The Myth of Continuity in American Gun Culture
Introduction
In 2025, the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen upended decades of Second Amendment jurisprudence by declaring that firearm regulations must align with the “historical tradition” of American gun laws. This ruling emboldened gun rights advocates to challenge modern regulations using a three-part argument: (1) a firearms-related issue existed in the Founding era, (2) the Founders didn’t regulate it, so (3) neither can we.
But what if the premise of this argument—that early American gun culture mirrors today’s—is a myth? This article dismantles the notion of continuity, revealing how historical realities differ starkly from modern gun culture.
Gun Culture in British North America Before the Revolution
Why Was Early America So Well-Armed?
Early America was indeed armed—but not for the reasons we assume today. While rural settlers used guns for hunting and defense, the driving forces behind gun ownership were slavery, settler colonialism, and imperial conflict. Southern planters stockpiled weapons to control enslaved populations, while frontier militias relied on firearms to displace Indigenous nations.
Guns were tools of collective survival, not symbols of individualism. Unlike today’s consumerist “super-owners” (who hoard dozens of guns), colonial “super-owners” were wealthy slaveholders. Probate records show that less than 5% of colonists owned more than three firearms.
Colonial Militias and the Uneven Geography of Gun Ownership
Colonial governments actively shaped gun ownership through militia laws. In regions like New England and the Chesapeake, where threats from Native nations and European rivals loomed, 70% of households owned firearms. By contrast, mid-Atlantic colonies like Pennsylvania—with weaker militia traditions—had far lower ownership rates.
The state wasn’t an adversary; it was the primary supplier. During the Seven Years’ War, Britain shipped 66,000 muskets to the colonies. Firearms weren’t a check on government power—they were instruments of state-sponsored violence.
The Rarity of Repeating Firearms in Early America
Technological Challenges of Early Repeating Firearms
Repeating firearms existed in the 18th century, but they were unreliable curiosities, not practical weapons. Take the Puckle Gun (1718): a tripod-mounted, hand-cranked repeater that fired cube-shaped bullets at Christians and round balls at Muslims. It was slow, dangerous, and commercially irrelevant.
Early designs like superposed load muskets risked exploding in users’ hands. As one historian quipped, these guns were better suited for museums than battlefields.
Repeating Arms in the Colonies and Early United States
Gun rights advocates often cite the Belton Repeater (1777) and Girardoni Air Rifle (1790s) as proof that Founders embraced multi-shot weapons. But Congress rejected Belton’s design as impractical, and Lewis and Clark’s air rifle—used to impress Native tribes—was a novelty, not a battlefield staple.
These weapons were rare, expensive, and irrelevant to public safety. Founding-era militias fought with single-shot muskets, not high-capacity repeaters.
Firearm Regulation in Early America
Early America had robust gun laws—just not the kind we debate today. Regulations focused on disarming Loyalists during the Revolution, restricting Native access to firearms, and maintaining militia readiness. The absence of laws targeting repeaters isn’t evidence of constitutional intent; it’s proof they were too rare to matter.
Nineteenth-Century Breakthroughs and Regulations
The 19th century saw transformative innovations: percussion caps, revolvers, and Winchester rifles. Yet even in 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, large-capacity firearms like the Henry Rifle (16 rounds) were military oddities. By the 1920s, semi-automatic pistols and Tommy Guns sparked public alarm—and swift regulation.
The Novelty of Ghost Guns in American Life
Modern Ghost Guns and the Myth of Self-Made Arms
“Ghost guns” (untraceable firearms assembled from kits) are framed as part of a “tradition of self-made arms.” But colonial gunsmiths were skilled artisans, not hobbyists with 3D printers. Early firearms required expertise to forge barrels and locks—tasks beyond the average settler.
Europe’s Dominance in Early Firearms Production
Europe’s guilds and state armories produced 95% of colonial firearms. Making a musket required 40+ specialized trades, from barrel forgers to lock-makers. Colonists imported parts like locks and barrels because local craftsmanship couldn’t match European quality.
Colonial Gunsmiths: Repairers, Not Makers
Most colonial “gunsmiths” repaired guns rather than building them. During the Revolution, states struggled to arm militias despite pleas for domestic production. The Continental Army relied on French imports—not DIY gunsmiths—to win independence.
Conclusion
The Bruen decision forces courts to confront history, but the “myth of continuity” distorts that history. Early America’s gun culture was shaped by collective defense, state power, and technological limits—not individual self-defense. By exposing these discontinuities, historians can challenge the foundation of modern Second Amendment jurisprudence.
In the long run, Bruen may backfire. As courts scrutinize Founding-era context, even Heller’s individual rights framework could unravel. The past isn’t prologue—it’s a mirror reflecting our own biases.
FAQs
- How did the Bruen decision change Second Amendment jurisprudence?
Bruen replaced interest-balancing tests with a strict historical analysis, requiring laws to match “text, history, and tradition.” This shifted the burden to states to defend regulations using 18th- or 19th-century precedents. - Why were early American gun regulations focused on militias?
Militias were essential for colonial security. Laws ensured white men could be armed for collective defense—not personal protection. - Did the Founding Fathers anticipate modern firearms technology?
No. Founders knew single-shot muskets, not AR-15s. Early repeaters were experimental and irrelevant to their regulatory concerns. - How does the history of repeating firearms affect current gun laws?
Courts often conflate historical curiosities with modern weapons. Debunking this myth shows that regulations on high-capacity magazines address unprecedented societal risks. - What is the significance of ghost guns in the context of historical gun-making traditions?
Ghost guns rely on modern manufacturing (3D printing, CNC machines). Colonial “self-made arms” required skilled labor, making today’s kits a radical departure—not a tradition.
