There were all kinds of laws in England from the 1300's on preventing the carrying of weapons.
Laws that were eventually relaxed.
In 1541, under the second Tudor king, Henry VIII,
Parliament enacted a stature to stop
roberies felonyes ryotts and routs.”
33 Hen. 8, c. 6, § 1(1541–1542) (Eng.). The statute limited gun ownership to the wealthy—those who “have lands tents rents fees annuityes or Offices, to the yearley value of one hundred Pounds.”
This doesn't mean that commoners of the day had no contact with weapons. Commoners were required to be armed when they served on militia duty and various town security patrols. They were also expected to engage in weekly target practice. The government of the day just wanted to keep control over these weapons when the commoners were not practicing or "on duty".
These restrictions were loosened in later centuries as the right to keep and bear arms was created in the English Bill of Rights.
Interesting article. They overstate their case though.
"What remains unclear is whether these prohibitions were only enforced during times of suspected affray, thus preventing the people from being armed for only short periods of time, or whether the power to prohibit going armed was inherent with the local constable or sheriff’s authority, and the proclamations served as reminders of the status quo. The evidence available at the turn of the fourteenth century does not provide a clear affirmation, but there is nothing in the historical record to suggest that the local authorities were prohibited from disarming individuals among the public concourse to ensure the public safety.
Lack of evidence that they are wrong is far from evidence that they are right.
Also, when the article covers the case of Sir John Knight, it completely overlooks the fact that the court recognized that "gentlemen" were allowed to go about armed for their own protection, which is the reason why people cite this case in support of gun rights.
"Gentlemen" obviously is a reference to a certain social class, so it did not include everyone in society. But it included a lot more than just the nobility. Apparently the term included anyone who had the right to have their own family coat of arms.
The article did not address Rex v Dewhurst at all, as far as I could see, although perhaps I missed it.
You gun nuts
Name-calling only demeans your own position.
sure like to pull quotes out of context and try to use them to support your opinion even if they don't support it.
Can you show any instances of me
pulling a quote out of context?
Rex v Gardner found that a gun wasn't an engine of destruction and wasn't covered under the game law. (the word "gun" being omitted in the act.)
Was it your intent to agree with me here?