17th Century
Oral argument in US v. Castleman
Here's a summary, from SCOTUSBlog.
The question is how to construe the Federal ban on possession after conviction for a DV misdemeanor. The Federal ban includes offenses that have use or threat of force as an element, whereas this State law forbids causing "bodily injury," defined to include an abrasion, physical pain, temporary illness, or impairment of the function of an organ or a bodily member. It'd thus include, oh, dosing a person with an emetic or a laxative, giving them the flu, etc., which are not uses of force. So does a conviction under that statute qualify as a Federal bar? As the Justices' questions suggest, this is a tricky question.
Permalink · 17th Century ~ · Gun Control Act of 68 · Comments (2)
Lord Somers' notes on 1688 Declaration of Rights
The British 1688/89 (old vs. new style dates) includes the guarantee that "the subjects which are protestant may have arms for their defense suitable to their condition and as allowed by law." Some commentators -- Roy Weatherup, for example -- still try to read this as some manner of "collective right" -- in his explanation, "It should be pointed out that the King did not disarm Protestants in any literal sense; the reference is to his desire to abandon the militia in favor of a standing army..."
The claim is untenable in light of the unearthing of a 1778 volume by a British antiquarian, which reprints the notes of Lord Somers (floor manager for the Declaration in the House of Lords), on the debate in the House of Commons. The notes make clear that the speakers were in fact moved by the fact that they and others ("himself disarmed") had been individually subjected to confiscation.