While there might have been local regulations (such as a town prohibiting the open carrying of arms on its premises), general gun control laws - all over the western world - generally came into existence during the late 1800s or early 1900s.

There was a natural gun control in effect for a very long time - muskets and other guns were expensive. Self-owning farmers and independent tenants could probably afford them, but those that by the time would be called rabble could not.

It was not until the wave of anarchist assassinations in the late 1800s and communist risings after ww1 that western nations started to introduce restrictions in the right to own arms.

As far as I know, the British forces in the colonies tried to secure gunpowder supplies created by the government for the militia, not size all gunpowder supplies nor disarm the population.

As /u/Vonadler notes, there was a sort of "self gun control," in that firearms were quite expensive. For much of the early part of the colonies, the sort of industry needed to manufature weapons was scarce and any guns would be imported from europe. Because of the cost of metal at the time, guns themselves were artisan pieces. The cost of any heavy military weapon was such as to put it far out of the reach of any ordinary citizen. Absent complicating factors there was little need to regulate normal firearm possession.

A notable example in 1667 the Dutch seized several tobacco laden merchan ships in Virginian waters. They returned again in 1673.

At that time the british governor of Virginia ordered that all arms and ammunition in the colony be seized for use by the militia in repelling the dutch. To their dismay, the british discovered that so few Americans owned "servicable arms" even after offering to repair arms for volunteers, they were required to expend public funds purchasing arms for the militia.

This matter is also complicated by the fact that this issue is heavily politicized. It's difficult to find even-handed scholarship on the matter, rather authors tend to congregate on anti or pro-gun positions.

However, a couple points of note.

Most of the American Colonies had some version of the laws that would later be known as slave codes

In particular the SOuth Carolina Slave Code was adopted 1712 and amended in 1739, and Georgia, and Florida later adopted slave codes modeled on the South Carolina Slave Code.

The Virginia Slave code was likewise adopted in 1705, and became a model for codes in Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia.

Both sets of codes had explicit provisions prohibiting slaves from owning weapons. The southern states had more strict codes requiring slave residencs to be regularly searched for weapons.

Several other colonies, including Massachusetts, at least at times, had laws on the books prohibiting the sale of guns to indians, or at least some indians.

In 1713 the Massachusetts legislature also considered and pased a law that chastised the public for the "indiscreet" firing of guns within the town and harbor of Boston, and prohibited the firing of any gun within the city limits of boston, with some exceptions.

As the American Revolution began its slow descent into open war, the British also reacted by imposing gun laws on the colonists. In 1774 the British Parliament passed what it termed the Coercive acts which the Colonists called the "intolerable acts." Portions of these acts and further edicts by Royal governors included prohibitions on regular meetings, and prohibitions on firearm use by colonists. The powder alarm was a well known incident where the British Army sought to take an armory and powder supply nominally under the control of the Massachusetts colony into the control of the Royal Army (and thereby remove it from colonists).