Replies

LIMITS ON THE AMENDMENT The Amendment covers only small arms. Neither RPGs, cannons, grenades nor the other super-destructive devices of modern war are covered.

I'm not sure where the Constitution specifies "small arms". Was private ownership of cannons permitted by the founders?

Was private ownership of cannons permitted by the founders?

Yes. The letter of Marque and Reprisal against the Barbary Pirates was to authorize the Federal Government to PAY privateers, share in the spoils, and to allow them to "hunt" pirates legally. Those letters quite clearly did not, as some here have suggested, make it legal for them to arm their ships in the first place. In fact, the reason the FedGov hired so many privateers was BECAUSE they were already armed.

The term arms is very specific in the language of the days that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, they are a little more ambiguous today, but still mean the same to those in the know. Once a firearm reaches a certain calibre, it no longer falls into the arms definition, but then becomes ordnance. A cannon falls into this latter definition. The same is true for items like RPGs, bombs, nuclear weapons, etc.

LIMITS ON THE AMENDMENT The Amendment covers only small arms. Neither RPGs, cannons, grenades nor the other super-destructive devices of modern war are covered.

I'm not sure where the Constitution specifies "small arms". Was private ownership of cannons permitted by the founders?

It doesn't make such distinctions. It says "Arms." And the focus is not on "what individuals may own", but rather, what this newly formed general government "cannot do." It is not a "granting of rights", but a "restriction of authority on the United States Government" from infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Of course, the federlists (?) thought a BOR was absurd, since the Constitution did not grant any powers to the USG to infringe the right(s) of the people (to keep and bear arms). (see Article I, Section 8). Freedom haters have found a way to exploit this as the federalists had feared. FH'ers intentionally misconstrue the meaning (such as "right of the people" vs. power/authority of the state).

I had an incredible discussion recently on the phrase "under the United States" and the scope of its meaning. It does not mean "under the several States". Usage within the Constitution itself demonstrates its proper meaning, as does usage of "right of the people" vs. power of the State (see Amendment 10). No hand waving appeals to tradition or founding principles are need, when the text itself is adequate.

"I'm not sure where the Constitution specifies "small arms". Was private ownership of cannons permitted by the founders?"

Your right there. I am looking at my Constitution right now. And it reads"...,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

It does not specify the size of the Arms.
Also...notice "Arms" is spelled using the Big A...not the little one...
AND...the part that is written "...., the right of the people..." Seems to specify that this Constitutional protection is for the PEOPLE......the citizens...not the state.

I t was pointed out by the Supreme Court in 1939 (I believe) that the average citizen had the rights to personal weaponry used by militias. This has been interpreted to mean side-arms and rifles (but not WMDs like machine guns).

The founding fathers did not address the issue of ordnance (AFAIK), but it was quite common for commercial shipping to have cannon on board for self-defense.

I'm not sure where the Constitution specifies "small arms". Was private ownership of cannons permitted by the founders?

Private ownership of complete warships is protected by the Constitution. A letter of marque from Congress and your good to go.

Was private ownership of cannons permitted by the founders?

Historically, it was common for trading ships to be armed with cannon, so I would imagine so.