THE LIE THAT IS LIBERAL

If you are referring to where I said "presumably some people would have chosen to have a gun for self defense, and would have chosen to comply with the law when doing so" I question whether that counts as a guess. If it does, it is a very reasonable guess.

Must have been a pistol, since that statute only restricts guns under a certain length, and expressly states that people have the right to have full length guns and use them for self defense.

33 Hen. 8. c. 6. " None shall shoot in, or
* keep in his House, any Cross-bow, Hand-
* gun, Hagbut or Demi-hake,

hagbut ‎(plural hagbuts) (obsolete) An arquebus, a firearm with a long barrel.

any Hand-gun under the
* Length of one Yard

None shall shoot in, or
* keep in his House, any Cross-bow, Hand-
* gun, Hagbut or Demi-hake, unless his
* Lands be of the Value of 100£ per Annum

none shall travel with a Cross-bow bent or
* Gun charged, except in Time of War;

Your guesses may be good or they may be bad, but don't fool yourself into thinking that you're not making guesses.

If you demonstrated an adequate understanding of the British history, or even an interest in learning that history, perhaps you'd improve your guesswork.

As it is, I don't get the sense that you understand that the British experience with volunteer home defense was far different from the American experience with state militias.

As I said. Bull **** from you.

There is nothing in that phrase about length of gun. It says that no one without lands of value of 100£ per annum can keep any gun. Any gun is not the same thing as pistols.

You seem to have missed that part.

There is, however, more than one phrase in that law. Some of those other phrases do define the maximum lengths of the guns that are restricted by the law and expressly allow people to have and use guns over those lengths.

Now that you understand there is more than one phrase,

can you tell us what happens when 2 phrases are separated by "nor"?

No person having less than 100 per annum can have a gun

nor can anyone that has a gun have one shorter than 3'.

None shall shoot in, or
* keep in his House, any Cross-bow, Hand-
* gun, Hagbut or Demi-hake, unless his
* Lands be of the Value of 100£ per Annum

Not an accurate summary of the restriction. Only specific types of guns were restricted.

Only if you completely ignore the meaning "hand-gun" at the time.

oralloy wrote:

That people were convicted of poaching when they hunted game in violation of the law does not change that people were allowed to possess standard infantry guns, use them to defend their homes, and carry them for defense when out traveling.

No, they were convicted of having a gun while not having an annual income of 100 pounds. The one case was 1733. You do realize that 1733 is after 1689, don't you?

The 1733 case only involved guns because they had been used for poaching.

oralloy wrote:

The 1733 case only involved guns because they had been used for poaching.

Really? Perhaps you should read the 3 charges against him.

He was charged with having a gun and not having an income of 100 pounds.

On page 142 it states:
Secondly, he did keep a another gun not being qualified by which and action accrued for another 5l.

But you need to read the rest.
On the first count the defendant argued a gun was not an engine of destruction for game but the court ruled it was on page 143.

On the second count the court ruled it is the defendant's responsibility to prove he has an income of 100l to prevent being convicted.

Then on page 144 a defendant was convicted under the statute enacted under Ann of having a gun, which is an engine of destruction.

There are several cases earlier in the book but they don't give dates so I can't show they were after 1689.

Clearly, you are ignoring everything can to keep up your false argument.

It is required, that the Muskets be all of a Bore, the Pikes of a Length. But to the end this course may not by a sudden Alteration turn to a general Charge and Burthen upon the People, the Lords Lieutenants, and the Deputy Lieutenants are rather to use the way of Advice, and Encouragement, as a matter which will be very acceptable to his Majesty, who will take Notice of the Affection of such as shall most readily provide Arms according to this Order than to enforce a present general Observation thereof. But in Case where the Arms shall be decayed, and must be renewed, this Order is to be strictly observed.

A principal Care is to be taken for the Provision of the Arms, that they may be provided at such Rates as they are truly worth, that the People be not subject to the abuse of Undertakers for these Businesses:

Yes. He needed to have the required wealth in order for it to be legal for him to hunt with his guns.

he did keep a another gun

In other words, he argued that he had not been hunting with his gun and the court found that he had been hunting with his gun.

I notice you didn't read the actual charges.

Maybe if you close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and yell "nyah, nyah, nyah!" at the top of your lungs I won't notice that the second charge was specifically for having another gun while not having an income of 100 pounds.

Quote:

he did keep a another gun

Read that three times and then tell me how it can possibly be interpreted to mean he was hunting with that gun.

He was hunting with one gun but he did keep another gun.
Do you need the English language explained to you?