A Blanket as Clothing.

A Gypsy Family (18th century) Julius Caesar Ibbetson, © Bridgeman Art Library / Leeds Museums and Galleries (City Art Gallery) U.K.

Take note of the pin below the neck, this is more than likely made of wood.

Trade Goods. George Morgan's memorandum 1770.

18^th Century Trade Goods. George Morgan’s Memorandom. 1770

Goods I  have taken out of  the Store & put on board my boat. Viz

2 ps.lo Duck

2 Remnts. d[itt]o. 4% yds.

1 lb. Scan [skein] twine

15 Knives

7 Cotton Norman Han[dkerchie]fs

2 Pr. Boots

4 pr. plain Womens Shoes

3 pr. gold laced do.

1 pr. silver do. do.

5 Tobacco Boxes

24  pr. Sleeve Buttons

1 gro. Fish Hooks

3 Closet Locks

4 pr. Shoe Buckles

1 pr. Knee do.

7 pr. Womens Cotton Stockgs.

7 pr. do. Shoes that came from Carlisle

10 ps. Ribbond

7 Remnts. computd. to be 8 ps. do.

9 ps. Silk Ferrit

6 Remnts. computd. to be 3 ps. do.

3 lb. White thread

70 lb. pepper

3 Keggs of  Powder

15 ps. Stroud

2 1 Silver hair plates

6 do. large ambands

40 do. narrow do.

54 do. wrist bands

11 gorgetsll

11 shells

23 doz. rings

74 pr. Sleeve Buttons

3 1 Hair Pipes

*The list Morgan mentions is on a separate page in

the "Memorandums" and is set up here line for line as

in the original.

18  112 yds. Blue StroydI2

1 ps.  do.  do. 4 yds. cut

17  112 yds. Scarlet Stroud

18  114 yds embossed Flannel

lnPieces. A "piece" was a unit of  measu

proximately twelve yards in length. Jacobs,

"Medals worn around the neck. Ibid.,  p.

12Coarse woolen  cloth, frequently  trade

Indians for use as clothing and blankets. Ibi

26 large Crosses

70 Small do.

72  Nose Crosses

105 Doz. & 3 Broaches

2 1 doz. & 10 hair do.

6 pr. Show Buckles

4 Knee ditto

1450 Black Wampum

11 pr. womens worsted stockings

5 lb. White Thread

2 Nests Gilt Trunks

Box  26 Bottles Mustard

12 ps. Check Hankerchiefs

8 lb. Coloured Thread

4 pr. womens thread mitts

2 114 lb. Coloured Thread

1 114 lb. White Thread

1 lb. Sealing Wax

39 Small Check Hank

http://dig.lib.niu.edu/ISHS/ishs-1976aug/ishs-1976aug-185.pdf

Suggested Goods For Colonists 1620.

What America can learn from Switzerland.

http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html

Calls For A Change to Antique Gun Laws. A Video.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-30/calls-to-change-antique-gun-regulations/4402182

Self Defense Laws NSW.

I was told many years ago by the police that in order to defend myself with a gun, I must already have been shot. This meant that (a) I was defending myself against an aggressor using a gun, and (b) he had already fired at me and hit me. Their reasoning was that I needed proof that my life was in danger, and that I had no alternative but to use a gun in my defense. I was about 30 years of age then, so my age may have had some bearing in a self-defense issue. I am no longer a young man, and it seems this does carry some weight when defending yourself in court regarding the shooting of a person in self-defense. I here enclose information on the legality of self-defense in NSW Australia. 

Self defence law NSW

In any assault type offence you can raise self defence as an issue in your case. If the court accepts that you were acting in self defence, the court will dismiss the charge against you. If you are going to defend a case relying on self defence you need to know the law relating to self defence. The self defence laws in NSW are  found in Part 11 Division 3 of the Crimes Act 1900.

The law for self defence in NSW 

Section 418 of the Crimes Act 1900 outlines when self defence is available.

(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.

(2) A person carries out conduct in self-defence if and only if the person believes the conduct is necessary:

·         to defend himself or herself or another person, or

·         to prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his or her liberty or the liberty of another person, or

·         to protect property from unlawful taking, destruction, damage or interference, or

·         to prevent criminal trespass to any land or premises or to remove a person committing any such criminal trespass,

and the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceives them.

Raising self defence and who has to prove what

An accused only needs to raise self defence as an issue in their case. The prosecution then has to prove that the accused was not acting in self defence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The prosecution must show either:

·         That the accused did not genuinely believe that it was necessary to act as he or she did in his or her own defence or;

·         That what the accused did was not a reasonable response to the danger, as he or she perceived it to be.

More detailed information about the self defence laws in NSW

The information contained below involves complex legal principles. If you do not have a good knowledge of the law you may have difficulty understanding the principles. If you need assistance, please call or email us.

self defence: the leading case 

R v Kirstain William Katarzynski

Facts for a defence of self defence

The deceased was shot by the accused three times to the torso at a Hotel in Liverpool. There was no issue that the accused committed the act which caused the death of the deceased. The prosecution conceded that there was a real possibility that when the accused shot the deceased he was acting in his own self defence.

Principles for a defence of self defence

There are two questions to be answered by the Court when self defence is raised.

·         Is there is a reasonable possibility that the accused believed that his or her conduct was necessary in order to defend himself or herself; and,

·         If there is, is there also a reasonable possibility that what the accused did was a reasonable response to the circumstances as he or she perceived them.

The first question is determined by a completely subjective point of view considering the personal characteristics of the accused at the time they carried out the conduct.

The second question is determined by an entirely objective assessment of the proportionality of the accused’s response to the situation the accused subjectively believed they faced.

The accused need not have reasonable grounds for their belief that it was necessary to act in the way they did in order to defend themselves as the common law required. It is sufficient if the accused genuinely holds that belief.

The jury is not assessing the response of the reasonable person but the response of the accused. In making that assessment it is obvious than some of the personal attributes of the accused will be relevant just as will be some of the surrounding physical circumstances in which the accused acted. So matters such as the age of the accused, his or her gender, or the state of his or her health may be regarded by the jury.

Intoxication is only relevant to an assessment of the belief held by the accused as to what conduct was necessary in his self defence and as to the circumstances perceived by the accused (The first question)

One matter that must be irrelevant to an assessment of the reasonableness of the accused's response (second question) is his or her state of sobriety.

http://www.armstronglegal.com.au/web/page/criminal_defences-self_defense

Australian Firearms Legislation & our Rights as Law Abiding Citizens.

Just think about this, let us just for a minute pretend that the only guns we were allowed to use in Australia were flintlock muzzle-loading guns. Bear in mind that right now, this government groups muzzle-loading guns in with breach-loading guns, same registrations requirements, same licence requirements. Did you know that the special advisory committee for firearms legislation does not exist? That's right, they let us believe that they were taking advice from experts. I wrote to the powers that be, and I said, how come you have a special advisory committee and yet you make the mistake of classing muzzle-loading guns along with breach-loading guns? how come a pre-1900ad flintlock muzzle-loading gun does not require registration or licence, but a post 1900ad flintlock muzzle-loading gun does require a licence and registration? No reply was forthcoming.

Now we know why, there was no special advisory committee, it never happened. They will put $5 million into gun confiscation like the gun buy back scheme, but will not finance an advisory committee to make sure we have fair and sensible gun legislation. So I reiterate, just pretend that all we have are flintlock muzzle-loading guns, nothing else. The crime rate has soared, gun crime is on the increase. Do you think they will finally see the light and give us our breach-loaders back? Not a hope! Do you think they will leave firearms legislation alone and allow us to keep our muzzle-loading guns? I very much doubt it.

Right now, because of the governments knee jerk reaction to firearms crimes, we are not allowed to answer the door with a firearm in our possession. We are not legally allowed to use a gun to protect our lives and the lives of our families unless we have already been shot! What does this say about a government? Does it sound like they care for our well being? Do they care about our safety? Do you think that our government considers that we have a right to protect ourselves and our family? If you think for one minute that our government cares about our safety and our right to pursue happiness, then you join the anti-gun brigade. But if you think that they only care about votes and making money, if you think you should have the right to defend yourself and your family, then you better start doing something right now. 

The only ones carrying knives, axes and guns on the streets right NOW, are criminals or people who fear for their own lives and are prepared to take the risk of imprisonment if they are caught. If I want to attend a Living History Rendezvous in Victoria, I have to apply for a special permit to transport my tomahawk! My wife had her multi-tool pocket knife which she used for preparing food when attending conferences away from home confiscated by police! We are not allowed to carry an ordinary single bladed pocket knife in NSW! 

I fully realise that voting for our rights to own a gun usually means voting against other preferences such as the environment, but we can only win one battle at a time. Right now we are losing on both fronts, firearms and the environment, so let's put all our efforts into one thing at a time. 

We need to legally have a right to defend ourselves, at the very least in our own homes. We need gun licence fees to be reduced, they are far too expensive. Flintlock muzzle-loading firearms need to be available off licence, no registration requirements and no special permit to acquire ( we are talking muzzle-loading here, a gun that needs a piece of rock to make it work! Give me a break!). We need assurance that we can keep the guns that we presently own legally, no more firearms legislation aimed at making it hard for law abiding citizens to own guns. Now if you think this post makes sense, then post the link around. Write a post on what you think is fair and just firearms legislation. But be realistic, be fair. There is a real problem with crimes involving firearms. We do not want to make it worse for ourselves by going off half cocked like the government. We need to give it some thought, we just want a fair go.
Regards, Keith.