There were many city ordinances in Boston and New York City(I've been trying to find the original source) whereby all powder in the city was supposed to be kept at a central location for safety purposes. All men of militia age were required to have muskets for miltia purposes, but carrying loaded firearms around the city was a pretty big fine. I found some other sources here.
https://books.google.com/books?id=NTgawc0e9gkC&q=concealed+weapons#v=snippet&q=concealed weapons&f=false
I wouldn't say desparately, but it does take some time to find legitimate sources on this subject without digging through hundreds of pages of 18th century municipal codes. This was before the national government regulated firearms to any real degree and it was a state/city/local matter.
Another example of our legislature introducing bills, seemingly just for the purpose of getting their name in the media, while they do nothing to address significant issues such as the budget, teacher funding, etc.
If someone has been adjudicated a danger to society, so much so that it is dangerous to allow them to keep and bear arms, they belong in prison or an institution if they haven't been executed. That remedy is constitutional. Making the rest of us prove we are not a danger in order to keep and bear arms IS unconstitutional.
Woody
That would be a lot of prisoners and dead folks. We'd have to go to Chinese execution numbers to get there and then we'd have to triple our prison population probably.
There are a lot of people who should not own guns that can function outside of prison or a mental institution. That's a very low standard for gun ownership in my view.
For example, those who have sold, taken, made or dealt in hard drugs should not own guns but i don't think they should spend life in prison or be executed, either.
some guy who has a history of violence altercations(e.g. barfights) in the past shouldn't necessarily be executed, spend life in prison or a mental institution, but probably shouldn't be allowed to own or carry guns, either.
Based on what? Getting into fist fights is a hell of a lot different than say, threatening people with a firearm.
Still identifies you as a violent individual.
Not all violence is the same. Nor are all justifications for violence the same.
Can't say I get too excited about those bills (if at all).
Similar threads
