Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 1/9/2005 5:22:15 PM EDT
Would that not be equivalent to a Howtizer today or mortar?

Were ordinary colonists allowed to have cannons after the war?

CRC
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:27:59 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:34:25 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:35:28 PM EDT
Many were captured pieces from the British, some French guns as well.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:36:05 PM EDT
So can we conclude that the Founders had no problems with ordinary ownership of arms like bombs, mortars and cannons?

Not just muskets?

CRC
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:37:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2005 5:39:45 PM EDT by Atencio]

Originally Posted By CRC:
So can we conclude that the Founders had no problems with ordinary ownership of arms like bombs, mortars and cannons?

Not just muskets?

CRC



ok, what are you getting at?  You find a howitzer you are just dying to buy?  

edit: Me, I would love to have an 88mm sitting in my front yard.  Neighbors would'nt dream of f'ing with me then
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:37:46 PM EDT
The ones they started out with were either owned by the state militias or stolen from British troops. The French them some as well. In fact, if it weren't for the French supplying powder and ammunition, we MIGHT not have won.

The only good thing the French ever did, besides the Napoleonic-style saber, the Spas-12, and French maid outfits.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:37:50 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:38:11 PM EDT
The story of Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys capturing Ft Ticonderoga and the canons and powder is one of the great Rev War stories. They should make a movie.....
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 5:39:20 PM EDT
I am just trying to figure out the ACLU argument of "nobody agrees the Second Amendment covers bombs, machine guns, nuclear warheads, ect."

CRC
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 6:01:39 PM EDT
Yes, many private citizens, especially on the frontier had their own artillery.

Daniel Boone had a swivel cannon for Boonesboro, and many merchantman ships have cannon too.
It was more dictated by cost and need than regulations.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 6:05:09 PM EDT
Many merchants had ships of their own equipped with a score of state of the art cannon and racks of muskets.

In times of war, they would get formal permission from the government to go out hunting for enemy merchant ships.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 6:05:18 PM EDT
C'mon guys.  The Battle of Concord (Shot heard 'round the world?) started because the Brits tried to take the Colonials' cannon.

Y'all need to get with Schoolhouse Rock.  
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 6:05:33 PM EDT
Yes.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 6:07:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2005 6:07:49 PM EDT by The_Neutral_Observer]

Originally Posted By THR-Thumper:
C'mon guys.  The Battle of Concord (Shot heard 'round the world?) started because the Brits tried to take the Colonials' cannon.

Y'all need to get with Schoolhouse Rock.  



Were you ever in the USMC?

Link Posted: 1/9/2005 6:12:11 PM EDT
Yes, private citizens could own cannons of all sorts.  Ships owners would buy them for their ships to fight off privateers (not so much naval vessels as merchant ships rarely had the crew to even attempt to fight back).  No restriction from landsmen owning cannons either.  His Majesty's Government didn't have a "tax" stamp to apply to the 4473.

Even in the 1850s in California one private citizen, John Sutter, had this cannon fetish. He bought any cannon that came across his path (but that's a different story).
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 6:16:59 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 6:17:02 PM EDT
Let me retract my previous post.  Someone just reminded me that the war wasn't won by violent confrontation but by a peaceful boycott of British goods.  It simply wasn't economical to maintain a large Army in America and not receive any financial benefits from it.  The "war" stuff was made up later to make our forefathers appear more aggressive.  They didn't want to look like "girly-men" to their descendents.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 6:20:36 PM EDT

Were you ever in the USMC?


Nope...Soldier.

Did I miss a reference?
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 6:25:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By THR-Thumper:

Were you ever in the USMC?


Nope...Soldier.

Did I miss a reference?



The Neutral Observer knew a guy who had been in that liked watching the Schoolhouse Rock videos.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 6:36:21 PM EDT
Can't you own a cannon yourself today?

A few years ago I was at a outdoor sports/Gun show at a range here in Connecticut. There was a guy there who had a civil war era cannon. He did a few demos. He had a metal drum/barrel down range at about 75 yards. He set up the cannon with a solid ball and placed his shot right where he said he would, at the base of the barrel. That drum blasted straight up from the impact. It was deadly accurate.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 6:40:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Blaster3094:
Can't you own a cannon yourself today?

A few years ago I was at a outdoor sports/Gun show at a range here in Connecticut. There was a guy there who had a civil war era cannon. He did a few demos. He had a metal drum/barrel down range at about 75 yards. He set up the cannon with a solid ball and placed his shot right where he said he would, at the base of the barrel. That drum blasted straight up from the impact. It was deadly accurate.



You sure can as they are antique firearms.

CRC
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 6:42:22 PM EDT
Yes many a Cannon were owned after the war by local communities and such to defend against Indian Attacks etc. These towns were also protected by Privately built and community build Blockhouses and forts for the same purposes!!

And Yes you can STILL own Black Powder Cannon privately, civil reinactors own lots of them!!

As for M109A6 Paladins, I don't think so!!! Both the Defense department and State Department as well as BATFE would be visiting you!!
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 7:03:04 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 8:41:53 PM EDT
There was no federal restriction on private ownership of cannon and artillery until the term 'destrutive device' was created by the NFA of '34.
Link Posted: 1/9/2005 8:56:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2005 8:58:41 PM EDT by JohnTheTexican]
Thee's a 19th Century Texas Supreme Court case--English v. State-- interpreting the Constitutional RKBA.  The court said:


"The word 'arms,' in the connection we find it in the constitution of the United States, refers to the arms of a militia-man or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the sabre, holster-pistol and carbine; of the artillery, the field-piece, siege gun and mortar, with side-arms.
Top Top