----- Original Message ----- From: "Volokh, Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 2:33 PM Subject: [inbox] Restrictions on non-Christians owning guns in colonial and revolutionary-era America
> I understand that there were some restrictions on Catholics owning guns in > some colonies, and I believe there were also some restrictions on dissenting > Christian groups (is that correct?). I've seen an assertion, though, that > some states, shortly after the Revolution, also prohibited ownership by Jews > (perhaps as part of a general prohibition on ownership by other than > Protestants or Christians, or perhaps more specifically). Does anyone know > of any such laws? Thanks, > > Eugene Here's one of those papers that I can't get published anywhere, minus the footnotes. In Maryland, Catholics were exempted from militia duty because, like Hutchinsonâs Antinomians, and blacks almost everywhere in the American colonies, they were not completely trusted. In light of the role that Catholicism played in the recurring attempts to restore the Stuarts to the throne of England, this is unsurprising. In exchange for exemption from militia duty, Catholics were doubly taxed on their lands. As part of this same statute, members of the militia were required to swear an oath of allegiance to King George II. Those who refused the oathâthus refusing their legal obligation as British subjects to defend the realmâwere not allowed to possess arms or ammunition. The law of Britain concerning Catholics and arms after the accession of William I to the throne is at first glance quite confusing. A 1689 law prohibited Catholics from possessing âany arms, Weapons, Gunpowder, or Ammunition (other than such necessary Weapons as shall be allowed to him by Order of the Justices of the Peace, at their general Quarter sessions, for the Defence of his House or Person).â The law both prohibited Catholics from possessing arms, and yet allowed them, under some restrictions, to have at least defensive arms. Some have argued that, âThis exception is especially significant, as it demonstrates that even when there were fears of religious war, Catholic Englishmen were permitted the means to defend themselves and their households; they were merely forbidden to stockpile arms.â At least in times of crisis, this law would appear to have been the justification for disarming Catholics both in Britain and America. In Britain, for example, the death of the queen in 1714 caused orders that, âThe Lords Leiutents of the severall Countrys were directed to draw out the Militia to take from Papists & other suspected Persons their Arms & Horses & to be watchfull of the Publick Tranquillity.â Yet there seem to be relatively few incidents that appear in the Archives of Maryland that actually involve taking away arms from Catholics, and even these bear careful reading. In 1744, âNo Roman Catholick be for the future enrolled or mustered among the Militia of the said County and that if any of the Publick Arms be in the Possession of any Roman Catholick, the Colonel of the said County is hereby desired to oblige the Person in whose Custody such Arms are, to deliver the same to him.â The law apparently did not order confiscation of privately owned arms owned by Catholics. By contrast, in 1756, âall Arms Gunpowder and Ammunition of what kind soever any Papist or reputed Papist within this Province hath or shall have in his House or Housesâ were ordered seized. That this order was adopted when it was, however, suggests that while the 1689 law allowed complete prohibition of Catholic gun ownership at the discretion of the government, in Maryland they were not usually prohibited from possession. If Catholics were disarmed in other colonies because they were Catholics, it seems not to have left any record. Acadians were disarmed in Georgia, but this was because they had refused to swear an oath of loyalty to the crown, and were transported away from Nova Scotia as punishment. This was not a general ban on Catholics in Georgia owning guns, but a punishment for individuals convicted of a crime. Individual whites were sometimes disarmed if they were perceived as disloyal to the polity. In 1637 Massachusetts, Anne Hutchinsonâs Antinomian heresy threatened the entire social order. Hutchinsonâs beliefs had spread rapidly through Puritan society, and âsome persons being so hot headed for maintaining of these sinfull opinions, that they feared breach of peace, even among the Members of the superiour Courtâ those in place of government caused certain persons to be disarmed in the severall Townes, as in the Towne of Boston, to the number of 58, in the Towne of Salem 6, in the Towne of Newbery 3, in the Towne of Roxbury 5, in the Towne of Ipswitch 2, and Charles Towne 2.â I can find no other examples of disarming of Christian dissenters. I can find no examples of Jews being disarmed. Jews were excluded from New Netherlands' militia about 1655, but that was under the Dutch government, and I found no indication that they were disarmed, nor do I find any evidence that arms ownership was dependent on militia duty. There are no laws that I have found that disarmed Jews in the Republic--or any other religious group. There were laws that applied only to Jews throughout the first few decades, such as laws disqualifying non-Christians (sometimes even non-Protestants) from holding public office, but I haven't found any laws restricting arms ownership based on religion. Clayton E. Cramer [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
