Do Second Amendment “Arms” Include Cannons?

[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.

[CurlyDave]

Article I, Section 8 gives congress power to issue letters of Marque and Reprisal. The strong implication of this section is private ownership of warships, which include cannon, and potentially other crew-served weapons.

And, there is modern historical precedent which extends the power far beyond sailing vessels. In the early part of WWII, 1940s, a letter of Marque and Reprisal was issued to the Goodyear blimp to act as an anti-submarine asset off the west coast. While it was mostly spotting duty and the only weapon involved was a rifle, there is a modern precedent. And at a minimum there is an entire crew serving this aerial asset.

[bunkerhill7]

CANNONS and ARTILLERY WERE LEGAL IN PHILADELPHIA IN 1790
ORDINANCES “Ordinance of January 18 1790 An ordinance for the suppression of nuisances and enforcing of useful regulations within the city of Philadelphia For the other sections of this ordinance see Nuisances and Carriages 1 And whereas the firing of cannon or other great pieces of artillery or ordnance and the illuminating of houses within the city on occasions of public rejoicing have been attended with many great mischiefs and inconveniences It is therefore ordained and enacted That no person or persons whatsoever shall fire or discharge any cannon or other piece of artillery or ordnance or illuminate or cause or permit to be illuminated any house within the built parts of this city without the permission of the mayor of the city for the time being first had and obtained in writing under his hand under the penalty of forfeiting and paying for every piece of cannon or other artillery or ordnance so fired or house so illuminated the sum of five dollars all and every the fine and fines imposed by this ordinance shall be recoverable with costs of suit by any person who shall sue for the same before the mayor recorder or any alderman of the said and shall go one moiety to the person or persons who shall sue for the same and the other moiety for the use of the city” Ordinance of July 9 1821 p.78

A Digest of the Ordinances of the Corporation of the City of Philadelphia: And of the Acts of Assembly Relating Thereto
Corporation (PHILADELPHIA), John C. LOWBER (and MILLER (C. S.))

Robert Desilver, 1822 - Municipal charters and ordinances - 301 pages

++++++++++++++++==

“Cannons for sale Six very excellent double fortified sizes, with ammunition...”
New-York Commercial Advertiser, August 02, 1804, Page 1
for sale 4 cannons
New-York Evening Post., July 16, 1811, Page 1

for sale 200 cannons and 100 tons of shot’
New-York Evening Post ., September 23, 1828, Page 3

for sale 200 cannons and howitzers and tons of shot and ammunition
New-York Evening Post , November 02, 1844, Page 1 [NY City]

for sale 50 cannons and 100 tons of shot
New-York Evening Post , September 09, 1829, Page 1 [NY City]

U.S. Govt sells 400 cannons, 36 mortars, muskets and cartridges to the general public.
“
Evening Courier & Republic, February 07, 1866, Page 3 [Buffalo, NY]

[TheCipher]

It shows the liberal argument that the 2nd Amendment was only for firearms used for hunting. I doubt they used cannon to hunt deer and turkey.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

When I was a kid long ago, I desperately wanted a "Big Bang" carbide cannon. My wish was never granted, though.

Is Biden banning these, too?

[American Number 181269513]

I picked this up at the local flee market.

Uh, be right back, there is a knock on my door.

[TigersEye]

Tsar bomba should be the limit.

Anything bigger than that should require a note from your doctor.

[backwoods-engineer]

My neighbor has cannon. So what?

[backwoods-engineer]

+1 good post

[marktwain]

U.S. v. Miller was used to prevent challenges to the NFA of 1938. While Miller clearly implied that military arms were protected by the Second Amendment, FDR appointed judges ruled it did not.

In Cases v. United States, 1942, a three-judge panel on the First Circuit ruled it was unlikely Miller meant military arms were protected by the Second Amendment: From Cases:

Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon. It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result.

The judges did not want military arms protected, so they ruled they were not protected.

[atc23]

You bet cannons are allowed. The government encouraged private citizens to own any and all weaponry that could be requisitioned by the Army for use against enemies in the Revolution, War of 1812, Mexican War and the Civil War.

Biden is a liar and makes a fool of himself every time he opened is fake teeth filled mouth. Just ignore him. He’s going to be a lame duck in 5 more months. Him and his lesbian circus of an administration

[David Treibs]

Bigger guns for bigger targets.

[David Treibs]

Of course!

[David Treibs]

Of course, I agree; but, can you provide me some documentation?

[Lurker]

Letters of Marque would come in handy down south.

L

[David Treibs]

That sounds like a different section of the quote I used. I suppose I need to find the full quote.
Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

[Yaelle]

Only if you conceal carry.

[CodeToad]

You know, there is a part of me that wishes Elon Musk would get a nuke. I’d just love to see what he would do with it.

[DesertRhino]

“Use them without and you’d get hung for piracy.”

Hanged.... it’s hanged. It’s a very important difference.

[Little Ray]

Yes.

Warships, too.

[The Great RJ]

During the 1862 Sioux uprising in Minnesota, a German society bought a cannon for the beleaguered residents of New Ulm, MN. The cannon still resides in New ULM and is still fired on special occasions.