"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. . . .""
Nice try at changing the subject--but I'm not gonna buy it.
We're talking about whether the HISTORY of the law of firearms ownership supports the contention that citizens could not or cannot own "BIG DAMNED GUNS" (aka cannons or howtizers) during the history of our (fast-dying) Republic. Not whether the modern legislature has managed to pass unConstitutional abominations in a Court system that ignores the plain language and intent of the Constitution. For further evidence of same, see "McCain-Feingold" and the First Amendment.
When you find any such law pre-dating 1900, let me know.
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. . . ."
Guncite.com is not commenting upon the way the law could or should be interpreted (they very much uphold gun owner's rights),
Bull.. -- They are 'commenting' that objects [arms] of military utility that can [as per the 2nd] commonly be possessed by law-abiding individuals can be prohibited by an act of Congress; supposedly because they are "not useful for law enforcement or for self-protection" [obviously false], -- "nor are they commonly possessed by law-abiding individuals" [a stupid 'begging' of the issue]. . .
they are merely stating the way the law is interpreted,
Again, "the way the law is interpreted" is the disputed issue.
The supposed 'law' is an unconstitutional deprivation of property [arms] without due process of law. [14th] -- Congress has no delegated power to prohibit arms. [10th]
and the fact that the ATF maintains its National Firearms Act Branch (see above) is the proof of this.
"Proof" of what? -- that the 2nd is being ignored?
Therefore the only limitations upon which arms a private individual can own are those defined under the National Firearms Act --- the law as I understand it recognizes no limits whatsoever to the right of an individual to possess firearms.
Yet you contend that fully automatic firearms, artillery pieces, tanks, grenades, rocket launchers, flame throwers, etc -- can be outright prohibited.
-- Are you aware that many people owned these objects perfectly legally prior to 1934 and still do? Are you aware that while reasonable regulations can be written to control use, there is no constitutional justification for total prohibitions on possession?
Hell, even nuclear, chemical & biological materials are possessed by individuals & companies.
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.
Why does this 'comfort' you?
Your re-enactor neighbor could [in many rural areas] set up a functional &'legal' muzzle loading cannon or mortar capable of doing massive damage far beyond his own property, and few rational people would blink an eye.
As Warthog said:
"--- whether the modern legislature has managed to pass unConstitutional abominations in a Court system that ignores the plain language and intent of the Constitution --" is not the question.
Why are you more 'comfortable' disarming your neighbor, [and why do you think you have the power to do so] -- that is the question.