What jwm said. A ban and a license are two very different things.

According to your examples there were no licenses. Just bans. So no, no licenses.

Dude sez:

“All of those examples you provided are irrelevant for obvious reasons (check the dates).“

OK, you said pill of rights was ratified in 1791.

Correct, and I provided examples of firearms restrictions in the early American colonies, both immediately before and immediately after ratification of the United States constitution.

“As early as 1686, New Jersey barred the wearing of concealable weapons in public because, according to the law, “it induced great Fear and Quarrels.” In 1837, Georgia made it illegal “to sell. . .or to keep or have about their persons” pistols or other listed weapons.“

“you defend an unconstitutional bill by providing an example“

no, I am defending nothing. I am merely pointing out that the author’s premise “no state had anything even remotely like a gun license in the Founding Era.” is incorrect.

First, you’re changing the subject. I was replying to a specific comment of yours with specific dates. All of those examples you provided are irrelevant for obvious reasons (check the dates).

Second, you defend an unconstitutional bill by providing an example of an … unconstitutional bill!! Wow! How does that work out in your mind? You don’t even think, do you? You are a hopeless drone. You are within the 25-30 percent that would willingly vote for evil.

The Georgia Supreme Court in Nunn v. State found that the portion of the law banning the open carrying of arms was unconstitutional because it violated the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The court emphasized that the right to bear arms openly for self-defense was fundamental and could not be infringed, stating, “The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed.”

This particular case (Nunn v. State) was even cited in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), for its interpretation of the right to bear arms. Now what?

Slavery was also legal in georgia at that time. Seems you’re arguing for a return to slavery.

The dems have a history of restricting freedoms and calling for slavery. Fascinating.

I’m not a slave.
I’m not a Catholic.
I’ve never hunted in Pennsylvania.
I’ve never stepped foot in New Jersey.

Respectfully leave me, and those similarly situated, to LEGALLY exercise our rights.

Can’t want to see them climbing in and out of a De Loren.

And yet, the State of Georgia just 46 years later banned the carry of “pistols, dirks, sword canes, spears, &c.“

“1837 Ga. Acts 90, An Act to Guard and Protect the Citizens of this State, Against the Unwarrantable and too Prevalent use of Deadly Weapons, § 1.
YEAR:
1837
CATEGORY:
Categorical Bans
JURISDICTION:
State
. . . it shall not be lawful for any merchant, or vender of wares or merchandize in this State, or any other person or persons whatsoever, to sell, or offer to sell, or to keep, or to have about their person or elsewhere, any of the hereinafter described weapons, to wit: Bowie, or any other kinds of knives, manufactured and sold for the purpose of wearing, or carrying the same as arms of offence or defense, pistols, dirks, sword canes, spears, &c., shall also be contemplated in this act, save such pistols as are known and used as horseman’s pistols, &c.“

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1837-ga-acts-90-an-act-to-guard-and-protect-the-citizens-of-this-state-against-the-unwarrantable-and-too-prevalent-use-of-deadly-weapons-c2a7-1

It seems the United States does have a tradition of restricting and licensing firearms, how fascinating.

That’s funny, but you shouldn’t defile Miami Vice like that!

Notice how they’re never honest about any of their positions. They rely on ignorant and brainwashed voters. If they were honest about their intentions, they’d get about 25-30 percent of the vote instead of roughly half. Yes, way too many people would willingly vote for evil. They hate you.