Neat find, but it doesn't show a restriction on carry of firearms, loaded or otherwise, in public. Just restricts storage of powder and loaded firearms inside structures for fire prevention purposes. Not quite what we're talking about here.
Technically you're right. but if you're in a city and can't take your gun into any building within the city, that's a pretty broad prohibition. So the only way i could see you carrying a loaded gun in Boston is if you only planned to pass through Boston without going into any of the buildings within the city. It would be sort of like the equivilant of the unloaded transportation laws they have now.
It's sort of like California banning bullets in any building in the State. Technically not illegal to have bullets, but if you can't bring them into any buildings it a de facto ban.
in the 18th century, no powder meant (effectively) no guns.
So the average person living within Boston would not have access to powder for their firearms or weapons. For carry or otherwise.
A careful reading of the statute, however, reveals that its purpose was not a general ban on loaded guns in Boston, but leaving unloaded guns unattended in buildings. The preamble to the law explains: "Whereas the depositing of loaded arms in the houses of the town of Boston, is dangerous to the lives of those who are disposed to exert themselves when a fire happens to break out in the said town...."8 The text does not prohibit carrying loaded firearms within the city of Boston--only taking them into a building--and one could infer from the preamble, the law only prohibited depositing loaded firearms in buildings. As the preamble makes clear, this law was for the protection of those fighting fires, not to prevent criminal misuse of guns, and certainly not to prevent citizens from defending themselves on the streets. Unloading a flintlock firearm (except by firing it) was a considerably more tedious task than with a metallic cartridge weapon. It is easy to see why the city felt that it was appropriate to require guns not be kept loaded and unattended, especially because Boston had little crime at the time--and I suspect few, if any, home invasions.
That Boston's government felt the need for such a law, however, suggests that gun ownership was common enough, and having loaded firearms in one's home or business was common enough, that the city felt a need to pass such a measure. Fires were more common in eighteenth century buildings than today (because all cooking was done over fireplaces), but it seems unlikely that more than 1% of homes burned in any given year. If guns were rare (as some have claimed) and only 10% of homes had a gun, and only 10% of those homes had a loaded gun, the intersection between houses on fire and houses with loaded guns in them would have been very small indeed--an infinitesimal 0.01% chance of a burning house setting off a gun.
It seems likely, based on counts of guns surrendered to General Gage in Boston in 1775, that more than half the households in town had at least one gun in them at the start of the Revolution--and perhaps even more so, after the Revolutionary War was over, and many veterans of the Continental Army were allowed to bring their service muskets home. It is also unsurprising that many homes had loadedguns as well. A man (and in that era, it would generally have been a man, not a woman) who went hunting out of town might well have returned with an undischarged gun, or a gun that he had reloaded, but not fired again. He could not legally fire a gun in Boston to clear it.
Perhaps the more important point of this law--and a reminder of how much one's assumptions color how you read such a law--is the assumption that the law made: it considered the possession of firearms, cannon, mortars, and grenades in private homes to be not only lawful, but common enough that Boston needed to pass a law requiring them to be unloaded when not in use. This law does not sound like a strong argument against an individual right to keep and bear arms. It sounds like a pretty ringing endorsement of the idea that while there were appropriate safety regulations for keeping deadly weapons in your home, no one questioned the right of individuals to own and keep even military weapons in their own homes.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/Safety Regulation in Early America.html
That Boston's government felt the need for such a law, however, suggests that gun ownership was common enough, and having loaded firearms in one's home or business was common enough, that the city felt a need to pass such a measure. Fires were more common in eighteenth century buildings than today (because all cooking was done over fireplaces), but it seems unlikely that more than 1% of homes burned in any given year. If guns were rare (as some have claimed) and only 10% of homes had a gun, and only 10% of those homes had a loaded gun, the intersection between houses on fire and houses with loaded guns in them would have been very small indeed--an infinitesimal 0.01% chance of a burning house setting off a gun.
It seems likely, based on counts of guns surrendered to General Gage in Boston in 1775, that more than half the households in town had at least one gun in them at the start of the Revolution--and perhaps even more so, after the Revolutionary War was over, and many veterans of the Continental Army were allowed to bring their service muskets home. It is also unsurprising that many homes had loadedguns as well. A man (and in that era, it would generally have been a man, not a woman) who went hunting out of town might well have returned with an undischarged gun, or a gun that he had reloaded, but not fired again. He could not legally fire a gun in Boston to clear it.
Perhaps the more important point of this law--and a reminder of how much one's assumptions color how you read such a law--is the assumption that the law made: it considered the possession of firearms, cannon, mortars, and grenades in private homes to be not only lawful, but common enough that Boston needed to pass a law requiring them to be unloaded when not in use. This law does not sound like a strong argument against an individual right to keep and bear arms. It sounds like a pretty ringing endorsement of the idea that while there were appropriate safety regulations for keeping deadly weapons in your home, no one questioned the right of individuals to own and keep even military weapons in their own homes.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/Safety Regulation in Early America.html
Perhaps, but that was also before semi-automatic weapons were common. Can you imagine if they outlawed bullets in homes in a city in the United States?
Would you consider such a regulation reasonable? absolutely not.
I think it is safe to argue that it effects a gun regulation, whether that was the purpose or not. What else would they use gunpowder for in a city? The banning of gun powder in buildings is in effect a gun ban.
I believe it meets the qualification of being a pre-19th century firearm restriction.
Public and private civil engineering comes to mind, blowing up big rocks and tree stumps. Boston was transformed from a relatively small and economically stagnant town in 1780 to a bustling seaport and cosmopolitan center with a large and highly mobile population by 1800. From a base of 10,000 in 1780, the population approached 25,000 by 1800. That's a lot of roadways and new buildings.
Yes, but private individuals would have no use for gunpowder in a building like that. I'm sure there were exceptions for those sorts of industrial activities. The effect of banning gunpowder was still in effect a gun ban.
It's posturing legislation. The chance any of these bills will even see the light of day, is doubtful (in my opinion). It does provide a platform for that legislator to go on to other things with a resume showing he introduced Pro Gun bills during his term.
Even if the bills are never heard, he/she gets the credit for introducing them.
This legislative session has to deal with 1.6 billion shortfall. I doubt any bills not dealing with the budget are doa.
Even if the bills are never heard, he/she gets the credit for introducing them.
This legislative session has to deal with 1.6 billion shortfall. I doubt any bills not dealing with the budget are doa.
Your ftatement was this: "They were permitted, but not to be carried or loaded within city limits."
Challenge was not met.
Thif fimply ftates that they weren't allowed to bring any firearm that was loaded infide any building. It was not a prohibition from carrying a loaded firearm within the city limits.
The purpofe of the law was for the faftey of the fire brigade. A fire with a loaded cannon, fwivel, mortar, howitzer, or cohorn, or firearm, could be very dangerous to anyone attempting to put it out. In the cafe of the larger weapons, it could be dangerous to people within the range of faid weapons.
Challenge was not met.
Thif fimply ftates that they weren't allowed to bring any firearm that was loaded infide any building. It was not a prohibition from carrying a loaded firearm within the city limits.
The purpofe of the law was for the faftey of the fire brigade. A fire with a loaded cannon, fwivel, mortar, howitzer, or cohorn, or firearm, could be very dangerous to anyone attempting to put it out. In the cafe of the larger weapons, it could be dangerous to people within the range of faid weapons.
Last edited:
Similar threads
