"And no, I'm not going to go through those various acts. If you can find evidence that the state militia acts did not regulate the acquisition of artillery by private individuals, put it up. But you're not going to find it." You made the assertion. Put up or shut up. Prove that ANY law of the time--either state or federal, limited what arms a private individual was allowed to own.
"No; Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution establishes that Congress can regulate the militias as quoted here"
Sorry, but wrong. This only applies to the miltia WHEN IN ACTIVE SERVICE--it in no way apples to what the individual citizens were allowed to own--whiich is the point you are trying to stretch it into.
"My argument was that using evidence of the private arming of ships as supporting a right to unrestricted access to arms goes too far. It does."
And your "argument" is wrong. The private ownership of cannon goes DIRECTLY to the point, and disproves your assertion that ownership crew-served weaponry was "regulated" by law.
"No; Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution establishes that Congress can regulate the militias as quoted here"
Sorry, but wrong. This only applies to the miltia WHEN IN ACTIVE SERVICE--it in no way apples to what the individual citizens were allowed to own--whiich is the point you are trying to stretch it into. Actually that's not quite right either. The early militia acts specified what weapons the (free white male) citizens *must* own, but did not restrict what they *could* own. It did not apply just when they were activated, they had to own those weapons all the time, and this was to be checked during periodic "musters", which are more akin to the weekend drills of the Guard and Reserve than to being "called into federal service". That was all under the power of Congress to provide for arming and dicisplining the militia. (Note "provide for arming"), Congress need not provide the actual arms, although eventually they did, as little as they could get away with in most cases.
"
. . . Prove that ANY law of the time--either state or federal, limited what arms a private individual was allowed to own . . ."
To put together comments from two earlier posts, it is the
National Firearms Act that limits what arms private individuals can own, and it is enforced every day of the year. But the tests which apply to those arms and individual can
keep are sustained by the so-called
ad absurdum and
ad horribilus tests, to which
Miller contributed.
Let me quote from an
article at Guncite.com, which is a "pro-gun" (if I may use that term) site, very jealous of assaults on the 2nd Amendment:
"
. . . Likewise, the amendment does not protect the possession of fully automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, flame throwers, artillery pieces, tanks, nuclear devices, and so on. Although such sophisticated devices of modern warfare do have military utility, they are not also useful for law enforcement or for self-protection, nor are they commonly possessed by law-abiding individuals. . . ."
See Section A, "Limitations on the Right of the General Citizenry To "Keep" Weapons," paragraph #2
Guncite.com is not commenting upon the way the law
could or
should be interpreted (they very much uphold gun owner's rights), they are merely stating the way
the law is interpreted, and the fact that the ATF maintains its National Firearms Act Branch (see above) is the proof of this.
Therefore the only limitations upon which arms a private individual can own are those defined under the National Firearms Act, which are only legally-sustainable if they pass the so-called
ad absurdum or
ad horribilus tests. Beyond that, the law as I understand it recognizes
no limits whatsoever to the right of an individual to possess firearms. To say otherwise is to deny that the National Firearms Act is enforced, which is simply untrue, because it clearly is sustained.
And let me say to you as well Warthog, that I am NOT pro-gun control. I am merely commenting upon the law the way that it is. And I will add that I am very comfortable that my neighbor cannot go out and purchase a 105 mm cannon and set it up in his front yard.