Gun Control & RKBA

Tucker: This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.

{comment} Cornell’s thesis is that Tucker, along with the Founders in general, saw {2ndA} as guaranteeing a “state right” to maintain a militia, excluding an individual right to have and carry arms for self defense, which the legislature is free to curtail or prohibit.

st geo tucker, 1803: In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty

By the time tucker wrote the above circa 1803, the 'prohibitions' he had written of in England had largely effectively dissipated, they had really only lasted about 40 years into the early 1700's, and even then had rarely been enforced. American rev-war militia man Tucker is bashing England mainly, using outdated info.

+emph, note 1671 game laws were intended to prevent wanton killing of game: Moreover, most of the gentry chose not to enforce the Game Act vigorously, choosing instead to use selectively the right to search for weapons in order to deal with particular troublemakers. Shooting matches involving illegal gun owners were common, and many illegal gun owners made no effort to conceal their possession of firearms.. The govt had enforced the Game Act of 1671 sporadically at best, despite royal commands. After enactment of the Bill of Rights {incl'g 1689 Have Arms d.}, justices of the peace enforced the earlier firearms provisions only against poachers and not against people who simply possessed guns
I cite source only for game law 1671 info, other views may be invalid: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/59dk-d.pdf

Tucker is not actually blaming the English 'have arms' decree of 1689 for this 'prohibition', either. The English game laws of 1671 (18 years prior to the 'Have Arms' decree) is what 'disarmed' the English during that short time period ~1671 - early 1800's).

tucker: In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game,

The English game laws of 1671 were used as a pretext to (reasonably) preserve game under CharlesII, and the subsequent 'Have Arms' decree of 1689 was the legal instrument used to enforce the English game law..