It sounds almost unbelievable, but as attorney and gun rights advocate Tom Grieve explains, gun control activists are using a British law from the year 1328, the Statute of Northampton, to justify restricting the Second Amendment rights of modern Americans. This 700-year-old law, passed during the reign of King Edward III, was originally intended to address knights and nobles roaming around in armor to intimidate others. Yet, in courts across the United States today, anti-gun lawyers are citing it as proof that public carry of weapons was historically restricted. According to Grieve, this is not only wrong – it’s deeply misleading.
What the Statute of Northampton Really Said
Grieve dives into the actual language and history of the Statute of Northampton in both of his videos. Passed in 1328, the law prohibited people from “coming armed before the King’s justices” or “going or riding armed in a fray of the peace.” The idea was to stop armed retinues from disturbing the public, especially during times of civil unrest. But here’s the twist – Grieve points out that the word “armed” in that context meant wearing armor, not carrying swords or bows. In fact, guns didn’t even exist yet. So using this law to limit modern firearm ownership is, as Grieve puts it, “an intellectual bait-and-switch.”
Going Armed Meant Wearing Armor, Not Carrying Weapons
In his second video, Grieve brings receipts. He cites royal orders from the 1200s and early 1300s, all of which use the phrase “go armed” in reference to wearing padded or metal armor, not bearing weapons. A 1297 royal command, for example, required night watchmen to be “properly armed” with a hackaton and a gambeson – both forms of armor. Another order from 1302 under Edward II banned knights from attending jousts or other events while “going armed,” clearly meaning armored rather than armed with weapons.
The Language Matters – “Carry Arms” vs. “Go Armed”
Grieve emphasizes the difference in medieval language between “going armed” and “carrying arms.” The former referred to armor, while the latter specifically referenced swords, knives, or other weapons. In several proclamations following the Statute of Northampton, such as those from 1329 and 1363, both phrases were used side by side: “no man shall go armed… nor carry arms by day or night.” If the terms meant the same thing, why use both? The distinction is critical, Grieve argues, because misreading the statute blurs centuries of legal interpretation and leads to faulty restrictions on gun rights.
Sir Thomas Figett: The Case That Changed Everything
Grieve then tells the story of Sir Thomas Figett, a knight in late-1500s England who was confronted in court for wearing armor under his clothes. According to records, Figett had a legitimate reason – he feared an attack from another knight who had threatened him earlier. He wore concealed body armor, not weapons, purely for self-defense. The court accepted this argument, concluding that since he was not openly displaying arms and not causing public fear, he had broken no law. This case highlighted how intent and visibility were the real factors courts cared about, not simply carrying protection.
Sir John Knight: Firearms and the Fear Test
Jumping forward a century, Grieve also details the trial of Sir John Knight, a Protestant merchant in 1686 Bristol. Knight walked through town armed with a firearm and even entered a church while carrying. He was charged under the same Statute of Northampton, but his lawyer argued that Knight had no malicious intent – he carried the weapon only for personal protection due to religious tensions at the time. The court agreed. Chief Justice Sir John Holt ruled that the statute only applied if someone was carrying arms to terrorize others, not merely for self-defense. The jury acquitted Knight.
The Intent Behind the Law Was Key – Not the Weapon
These two English cases, Sir Figett and Sir Knight, prove a powerful point. The Statute of Northampton wasn’t a blanket ban on being armed. Instead, courts interpreted it as a law against public fear, not personal protection. As Grieve explains, these trials show that individuals were not punished simply for having weapons or armor, but rather for the intent to intimidate. That matters deeply today because many gun control arguments hinge on the idea that the Second Amendment doesn’t allow public carry, and they use the Northampton statute as their “proof.”
The 1689 English Bill of Rights Adds Even More Clarity
Grieve notes that by 1689, England had passed its own Bill of Rights, guaranteeing Protestants the right to bear arms for self-defense “suitable to their condition.” This legal shift marked the formal recognition of the right to arms for ordinary citizens, though still heavily regulated based on class. Still, it demonstrated the evolution away from criminalizing arming oneself for personal safety and toward affirming it as a protected liberty – something that heavily influenced American constitutional law nearly a century later.
Misusing Old Laws to Shape Modern Restrictions
Grieve criticizes today’s gun control advocates for cherry-picking medieval laws to back modern bans, especially when the historical record paints a very different picture. “If you’re going to use a law from 1328 to disarm Americans,” he says, “you better at least understand what the law actually said.” And according to Grieve’s deep dive into historical texts, court cases, and royal decrees, the Statute of Northampton was never about banning weapons – it was about maintaining peace by keeping armored warriors from showing up in towns looking for trouble.
This Is About Control, Not History
In both videos, Grieve calls out what he sees as a modern legal manipulation. He warns that courts in the U.S. are being asked to accept the Statute of Northampton as if it were written yesterday, ignoring both the context and the language of the time. “They’re using armor laws to justify gun control,” he says. “And that’s not just dishonest – it’s dangerous.” His conclusion is clear: if we allow this reinterpretation to stand, we’re rewriting history to fit a political narrative.
A 700-Year Stretch That Shouldn’t Be Happening
What fascinates me most about this entire discussion is how something written for armored knights on horseback is being twisted into a reason to disarm American citizens. The sheer distance between 1328 and today is mind-blowing, and yet it’s being treated like it holds water in modern courts. The idea that “public fear” should override self-defense rights is already a slippery slope – but when that’s based on an armor law from medieval England? That’s beyond slippery – it’s legal gymnastics.
Lessons We Can Learn from the Past – If We Actually Read It
Tom Grieve’s analysis does more than correct the record. It reminds us how important it is to actually read history before using it to justify modern policy. Words like “go armed” had specific meanings. Laws had very different contexts. Misusing old language to restrict constitutional rights is lazy at best – and manipulative at worst. Whether you agree with him or not, Grieve makes a solid case: if courts are going to cite the past, they need to understand it first.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.