherwayes with any other our ffriends and neighbouring Indians." The following year the legislature endorsed free trade with friendly Indians and even provided for the establishment of marts or fairs to facilitate such trade. It noted, however, "that it shall not be lawfull or permitted any Indian or Indians resorting to or meeting at any those aforesaid marts or ffaires to travell with or carry armes, or appeare there armed, except only the carrying home such armes or ammunition as they shall then and there purchase." By the early 18th century, Indians in Virginia enjoyed nearly unfettered access to guns. The only legal restriction remaining, it seems, was the requirement that Indians be unarmed when they exercises their licenses to fish in English waters. [vol 3, 467]
Notes
:
:
| | |
Slaves |
|