[1] They were originally intended as a response to issues which arose during the French and Indian War and soon became a source of tensions between the inhabitants of the colonies and the government in London.General Thomas Gage, the Commander-in-Chief, North America, and other British officers who had fought in the French and Indian War (including Major James Robertson), had found it hard to persuade colonial assemblies to pay for quartering and provisioning of regular troops on the march.[7] During the French and Indian War, British officers frequently requisitioned private dwellings throughout the Thirteen Colonies in order to quarter their troops.The decision by British officers to ignore this aspect of the Mutiny Acts was viewed by some in the colonies (many of whom published their arguments in writing) to contravene the principle that the armed forces should always be subordinate to civil authority.The Assembly rejected several proposed bills related to the issue before passing one which ignored it altogether and only focused on how soldiers were to be quartered in public establishments.[10] In response to what was happening to the colonists, Benjamin Franklin opened up an Assembly meeting suggesting that soldiers could be quartered in public houses in the suburbs.Governor Denny attended this Pennsylvania meeting and bluntly answered that the commander in chief, Lord Loudoun, had requested quartering for the troops in Philadelphia and if anybody had a problem with this then they should talk to him.A product of their times, the relevance of the Acts and the Third Amendment has greatly declined since the era of the American Revolution, having been the subject of only one case in over 200 years,[citation needed] Engblom v. Carey in 1982.[citation needed] The Quartering Act has been cited as one of the reasons for the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,[15] which prohibits infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.