Insight on America's Gun History
Guns in American History
When an individual commits murder, he or she does so because the social system is perceived to have failed in its
responsibility to control the behavior of that individual.
responsibility to control the behavior of that individual.
December 14, 2012: Adam Lanza, 20 years old of Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut guns down 20 children,
ages between six and seven, and six adults, school staff and faculty, before turning the gun on himself.
Investigating police later find Nancy Lanza, Adam's mother, dead from a gunshot wound.
ages between six and seven, and six adults, school staff and faculty, before turning the gun on himself.
Investigating police later find Nancy Lanza, Adam's mother, dead from a gunshot wound.
Ku Klux Klan
When an individual commits murder, he or she does so because the social system is perceived to have failed in its responsibility to control the behavior of that individual.
When an individual commits murder, he or she does so because the social system is perceived to have failed in its responsibility to control the behavior of that individual.
Guns During The Colonial Era (1500-1800)
In 1492, Christopher Columbus sailed east of the globe in search for a new route and a quicker route to India and as a result he ended up in the Americas. Quickly they realized that they were into a new world and shortly they began to conquer wealth primarily gold to bring back to Europe. The news spread around Europe and the quest for the new world began. The Spanish who came to settle the New World were generally not farmers and craftsmen but soldiers, adventurers, and mercenaries looking for a quick fortune.
Native communities were attacked and enslaved and any treasures they may have had such as gold, silver or pearls were taken. Teams of Spanish conquistadors devastated native communities on Caribbean islands such as Cuba and Hispaniola (Haiti and Dominican Republic) between 1494 and 1515 or so before moving on to the mainland.
The most famous conquests were those of the mighty Aztec and Inca Empires, in Central America and the Andes mountains respectively. The conquistadors who took these mighty Empires down (Hernan Cortes) in Mexico and Francisco Pizarro in Peru) commanded relatively small forces: Cortes had around 600 men and Pizarro initially had about 160. These small forces were able to defeat much larger ones. At the Battle of Teocajas, Sebastian de Benalcazar had 200 Spanish and some 3,000 Cañari allies: together they fought Inca General Rumiñahui and a force of some 50,000 warriors to a draw. The conquistadors were successful due to the use of the matchlock gun model.
In 1492, Christopher Columbus sailed east of the globe in search for a new route and a quicker route to India and as a result he ended up in the Americas. Quickly they realized that they were into a new world and shortly they began to conquer wealth primarily gold to bring back to Europe. The news spread around Europe and the quest for the new world began. The Spanish who came to settle the New World were generally not farmers and craftsmen but soldiers, adventurers, and mercenaries looking for a quick fortune.
Native communities were attacked and enslaved and any treasures they may have had such as gold, silver or pearls were taken. Teams of Spanish conquistadors devastated native communities on Caribbean islands such as Cuba and Hispaniola (Haiti and Dominican Republic) between 1494 and 1515 or so before moving on to the mainland.
The most famous conquests were those of the mighty Aztec and Inca Empires, in Central America and the Andes mountains respectively. The conquistadors who took these mighty Empires down (Hernan Cortes) in Mexico and Francisco Pizarro in Peru) commanded relatively small forces: Cortes had around 600 men and Pizarro initially had about 160. These small forces were able to defeat much larger ones. At the Battle of Teocajas, Sebastian de Benalcazar had 200 Spanish and some 3,000 Cañari allies: together they fought Inca General Rumiñahui and a force of some 50,000 warriors to a draw. The conquistadors were successful due to the use of the matchlock gun model.
CULTURE WARS
1960s-1990s
In 1492, Christopher Columbus sailed east of the globe in search for a new route and a quicker route to India and as a result he ended up in the Americas. Quickly they realized that they were into a new world and shortly they began to conquer wealth primarily gold to bring back to Europe. The news spread around Europe and the quest for the new world began. The Spanish who came to settle the New World were generally not farmers and craftsmen but soldiers, adventurers, and mercenaries looking for a quick fortune.
Native communities were attacked and enslaved and any treasures they may have had such as gold, silver or pearls were taken. Teams of Spanish conquistadors devastated native communities on Caribbean islands such as Cuba and Hispaniola (Haiti and Dominican Republic) between 1494 and 1515 or so before moving on to the mainland.
The most famous conquests were those of the mighty Aztec and Inca Empires, in Central America and the Andes mountains respectively. The conquistadors who took these mighty Empires down (Hernan Cortes) in Mexico and Francisco Pizarro in Peru) commanded relatively small forces: Cortes had around 600 men and Pizarro initially had about 160. These small forces were able to defeat much larger ones. At the Battle of Teocajas, Sebastian de Benalcazar had 200 Spanish and some 3,000 Cañari allies: together they fought Inca General Rumiñahui and a force of some 50,000 warriors to a draw. The conquistadors were successful due to the use of the matchlock gun model.
1960s-1990s
In 1492, Christopher Columbus sailed east of the globe in search for a new route and a quicker route to India and as a result he ended up in the Americas. Quickly they realized that they were into a new world and shortly they began to conquer wealth primarily gold to bring back to Europe. The news spread around Europe and the quest for the new world began. The Spanish who came to settle the New World were generally not farmers and craftsmen but soldiers, adventurers, and mercenaries looking for a quick fortune.
Native communities were attacked and enslaved and any treasures they may have had such as gold, silver or pearls were taken. Teams of Spanish conquistadors devastated native communities on Caribbean islands such as Cuba and Hispaniola (Haiti and Dominican Republic) between 1494 and 1515 or so before moving on to the mainland.
The most famous conquests were those of the mighty Aztec and Inca Empires, in Central America and the Andes mountains respectively. The conquistadors who took these mighty Empires down (Hernan Cortes) in Mexico and Francisco Pizarro in Peru) commanded relatively small forces: Cortes had around 600 men and Pizarro initially had about 160. These small forces were able to defeat much larger ones. At the Battle of Teocajas, Sebastian de Benalcazar had 200 Spanish and some 3,000 Cañari allies: together they fought Inca General Rumiñahui and a force of some 50,000 warriors to a draw. The conquistadors were successful due to the use of the matchlock gun model.
|
|
A memorial with crosses for the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting massacre stands
outside a home in Newtown, Conn., on the one-year anniversary of the shootings, Dec. 14, 2013.
outside a home in Newtown, Conn., on the one-year anniversary of the shootings, Dec. 14, 2013.
Lanza used a Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S rifle during the shooting spree. Three weapons were found next to his body; the semiautomatic .223-caliber rifle made by Bushmaster, and two handguns including an Izhmash Saiga-12, 12 gauge semi-automatic shotgun was also found in his car. All this weapons were legally purchased by his mother Nancy Lanza. Adam Lanza also killed his mother at an unknown time.
|
CULTURE WARS
1960s-1990s December 14, 2012: Adam Lanza, 20 years old of Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut guns down 20 children, ages between six and seven, and six adults, school staff and faculty, before turning the gun on himself. Investigating police later find Nancy Lanza, Adam's mother, dead from a gunshot wound.
|
.
•A 2014 report by the Connecticut Office of the child Advocate described Lanza as a young man with deteriorating mental health who has a fascination with Mass Shootings. The ethical question one may raise is what is a child of 20 years doing with all these type of guns when it is quite clear he has a mental illness? Should a mother keep such guns at home with a mentally ill child? What kind of protection are all these guns offering? Or it is one of the American’s “right?”
•A 2014 report by the Connecticut Office of the child Advocate described Lanza as a young man with deteriorating mental health who has a fascination with Mass Shootings. The ethical question one may raise is what is a child of 20 years doing with all these type of guns when it is quite clear he has a mental illness? Should a mother keep such guns at home with a mentally ill child? What kind of protection are all these guns offering? Or it is one of the American’s “right?”
British military had always been a security blanket in the colonials’ lives. However, at the conclusion of the French and Indian war, most of the "red coats" were redeployed to England. The American colonists were on their own except for pockets of British troops clustered in urban areas, and in a few scattered outposts on the western frontier.The colonists were aware that North America still held the potential for danger. The frontier and the Indian populations were only several days ride from coastal towns.The existence of militia for self defense was an answer to potential danger. The colonials had a history of self help. Going back to the Jamestown settlement and Puritan Plymouth, they organized supervised military training to meet threats. Captains James Smith and Myles Standish were paid to impart their military experience to the settlers. As early as 1607, Jamestown settlers were receiving military instruction.
Gun and the colonization of America happens during the same period. Like a plant needs water to grow, America originally the 13 colonies needed guns to help them keep possession of stolen lands from the natives and later independence from the King of England. The American Revolution, an 18th century political upheaval, included thirteen colonies from North America who joined together to separate themselves from the established control of the British Empire. The 13-colony formation led to the establishment of the United States of America. After several attempts at rejecting overseas control, each colony united to defend their autonomy through violent conflict against the British. The States determined to resist and reject the tyrannical regime that demanded their allegiance by developing sovereignty through the Declaration of Independence in July of 1776. The American Revolutionary War lasted five years with the final victory declared in October of 1781. There are many different facets and historical memorabilia that intrigue those who follow the events of the American Revolutionary War, including popular sites where important conflicts took place, the uniforms that certain soldiers wore, and the guns and ammunition employed to fight off the British and German invaders.
slavery and Guns
Lanza used a Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S rifle during the shooting spree. Three weapons were found next to his body; the semiautomatic .223-caliber rifle made by Bushmaster, and two handguns including an Izhmash Saiga-12, 12 gauge semi-automatic shotgun was also found in his car. All this weapons were legally purchased by his mother Nancy Lanza. Adam Lanza also killed his mother at an unknown time.
•A 2014 report by the Connecticut Office of the child Advocate described Lanza as a young man with deteriorating mental health who has a fascination with Mass Shootings. The ethical question one may raise is what is a child of 20 years doing with all these type of guns when it is quite clear he has a mental illness? Should a mother keep such guns at home with a mentally ill child? What kind of protection are all these guns offering? Or it is one of the American’s “right?”
•A 2014 report by the Connecticut Office of the child Advocate described Lanza as a young man with deteriorating mental health who has a fascination with Mass Shootings. The ethical question one may raise is what is a child of 20 years doing with all these type of guns when it is quite clear he has a mental illness? Should a mother keep such guns at home with a mentally ill child? What kind of protection are all these guns offering? Or it is one of the American’s “right?”
Fire arms laws predate the establishment of the United States to fully control blacks. Starting in 1751, the French Black Code required Louisiana colonists to stop any blacks, and if necessary, beat "any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane." If a black refused to stop on demand, and was on horseback, the colonist was authorized to "shoot to kill." Slave possession of firearms was a necessity at times in a frontier society, yet laws continued to be passed in an attempt to prohibit slaves or free blacks from possessing firearms, except under very restrictively controlled conditions. Similarly, in the sixteenth century the colony of New Spain, terrified of black slave revolts, prohibited all blacks, free and slave, from carrying arms.
In the Haitian Revolution of the 1790s, the slave population successfully threw off their French masters, but the Revolution degenerated into a race war, aggravating existing fears in the French Louisiana colony, and among whites in the slave states of the United States. When the first U. S. official arrived in New Orleans in 1803 to take charge of this new American possession, the planters sought to have the existing free black militia disarmed, and otherwise exclude "free blacks from positions in which they were required to bear arms," including such non-military functions as slave-catching crews. The New Orleans city government also stopped whites from teaching fencing to free blacks, and then, when free blacks sought to teach fencing, similarly prohibited their efforts as well.
It is not surprising that the first North American English colonies, then the states of the new republic, remained in dread fear of armed blacks, for slave revolts against slave owners often degenerated into less selective forms of racial warfare. The perception that free blacks were sympathetic to the plight of their enslaved brothers, and the dangerous example that "a Negro could be free" also caused the slave states to pass laws designed to disarm all blacks, both slave and free. Unlike the gun control laws passed after the Civil War, these antebellum statutes were for blacks alone. In Maryland, these prohibitions went so far as to prohibit free blacks from owning dogs without a license, and authorizing any white to kill an unlicensed dog owned by a free black, for fear that blacks would use dogs as weapons. Mississippi went further, and prohibited any ownership of a dog by a black person.
Understandably, restrictions on slave possession of arms go back a very long way. While arms restrictions on free blacks predate it, these restrictions increased dramatically after Nat Turner's Rebellion in 1831, a revolt that caused the South to become increasingly irrational in its fears. Virginia's response to Turner's Rebellion prohibited free blacks "to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead..." The existing laws under which free blacks were occasionally licensed to possess or carry arms was also repealed, making arms possession completely illegal for free blacks. But even before this action by the Virginia Legislature, in the aftermath of Turner's Rebellion, the discovery that a free black family possessed lead shot for use as scale weights, without powder or weapon in which to fire it, was considered sufficient reason for a frenzied mob to discuss summary execution of the owner. The analogy to the current hysteria where mere possession of ammunition in some states without a firearms license may lead to jail time, should be obvious.
One example of the increasing fear of armed blacks is the 1834 change to the Tennessee Constitution, where Article XI, 26 of the 1796 Tennessee Constitution was revised from: "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense, to "That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense." It is not clear what motivated this change, other than Turner's bloody insurrection. The year before, the Tennessee Supreme Court had recognized the right to bear arms as an individual guarantee, but there is nothing in that decision that touches on the subject of race.
Other decisions during the antebellum period were unambiguous about the importance of race. In State v. Huntly (1843), the North Carolina Supreme Court had recognized that there was a right to carry arms guaranteed under the North Carolina Constitution, as long as such arms were carried in a manner not likely to frighten people. The following year, the North Carolina Supreme Court made one of those decisions whose full significance would not appear until after the Civil War and passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. An 1840 statute provided:
The 17th article of the 1776 North Carolina Constitution declared:
It is one of the great ironies that, in much the same way that the North Carolina Supreme Court recognized a right to bear arms in 1843 -- then a year later declared that free blacks were not included -- the Georgia Supreme Court did likewise before the 1840s were out. The Georgia Supreme Court found in Nunn v. State (1846) that a statute prohibiting the sale of concealable handguns, sword-canes, and daggers violated the Second Amendment:
In the Haitian Revolution of the 1790s, the slave population successfully threw off their French masters, but the Revolution degenerated into a race war, aggravating existing fears in the French Louisiana colony, and among whites in the slave states of the United States. When the first U. S. official arrived in New Orleans in 1803 to take charge of this new American possession, the planters sought to have the existing free black militia disarmed, and otherwise exclude "free blacks from positions in which they were required to bear arms," including such non-military functions as slave-catching crews. The New Orleans city government also stopped whites from teaching fencing to free blacks, and then, when free blacks sought to teach fencing, similarly prohibited their efforts as well.
It is not surprising that the first North American English colonies, then the states of the new republic, remained in dread fear of armed blacks, for slave revolts against slave owners often degenerated into less selective forms of racial warfare. The perception that free blacks were sympathetic to the plight of their enslaved brothers, and the dangerous example that "a Negro could be free" also caused the slave states to pass laws designed to disarm all blacks, both slave and free. Unlike the gun control laws passed after the Civil War, these antebellum statutes were for blacks alone. In Maryland, these prohibitions went so far as to prohibit free blacks from owning dogs without a license, and authorizing any white to kill an unlicensed dog owned by a free black, for fear that blacks would use dogs as weapons. Mississippi went further, and prohibited any ownership of a dog by a black person.
Understandably, restrictions on slave possession of arms go back a very long way. While arms restrictions on free blacks predate it, these restrictions increased dramatically after Nat Turner's Rebellion in 1831, a revolt that caused the South to become increasingly irrational in its fears. Virginia's response to Turner's Rebellion prohibited free blacks "to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead..." The existing laws under which free blacks were occasionally licensed to possess or carry arms was also repealed, making arms possession completely illegal for free blacks. But even before this action by the Virginia Legislature, in the aftermath of Turner's Rebellion, the discovery that a free black family possessed lead shot for use as scale weights, without powder or weapon in which to fire it, was considered sufficient reason for a frenzied mob to discuss summary execution of the owner. The analogy to the current hysteria where mere possession of ammunition in some states without a firearms license may lead to jail time, should be obvious.
One example of the increasing fear of armed blacks is the 1834 change to the Tennessee Constitution, where Article XI, 26 of the 1796 Tennessee Constitution was revised from: "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense, to "That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense." It is not clear what motivated this change, other than Turner's bloody insurrection. The year before, the Tennessee Supreme Court had recognized the right to bear arms as an individual guarantee, but there is nothing in that decision that touches on the subject of race.
Other decisions during the antebellum period were unambiguous about the importance of race. In State v. Huntly (1843), the North Carolina Supreme Court had recognized that there was a right to carry arms guaranteed under the North Carolina Constitution, as long as such arms were carried in a manner not likely to frighten people. The following year, the North Carolina Supreme Court made one of those decisions whose full significance would not appear until after the Civil War and passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. An 1840 statute provided:
- That if any free negro, mulatto, or free person of color, shall wear or carry about his or her person, or keep in his or her house, any shot gun, musket, rifle, pistol, sword, dagger or bowie-knife, unless he or she shall have obtained a licence therefor from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of his or her county, within one year preceding the wearing, keeping or carrying therefore, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be indicted therefore.
The 17th article of the 1776 North Carolina Constitution declared:
- That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
- Its only object is to preserve the peace and safety of the community from being disturbed by an indiscriminate use, on ordinary occasions, by free men of color, of fire arms or other arms of an offensive character. Self preservation is the first law of nations, as it is of individuals.
It is one of the great ironies that, in much the same way that the North Carolina Supreme Court recognized a right to bear arms in 1843 -- then a year later declared that free blacks were not included -- the Georgia Supreme Court did likewise before the 1840s were out. The Georgia Supreme Court found in Nunn v. State (1846) that a statute prohibiting the sale of concealable handguns, sword-canes, and daggers violated the Second Amendment:
Slavery and Guns(1619-1865)
Fire arms laws predate the establishment of the United States to fully control blacks. Starting in 1751, the French Black Code required Louisiana colonists to stop any blacks, and if necessary, beat "any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane." If a black refused to stop on demand, and was on horseback, the colonist was authorized to "shoot to kill." Slave possession of firearms was a necessity at times in a frontier society, yet laws continued to be passed in an attempt to prohibit slaves or free blacks from possessing firearms, except under very restrictively controlled conditions. Similarly, in the sixteenth century the colony of New Spain, terrified of black slave revolts, prohibited all blacks, free and slave, from carrying arms.
In the Haitian Revolution of the 1790s, the slave population successfully threw off their French masters, but the Revolution degenerated into a race war, aggravating existing fears in the French Louisiana colony, and among whites in the slave states of the United States. When the first U. S. official arrived in New Orleans in 1803 to take charge of this new American possession, the planters sought to have the existing free black militia disarmed, and otherwise exclude "free blacks from positions in which they were required to bear arms," including such non-military functions as slave-catching crews. The New Orleans city government also stopped whites from teaching fencing to free blacks, and then, when free blacks sought to teach fencing, similarly prohibited their efforts as well.
It is not surprising that the first North American English colonies, then the states of the new republic, remained in dread fear of armed blacks, for slave revolts against slave owners often degenerated into less selective forms of racial warfare. The perception that free blacks were sympathetic to the plight of their enslaved brothers, and the dangerous example that "a Negro could be free" also caused the slave states to pass laws designed to disarm all blacks, both slave and free. Unlike the gun control laws passed after the Civil War, these antebellum statutes were for blacks alone. In Maryland, these prohibitions went so far as to prohibit free blacks from owning dogs without a license, and authorizing any white to kill an unlicensed dog owned by a free black, for fear that blacks would use dogs as weapons. Mississippi went further, and prohibited any ownership of a dog by a black person.
Understandably, restrictions on slave possession of arms go back a very long way. While arms restrictions on free blacks predate it, these restrictions increased dramatically after Nat Turner's Rebellion in 1831, a revolt that caused the South to become increasingly irrational in its fears. Virginia's response to Turner's Rebellion prohibited free blacks "to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead..." The existing laws under which free blacks were occasionally licensed to possess or carry arms was also repealed, making arms possession completely illegal for free blacks. But even before this action by the Virginia Legislature, in the aftermath of Turner's Rebellion, the discovery that a free black family possessed lead shot for use as scale weights, without powder or weapon in which to fire it, was considered sufficient reason for a frenzied mob to discuss summary execution of the owner. The analogy to the current hysteria where mere possession of ammunition in some states without a firearms license may lead to jail time, should be obvious.
One example of the increasing fear of armed blacks is the 1834 change to the Tennessee Constitution, where Article XI, 26 of the 1796 Tennessee Constitution was revised from: "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense, to "That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense." It is not clear what motivated this change, other than Turner's bloody insurrection. The year before, the Tennessee Supreme Court had recognized the right to bear arms as an individual guarantee, but there is nothing in that decision that touches on the subject of race.
Other decisions during the antebellum period were unambiguous about the importance of race. In State v. Huntly (1843), the North Carolina Supreme Court had recognized that there was a right to carry arms guaranteed under the North Carolina Constitution, as long as such arms were carried in a manner not likely to frighten people. The following year, the North Carolina Supreme Court made one of those decisions whose full significance would not appear until after the Civil War and passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. An 1840 statute provided:
The 17th article of the 1776 North Carolina Constitution declared:
It is one of the great ironies that, in much the same way that the North Carolina Supreme Court recognized a right to bear arms in 1843 -- then a year later declared that free blacks were not included -- the Georgia Supreme Court did likewise before the 1840s were out. The Georgia Supreme Court found in Nunn v. State (1846) that a statute prohibiting the sale of concealable handguns, sword-canes, and daggers violated the Second Amendment:
In the Haitian Revolution of the 1790s, the slave population successfully threw off their French masters, but the Revolution degenerated into a race war, aggravating existing fears in the French Louisiana colony, and among whites in the slave states of the United States. When the first U. S. official arrived in New Orleans in 1803 to take charge of this new American possession, the planters sought to have the existing free black militia disarmed, and otherwise exclude "free blacks from positions in which they were required to bear arms," including such non-military functions as slave-catching crews. The New Orleans city government also stopped whites from teaching fencing to free blacks, and then, when free blacks sought to teach fencing, similarly prohibited their efforts as well.
It is not surprising that the first North American English colonies, then the states of the new republic, remained in dread fear of armed blacks, for slave revolts against slave owners often degenerated into less selective forms of racial warfare. The perception that free blacks were sympathetic to the plight of their enslaved brothers, and the dangerous example that "a Negro could be free" also caused the slave states to pass laws designed to disarm all blacks, both slave and free. Unlike the gun control laws passed after the Civil War, these antebellum statutes were for blacks alone. In Maryland, these prohibitions went so far as to prohibit free blacks from owning dogs without a license, and authorizing any white to kill an unlicensed dog owned by a free black, for fear that blacks would use dogs as weapons. Mississippi went further, and prohibited any ownership of a dog by a black person.
Understandably, restrictions on slave possession of arms go back a very long way. While arms restrictions on free blacks predate it, these restrictions increased dramatically after Nat Turner's Rebellion in 1831, a revolt that caused the South to become increasingly irrational in its fears. Virginia's response to Turner's Rebellion prohibited free blacks "to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead..." The existing laws under which free blacks were occasionally licensed to possess or carry arms was also repealed, making arms possession completely illegal for free blacks. But even before this action by the Virginia Legislature, in the aftermath of Turner's Rebellion, the discovery that a free black family possessed lead shot for use as scale weights, without powder or weapon in which to fire it, was considered sufficient reason for a frenzied mob to discuss summary execution of the owner. The analogy to the current hysteria where mere possession of ammunition in some states without a firearms license may lead to jail time, should be obvious.
One example of the increasing fear of armed blacks is the 1834 change to the Tennessee Constitution, where Article XI, 26 of the 1796 Tennessee Constitution was revised from: "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense, to "That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense." It is not clear what motivated this change, other than Turner's bloody insurrection. The year before, the Tennessee Supreme Court had recognized the right to bear arms as an individual guarantee, but there is nothing in that decision that touches on the subject of race.
Other decisions during the antebellum period were unambiguous about the importance of race. In State v. Huntly (1843), the North Carolina Supreme Court had recognized that there was a right to carry arms guaranteed under the North Carolina Constitution, as long as such arms were carried in a manner not likely to frighten people. The following year, the North Carolina Supreme Court made one of those decisions whose full significance would not appear until after the Civil War and passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. An 1840 statute provided:
- That if any free negro, mulatto, or free person of color, shall wear or carry about his or her person, or keep in his or her house, any shot gun, musket, rifle, pistol, sword, dagger or bowie-knife, unless he or she shall have obtained a licence therefor from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of his or her county, within one year preceding the wearing, keeping or carrying therefore, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be indicted therefore.
The 17th article of the 1776 North Carolina Constitution declared:
- That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
- Its only object is to preserve the peace and safety of the community from being disturbed by an indiscriminate use, on ordinary occasions, by free men of color, of fire arms or other arms of an offensive character. Self preservation is the first law of nations, as it is of individuals.
It is one of the great ironies that, in much the same way that the North Carolina Supreme Court recognized a right to bear arms in 1843 -- then a year later declared that free blacks were not included -- the Georgia Supreme Court did likewise before the 1840s were out. The Georgia Supreme Court found in Nunn v. State (1846) that a statute prohibiting the sale of concealable handguns, sword-canes, and daggers violated the Second Amendment:
BLACK LIVES MATTER
2013-ongoing
2013-ongoing
GUNS and CULTURAL MEANINGS
Freedom
Individualism
Federalism
Solidarity
Trust
Vulnerability
Freedom
Individualism
Federalism
Solidarity
Trust
Vulnerability