Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
Page Number: 40.0

34  NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN., INC. v. BRUEN 

Opinion of the Court 

Pocket  Daggers,  Pocket  Dagges  and  Pistols  (R.  Barker
printer 1616).  But, in any event, James I’s proclamation in
1616 “was the last one regarding civilians carrying dags,”
Schwoerer 63.  “After this the question faded without expla-
nation.”  Ibid.  So, by the time Englishmen began to arrive
in America in the early 1600s, the public carry of handguns 
was no longer widely proscribed.

When we look to the latter half of the 17th century, re-
spondents’  case  only  weakens.  As  in  Heller,  we  consider 
this  history  “[b]etween  the  [Stuart]  Restoration  [in  1660]
and the Glorious Revolution [in 1688]” to be particularly in-
structive.  554 U. S., at 592.  During that time, the Stuart 
Kings Charles II and James II ramped up efforts to disarm
their political opponents, an experience that “caused Eng-
lishmen . . . to be jealous of their arms.”  Id., at 593. 

In one notable example, the government charged Sir John
Knight, a  prominent detractor of  James II, with violating
the Statute of Northampton because he allegedly “did walk
about the streets armed with guns, and that he went into
the church of St. Michael, in Bristol, in the time of divine 
service, with a gun, to terrify the King’s subjects.”  Sir John 
Knight’s Case, 3 Mod. 117, 87 Eng. Rep. 75, 76 (K. B. 1686).
Chief Justice Holt explained that the Statute of Northamp-
ton  had  “almost  gone  in  desuetudinem,”  Rex  v.  Sir  John 
Knight, 1 Comb. 38, 38–39, 90 Eng. Rep. 330 (K. B. 1686),
meaning  that  the  Statute  had  largely  become  obsolete
through disuse.10  And the Chief Justice further explained 
—————— 

10 Another medieval firearm restriction—a 1541 statute enacted under 
Henry VIII that limited the ownership and use of handguns (which could
not be shorter than a yard) to those subjects with annual property values 
of at least £100, see 33 Hen. 8 c. 6, §§1–2—fell into a similar obsolescence. 
As far as we can discern, the last recorded prosecutions under the 1541 
statute occurred in 1693, neither of which appears to have been success-
ful.  See King and Queen v. Bullock, 4 Mod. 147, 87 Eng. Rep. 315 (K. B. 
1693); King v. Litten, 1 Shower, K. B. 367, 89 Eng. Rep. 644 (K. B. 1693).
It seems that other prosecutions under the 1541 statute during the late 
1600s were similarly unsuccessful.  See King v. Silcot, 3 Mod. 280, 280–