Talk:United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/2nd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 33

Contemporary relevance
It appears that this act stayed in force until 1862, by which time its mentions of muskets, firelocks, and flints would have been much outdated. It is, however, an early example in which Congress required citizens to make a purchase (if not already owned) from a private concern for health reasons (not being killed by Indians). Would it be possible for the Supreme Court to rule against the "individual mandate" even with the existence of this precedent?