In Congress, April 3, 1776. Resolved, That every Person intending to set forth and fit out a Private Ship or Vessel of War, and applying for a Commission or Letters of Marque and Reprisal for that Purpose, shall produce a Writing...
That pretty much settles what the founders meant when they guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms. Private warships had more than muskets. Ergo, we must bear witness to the fact that the founders meant to guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, including all, repeat all, implements of war.
There can not be honest debate about what they meant. There may be debate about whether one agrees with them, but there is no honest denial or restriction of any arm to the people possible under the law and the Constitution.
You raise an interesting point however; to fit out a ship of war did require a letter of marque, a bond had to be posted, an oath of conduct had to be taken. Surely infringements all.
I also recall that the section of the US code that deals with the militia states that infantry and even cavalry had to provide their own equipment including all arms and mounts, yet artillery troops need only provide personal arms.
Clearly the founders differentiated between personal arms and artillery. I think that one could make the case that the 2nd Amendment covers personal arms rather than field pieces.
Today I think that would cover all select fire, semi auto, single shot, ...whatever personal firearms made. I don't think the 2nd Amendment covers functioning heavy artillery without a letter of marque or reprisal.
But I would be interested to hear an argument to the contrary.
That John Hancock sure did sign his name purdy!
ReplyDeleteMr Forbes your frigate is ready....
That pretty much settles what the founders meant when they guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms. Private warships had more than muskets. Ergo, we must bear witness to the fact that the founders meant to guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, including all, repeat all, implements of war.
ReplyDeleteThere can not be honest debate about what they meant. There may be debate about whether one agrees with them, but there is no honest denial or restriction of any arm to the people possible under the law and the Constitution.
SA,
ReplyDeleteYou raise an interesting point however; to fit out a ship of war did require a letter of marque, a bond had to be posted, an oath of conduct had to be taken. Surely infringements all.
I also recall that the section of the US code that deals with the militia states that infantry and even cavalry had to provide their own equipment including all arms and mounts, yet artillery troops need only provide personal arms.
Clearly the founders differentiated between personal arms and artillery. I think that one could make the case that the 2nd Amendment covers personal arms rather than field pieces.
Today I think that would cover all select fire, semi auto, single shot, ...whatever personal firearms made. I don't think the 2nd Amendment covers functioning heavy artillery without a letter of marque or reprisal.
But I would be interested to hear an argument to the contrary.
Best regards,
1894C