“hrmn?
what, then, is your explanation for USCon:Art1:Sec8:11?”
You mean: “Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; “
I would say it has no application at all. There is no record of any founder discussing the individual ownership or possession of any arms beyond small arms. None. There is a vast amount of record of discussion about specific small arms and Congress passed a specific act in 1793 that defined exactly what arms the militia was expected to have and to show up with if mustered. All small arms. No cannon. Unless you can produce an actual discussion, congressional or state law or court opinion that ties the use of privateers under letter of marque with the bearing of arms as a part of the militia, I would have so say the two issues are completely separate.
I would say that the issuance of a congressional hunting permit to private captains logically implies that private possession of cannon is licit according to the constitution.
and you believe you are correct in taking a basic minimum standard and redefining it as the maximum permissable limit?
Other than the reply above this one that cites Miller?
The Act in question was the Militia Act of *1792*; it was passed to establish a *minimum* standard of equipment that a militia should have and appear with when summoned. Many militias at the time did not have full equipment for every man, and several states had a cheeseparing attitude towards supporting them -officers and men were not paid for their service, there was no consistency in their treatment or regulations, etc, etc,
The act, by the way, acknowledges that there are private artillery corps:
"And whereas sundry corps of artillery, cavalry and infantry now exist in several of the said states, which by the laws, customs, or usages thereof, have not been incorporated with, or subject to the general regulation of the militia.
"XI. Be it enacted, That such corps retain their accustomed privileges subject, nevertheless, to all other duties required by this Act, in like manner with the other militias."
So your argument doesn't hold water anyway.
http://www.potowmack.org/emerappc.html (Has the Militia Act in it)
It should also be mentioned that private artillery ownership was the issue that triggered the Texas War For Independence. The Texas settlers had a cannon for defense, the Mexican Army decided that they didn't need it and came to take it from them, and the rest is history. Why does this matter? Because shortly after that, *the citizens of Cincinnatti* donated two of their privately owned cannons to Sam Houston to aid his cause.
Not too familiar with Tench Coxe, eh?
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.
-Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Or maybe Noah Webster?
The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
-Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
There are many others - look 'em up.
The argument that the founders only refer to small arms when talking about the militia is disingenuous. Show me where they talk about the army having artillary, etc. Or do you think that the two above only meant for the army to be armed with swords?