Scalia's Comments about the Highlanders and the Catholics

I am not sure where Justice Scalia was going with his legislation against Scottish highlanders and Roman Catholics forbidding them to keep and bear arms, but both were vanquished foes.

The Highlanders were forbidden to keep and bear arms after the Second Jacobite rising of 1745 unless they were in service to the king. This makes sense as they had risen against the British authority and had been defeated. In the "Proscription Act, or the 'Black Act' of 1746, as it was known to the Highlanders and Islanders, Scottish Highlanders were forbidden to own arms, which might be reasonable so soon after a war, but also to wear the kilt or any garments of tartan cloth. Offenders could and were transported to Botany Bay (Modern Day Sydney OZ) or imprisoned.

Of course, the arms the highlanders had were not modern. The Highlanders charged the English lines at Prestonpans using broadswords. So, we are discussing swords in regards to the highlanders and arms.

Likewise, there were religious wars in Europe since the establishment of protestantism (as opposed to heresies). England had the Anglican Church established outside of Roman Authority. Talk of "Papism" and "popish plots" were common in 16th and 17th Century England. These would have been contrary to English law. Any owning of arms was to prevent the possibility of revolt.

SO, there was a policy reason for barring both groups from ownership of arms just as there would be if we wished to bar terrorist groups from owning weapons. Given the Constitutional prescription against treason and the Militia's role of "executing the Laws of the Union, suppressing Insurrections, and repelling Invasions" it makes perfect sense to prevent the ownership of arms in this case.