[taxcontrol]

Please folks, understand the parlance of the time of the founders.

Arms meant firearms that could be carried by a person.

Ordinance is the term that was used when referring to weapons, such as cannons that required more than one person to operate. As such, a howitzer would be ordinance, not arms.

[TalonDJ]

I stand corrected. They did not just mean 'fire' arms though. It covered other carried arms like swords and such.

[DBrow]

"Arms meant firearms that could be carried by a person."

Nope, if you were granted a letter of marque and reprisal you could get whatever armament it took to get the job done, including big bore cannon that it took four mules to haul to your ship, and any kind of load for them from ballistic to explosive and including cannister charges and chain shot.

You could in fact have al that stuff without the letter of marque.

[ExpatGator]

"Ordinance" is something that your local busybody county commission passes to keep your dog on a leash.

Ordnance is what you put on target to kill the enemy.

[looscnnn]

A howitzer, cannon, etc. can be operated by one person, not efficiently though. So therefore they are not ordinance.

[El Laton Caliente]

Letters of Marquee set forth in the Constitution directly assume ownership of warships mounting numerous cannon by privet parties; your argument is contradicted by the founding documents.

[Centurion2000]

Ordinance is the term that was used when referring to weapons, such as cannons that required more than one person to operate. As such, a howitzer would be ordinance, not arms.

Not true, otherwise the federal government would have specifically mentioned it. Amendment 9 covers that. Also bear in mind that they put language for privateers into the Constituion and those certainly carried ordnance as privately armed warships.

[El Gato]

Arms meant firearms that could be carried by a person. Ordinance is the term that was used when referring to weapons, such as cannons that required more than one person to operate. As such, a howitzer would be ordinance, not arms.

Got an original 18th century source for that assertion?

It seems highly unlikely that having just gone through a revolution which was triggered by the authorities trying to confiscate cannon, some of which were privately owned, that the founders would fail to protect such ownership from a similar grab by the new federal government.

[hobbes1]

Please folks, understand the parlance of the time of the founders. Arms meant firearms that could be carried by a person. Ordinance is the term that was used when referring to weapons, such as cannons that required more than one person to operate. As such, a howitzer would be ordinance, not arms.

Ummmmm...you left out Letters of Marque...(Which implies civilian ownership of warships......)

[szweig]

That's 'ordnance'. LTS.