oklahoma Law Maker introduces 4 new Gun Bills

[Decoligny]

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.

Where exactly in the law shown do you find a prohibition on the possession of gun powder in the home? The law as written clearly only prohibits the gunpowder when it is actually in the weapon. It states nothing about prohibiting the storage of a cask of powder, or the storage of full powder horns. It simply prohibits weapons with a charge of powder in them from being in the buildings.

Here is the transposed text for those having difficulty reading the original. Another thing of note is the date that this was passed. It was passed 5 Years, 6 Months, and 3 Days BEFORE the ratification of the Bill of Rights, and 2 Years, 9 Months BEFORE the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

There was no 2nd Amendment at the time



This act passed June 12, 1786

An Act in addition to the several Acts already made for the prudent Storage of Gun-Powder within the Town of Boston.

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:

1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives, in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, That if any person shall take into any dwelling-house, stable, barn, out-house, ware-house, store, shop, or other building, within the town of Boston, any cannon, swivel, mortar, howitzer, or cohorn, or fire-arm, loaded with, or having gun-powder in the same, or shall receive into any dwelling-house, stable, barn, out-house, ware-house, store, shop, or other building, within the town, any bomb, grenade, or other iron shell, charged with, or having gun-powder in the same, such person shall forfeit and pay the sum of ten pounds, to be recovered at the suit of the firewards of the said town, in an action of debt, before any Court proper to try the same; one moiety thereof to the use of the said firewards, and the other moiety to the support of the poor of the town of Boston.

2. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That all cannon, swivels, mortars, cohorns, fire-arms, bombs, granades, and iron shells of any kind, that shall be found in any dwelling-house, stable, barn, out-house, ware-house, store, shop, or other building, charged with, or having in them any gun-powder shall be liable to be seized by either of the firewards of the said town. And upon complaint made by the said firewards to the Court of Common Pleas, of such cannon, swivels, mortars, or howitzer, being so found, the Court shall proceed to try the merits of such complain by a jury, and if the jury shall find such complain supported, such cannon, swivel, mortar, or howitzer shall be adjudged forfeit, and be sold at public auction; and one half of the proceeds thereof shall be disposed of the firewards, and the other half to the use of the poor of the town of Boston. And when any fire-arms, or any bomb, granade, or other shell be found in any house, out-house, barn, stable, store, ware-house, shop, or other building so charged, or having gun-powder in the same, the same shall be liable to be seized in manner aforesaid; and on complaint thereof, made and supported before a Justice of the Peace, shall be sold and disposed of as is above provided for cannon.

 

[caojyn]

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.

 

[SMS]

Your ftatement was this: "They were permitted, but not to be carried or loaded within city limits."

Challenge was not met.

This. Blanket statement was made that 18th century "America" had blanket restrictions against the carrying of firearms, especially in city limits. While a few major city ordinances might be found that tickle around the balls of the matter...I maintain it is still a factually inaccurate representation.

 

[Frederick]

This. Blanket statement was made that 18th century "America" had blanket restrictions against the carrying of firearms, especially in city limits. While a few major city ordinances might be found that tickle around the balls of the matter...I maintain it is still a factually inaccurate representation.

Uhh, i never said 'America" had blanket restrictions.

That's actually impossible before our federal government even bothered to legislate federal law as they do now. They only had like a dozen federal laws at the time. It was left up to states and cities. I mean, You demand i find ONE INSTANCE of a gun regulation in city limits. Now when i prove you wrong, you move the goal post.

Your quote, sir.

I challenge you to come up with a single documented law from any city or town pre-1800s that stated any such restrictions. You will not be able to find one. They didn't have those restrictions until much later. The vast majority of the early gun control laws in the U.S. were instituted in the south due to fear of newly freed blacks becoming armed. Gun Control has its roots in racism.

Challenge met.

Where exactly in the law shown do you find a prohibition on the possession of gun powder in the home? The law as written clearly only prohibits the gunpowder when it is actually in the weapon. It states nothing about prohibiting the storage of a cask of powder, or the storage of full powder horns. It simply prohibits weapons with a charge of powder in them from being in the buildings.

Here is the transposed text for those having difficulty reading the original. Another thing of note is the date that this was passed. It was passed 5 Years, 6 Months, and 3 Days BEFORE the ratification of the Bill of Rights, and 2 Years, 9 Months BEFORE the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

There was no 2nd Amendment at the time

Well, in the 18th century, if your gun doesn't have powder in it, it's not exactly going to have any use. It takes quite a long time to load the things, you're better off carrying a sword.

In your original quote;

I challenge you to come up with a single documented law from any city or town pre-1800s that stated any such restrictions

see, if you're going to move the goalpost, move it somewhere reasonable at the least.

If you're going to move it to AFTER the ratification, that would make the only period where i could find laws applying to guns would be December 25, 1791 to January 1 1800.

That's a very short period of time. Not long after that, you get into the gun restrictions of the early 19th century, which i've already cited.

In any case, i believe banning loaded weapons from buildings within a city meets your original challenge.

 

[sanjuro893]

Uhh, i never said 'America" had blanket restrictions.

That's actually impossible before our federal government even bothered to legislate federal law as they do now. They only had like a dozen federal laws at the time. It was left up to states and cities. I mean, You demand i find ONE INSTANCE of a gun regulation in city limits. Now when i prove you wrong, you move the goal post.

Your quote, sir.



Challenge met.



Well, in the 18th century, if your gun doesn't have powder in it, it's not exactly going to have any use. It takes quite a long time to load the things, you're better off carrying a sword.

In your original quote;




see, if you're going to move the goalpost, move it somewhere reasonable at the least.

If you're going to move it to AFTER the ratification, that would make the only period where i could find laws applying to guns would be December 25, 1791 to January 1 1800.

That's a very short period of time. Not long after that, you get into the gun restrictions of the early 19th century, which i've already cited.

In any case, i believe banning loaded weapons from buildings within a city meets your original challenge.

As much as I disagree on your viewpoints of liberty and such, I think you won the topicality portion of this debate.

 

[SMS]

I am a strong believer in original intent. However, even in the time of the founding fathers, firearms were not permitted within city limits.

Blanket statement implying universal prohibition in city limits.

Assertion not validated despite my imperfect challenge.

 

[Frederick]

Blanket statement implying universal prohibition in city limits.

Assertion not validated despite my imperfect challenge.

My statement was too broad -- but my point was that even during the time of the founding fathers, restrictions on firearms occurred.

Banning loaded firearms in city buildings counts, i believe.

 

[Decoligny]

Uhh, i never said 'America" had blanket restrictions.

That's actually impossible before our federal government even bothered to legislate federal law as they do now. They only had like a dozen federal laws at the time. It was left up to states and cities. I mean, You demand i find ONE INSTANCE of a gun regulation in city limits. Now when i prove you wrong, you move the goal post.

Your quote, sir.



Challenge met.



Well, in the 18th century, if your gun doesn't have powder in it, it's not exactly going to have any use. It takes quite a long time to load the things, you're better off carrying a sword.

In your original quote;




see, if you're going to move the goalpost, move it somewhere reasonable at the least.

If you're going to move it to AFTER the ratification, that would make the only period where i could find laws applying to guns would be December 25, 1791 to January 1 1800.

That's a very short period of time. Not long after that, you get into the gun restrictions of the early 19th century, which i've already cited.

In any case, i believe banning loaded weapons from buildings within a city meets your original challenge.

I really like the way you parse certain parts and disregard the rest.

You stated plainly that firearms could not be carried or loaded within city limits. PROVEN WRONG.
You were asked to find one single documented law from any city or town pre-1800s that state any such restrictions. If you had any reading comprehension ability, any such restrictions refers specifically to any law that backed up your assertion that "they were permitted, but not to be CARRIED or LOADED within city limits".

Your response was to post a law that prohibited them from being loaded inside buildings. TOTALLY DIFFERENT than not being allowed to be carried or loaded in city limits. CHALLANGE NOT MET AT ALL.

Unloading a flintlock pistol isn't a difficult thing. You remove the powder from the strike pan, unscrew the flint, take the ramrod and use the worm end (threaded point) to remove the lead ball, then dump the powder. Takes about a minute at most. Loading a flintlock is a fairly quick exercise also. Very easy to load it as you depart on your way, very easy to unload it when returning home. And they carried swords too because they only got one shot per gun.

The ratification dates were not pertinent to the challenge, just an interesting historical note.

 

[Frederick]

I really like the way you parse certain parts and disregard the rest.

You stated plainly that firearms could not be carried or loaded within city limits. PROVEN WRONG.
You were asked to find one single documented law from any city or town pre-1800s that state any such restrictions. If you had any reading comprehension ability, any such restrictions refers specifically to any law that backed up your assertion that "they were permitted, but not to be CARRIED or LOADED within city limits".

Your response was to post a law that prohibited them from being loaded inside buildings. TOTALLY DIFFERENT than not being allowed to be carried or loaded in city limits. CHALLANGE NOT MET AT ALL.

Unloading a flintlock pistol isn't a difficult thing. You remove the powder from the strike pan, unscrew the flint, take the ramrod and use the worm end (threaded point) to remove the lead ball, then dump the powder. Takes about a minute at most. Loading a flintlock is a fairly quick exercise also. Very easy to load it as you depart on your way, very easy to unload it when returning home. And they carried swords too because they only got one shot per gun.

The ratification dates were not pertinent to the challenge, just an interesting historical note.

Not wrong. No loaded weapons in any building in the city of Boston, 1786.

I think i've proved my point.

 

[SMS]

I get what you're saying, but even then the intent of your statement was to legitimize or excuse modern restrictions on firearms.

Whenever and wherever it was done back then it was wrong, and it's still wrong today.

If anything your assertion proves the point that such laws are ineffective. Boston, with a population of only 667K, has had "gun control" since the 1700's yet there were 38 homicides in the city last year, 90% of them committed with an illegal gun.