Posted on 06/03/2022 6:02:56 PM PDT by David Treibs
Do Second Amendment “Arms” Include Cannons? I would appreciate any additional materials that anyone may have.
“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” -Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
“The word ‘arms’ in the connection we find it in the Constitution of the United States, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the saber, holster pistols and carbine; of the artillery, the field piece, siege gun, and mortar, with side arms.” -English v State, Texas 473, 476 (1871-2)
“Cannon are constantly manufactured, when demanded, to a very considerable extent, in the public armories of the nation, and of the States, and on contracts, and for sale to associations of citizens, and to individual purchasers, for use at home, or for exportation.” Tench Coxe, Dec, 8, 1812, Report of Acting Secretary of the Treasury; Digest of Manufacturers; American State Papers, 1832
[11] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; Section 8: Powers of Congress US Constitution
Definition from Webster's 1828 dictionary (implicit ownership of cannons by private citizens): M`ARQUE
M`ARK , n. Letters of marque are letters of reprisal; a license or extraordinary commission granted by a sovereign of one state to his subjects, to make reprisals at sea on the subjects of another, under pretense of indemnification for injuries received. Marque is said to be from the same root as marches, limits, frontiers, and literally to denote a license to pass the limits of a jurisdiction on land, for the purpose of obtaining satisfaction for theft by seizing the property of the subjects of a foreign nation. I can give no better account of the origin of this word.
1. The ship commissioned for making reprisals.
That's what ATV trailers are for.
There’s quite a bit of functional historic vehicles in private collections.
Quite a bit.
One man’s pirate is another man’s privateer. At that time if you were wealthy enough to afford a warship you were also wealthy enough to get Britain, Spain ,France or the fledgling USA to rubber stamp your papers. Some privateers even switched sides with who would pay them more what a grand time to be alive except for the lack of antibiotics and air conditioning....
(No doubt some fraidy-cat at Albany has made a law to forbid this.)
At the outset of the effort that led to our constitution, most of the cannon were either owned by private citizens, were common property of the various militias or were stolen from the crown. Hell yes, the 2nd Amendment means cannon, tanks, bombers, the whole works.
You can own an F-15 if you are rich. Who would want a nuke? A cannon? I used to have one and could build another easily.
I think it may be limited to what a armed individual could carry on his person: Grenades, LAW, RPG, Javelin…
Thats right. ‘Arms’ means any weapons of war. No restrictions if you can afford it and maintain it. And ‘well regulated’ means you know how to use them.
The British were coming for the privately owned cannon in Concord on April 19th, 1775. Seems it started a war.
At the time of the founding, many private ship owners probably owned cannons to fend off pirates.
....and Full Phasers, Photon Torpedo’s & Light Sabers.🤟
Let’s put it this way. Clearly the intent of Congress in the Second Amendment was to allow the people all manner of arms to overthrow tyrannical governments. And what were considered arms at this point in history? Pistols, long guns, mortars, canon/artillery, rockets and ships to name a few. So yes, canons could be bought if you could afford one. And since the framers of the Constitution intentions was to allow for citizens to overthrow tyrannical government why would they limit what types of weapons could be used?
Private citizens do own cannons.
Yes.
That was easy.
The second amendment was written to allow the citizens to overthrow a government gone rogue.
With that in mind, any weapons that our military possesses, we not only have the right, but the duty to possess.
This includes so called assault weapons, machine guns, grenades, mortars and rockets.
If you can afford it howitzers, tanks, aircraft and even warships.
It may surprise people to know that our fledgling country leased cannon and warships from private owners.
We had more rights under the crown than we do today.
No.
No restrictions whatsoever.
It’s true, especially if you were fighting your country’s enemies but you still needed the letter of marque to make it legal to do so in defense of your country.
If it’s good enough for the federale gov then it’s good enough for the citizens - the founding fathers warned against a standing army, and forbid the feds for infringing on arms. If it can be used in war for offense or defense, it’s an arm.
Don’t let the leftard/commies derail the conversation. If it’s an arm, they are forbidden from infringing on our having or using said arms.
Short answer: yes.
Longer answer: try the Dixie Gun Works catalog. They have a whole section devoted to cannons and cannon accessories.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.