Question about high capacity Firearms owned by our Founding Fathers

[Kleanbore]

Governments do not allow citizens in the 18th century to own and operate, let alone have a monopoly on owning and operating, the equivalent of a 21st century Aircraft Carrier.

In point of fact, privately owned ships were often well armed and manned for fighting capability in the early days of maritime commerce.

There would have been little economic motive for any trader to commission a "ship of the line", but the ability to defend against pirates, competing armed traders, and foreign military forces was a practical necessity.

What governments may have "allowed", and how, probably varied.

 

[Nom de Forum]

In point of fact, privately owned ships were often well armed and manned for fighting capability in the early days of maritime commerce.

That has been well pointed out by me and others in this thread. Those "privately owned ships were often well armed and manned for fighting" were armed toys compared to the large ships of the line that have been discussed.

There would have been little economic motive for any trader to commission a "ship of the line", but the ability to defend against pirates, competing armed traders, and foreign military forces was a practical necessity.

This also has been well pointed out by me and others in this thread. No one arming merchant ships ever deceived themselves by believing they were going to be protected from enemy ships of the line.

What governments may have "allowed", and how, probably varied.

Sure it would but within parameters that are reasonable to believe. An 18th century government permitting the private ownership, let alone monopoly on operating a large ship of the line is just not something reasonable to believe. IMHO, YMMV.

 

[Kaeto]

During the war of Independence there was a case where if not for bad luck one man would have sunk a British Ship of the Line.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_(submersible)

 

[Nom de Forum]

During the war of Independence there was a case where if not for bad luck one man would have sunk a British Ship of the Line.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_(submersible)

I have read that some believe the whole story of the attack is nothing but propaganda due to numerous environmental conditions specific to that location that the Turtle's design could not overcome to be successful. That does not mean the Turtle was not a success. It alarmed Royal Navy enough to have them wasting time and powder on shooting any suspicious floating object.


Getting back to the OP’s starter thread about the Founding Fathers owning “high capacity” firearms, I think it very likely that some of the signers of the U.S. Constitution would be aware of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_rifle

The Ferguson rifle would be an indication that individual weapons of greater rates of fire (higher capacity) were possible. I have no idea if it had influence on the wording of the 2nd Amendment, I doubt it, but I think the Founders were aware of the beginning of rapid changes in all technology. I don’t think the Founders had any concerns about technological changes in weaponry. I think they wanted the citizenry to have arms for many personal uses, to have citizens familiar with weaponry who someday serve as soldiers, and to prevent government tyranny.

 

[barnbwt]

I saw the discussion stipulating that 'high capacity' meant number of consecutive shots; I would submit that shot & powder volume is an analogue in a time when repeaters were indisputably rare curiosities. A large bore or powerful gun presents the same 'threat to the state/safety' argument that 30rnd magazines do today. So it would be interesting to note just how common big 'ol punt guns, cannon, or other big devices were in the day, and also how much actual shot and powder the wealthy of the day possessed. I assume they wouldn't keep large quantities in the house, simply due to the nature of black powder as well as the lighting technology of the day, but it would be interesting to know how many pounds of powder Thomas Jefferson, for instance, had stored at his properties (I suspect more than the present legal limit in those locations )

TCB

 

[Nom de Forum]

Good point barnbwt!

 

[TheAzn]

I saw the discussion stipulating that 'high capacity' meant number of consecutive shots; I would submit that shot & powder volume is an analogue in a time when repeaters were indisputably rare curiosities. A large bore or powerful gun presents the same 'threat to the state/safety' argument that 30rnd magazines do today. So it would be interesting to note just how common big 'ol punt guns, cannon, or other big devices were in the day, and also how much actual shot and powder the wealthy of the day possessed. I assume they wouldn't keep large quantities in the house, simply due to the nature of black powder as well as the lighting technology of the day, but it would be interesting to know how many pounds of powder Thomas Jefferson, for instance, had stored at his properties (I suspect more than the present legal limit in those locations )

TCB

This is indeed a good point. I am glad I am not the only one to consider single-shot shotgun pellet rounds to be "high capacity'.

 

[TheAzn]

Not just "authorized," as I've been informed. Jefferson owned two Girandoni rifles and gave one to Lewis & Clark to take on their journey.

That is very interesting, edd. If anybody can confirm this, please do so. I think there should be many scholarly historians on this forum.

 

[lysanderxiii]

I don’t think this it a good line of thought to use for defending the RKBA for the following reasons:

Privateers, civilian owned ships used for warfare, had to receive formal written authorization from the government or the crew would be considered pirates and subject to punishment as pirates if captured. So we don’t want to use the example of privateers because it implies government authorization is a requirement of owning weapons or you are a criminal. I do agree that even in peaceful times privately owned merchant ships were legally carrying the most powerful type of weapons, cannons and carronades, for self-defense without needing government authorization. These ships were not anything like a real warship.

The “veritable warships” mentioned were so insignificant compared to the various classes of Ship of the Line as to be really considered ships used for war not warships. Most privateers were rather small with one deck having guns. The guns were limited in number (between a half dozen to two dozen) and they would be rather small in bore size compared to Ships of the Line. Again they would require formal written government authorization to be used.

While what you write is true if the ship was used as an offensive weapon, however, privately owned ships armed for defensive purposes were allowed without restriction. Armed merchants were known, if you encountered pirates, you were on your own, so you better be prepared. These actually were quite comparable to warships.

Contrary to popular belief, most "warships" were also relatively small flush-decker sloops or schooners. At the height of the Napoleonic Wars, the most powerful navy in the world, the British Royal Navy, had over 1000 ships in commission, only 152 were ships-of-the-Line, and 183 were frigates. The rest were small (usually under 70-90 feet of deck) brigs, schooners or sloops.

In fact, in reading about the RN versus the US privateers in the War of 1812, you will see that almost all the actions are between ships of the same size. (Mainly as the small US build privateer schooner could outrun the larger "ships".)

 

[Nom de Forum]

While what you write is true if the ship was used as an offensive weapon, however, privately owned ships armed for defensive purposes were allowed without restriction. Armed merchants were known, if you encountered pirates, you were on your own, so you better be prepared. These actually were quite comparable to warships.(bold added by NdF)

Contrary to popular belief, most "warships" were also relatively small flush-decker sloops or schooners. At the height of the Napoleonic Wars, the most powerful navy in the world, the British Royal Navy, had over 1000 ships in commission, only 152 were ships-of-the-Line, and 183 were frigates. The rest were small (usually under 70-90 feet of deck) brigs, schooners or sloops.

In fact, in reading about the RN versus the US privateers in the War of 1812, you will see that almost all the actions are between ships of the same size. (Mainly as the small US build privateer schooner could outrun the larger "ships".)

I am in no way disparaging the importance and accomplishments of American privateers in the Revolutionary War. That being said, I think the fighting power of these ships has been exaggerated in this thread and appreciation of the number of their victories should also be balanced with the knowledge of the target rich environment and American ship losses. For as many British ships American privateers captured more than half as many American ships were captured with far fewer American ships available to be captured. When American privateers engaged warships they did not far well.

I disagree that the ships used by American Privateers were comparable to Royal Navy warships. The Royal Navy classified ships of the line with ratings 1 through 6, with 1 being the largest and most powerful. Very few of the American privateers would qualify for any of these ratings. Most American Privateers were Brigs, Brigantines, and Schooners, all smaller than a Sloop of War which would be a 7th rated ship of the line if such a rating existed. The American Privateers went after British merchant ships of comparable and less gun power, and similar non-gunfire resistant construction. American privateers mostly used 12 pounders and smaller. Even the smaller British warships often carried guns larger than 12 pounders. The Royal Navy’s 6 rates of ship of the line carried 12, 18, 24, 32 and 48 pounders for broadsides. Even the smaller Long 9 pounder guns they used in the bows could destroy most American Privateers. Then there are the differences in design to consider. For example the American armed merchant sloops used as privateers were not comparable to the fighting ability of a Royal Navy purpose built Sloop of War. Warships are designed for fighting with guns and withstanding gunfire; armed merchant ships are not. Very few American Privateer vessels were as large as 1000 tons and carried more than 30 guns, with most being much smaller. That means there were many smaller Royal Navy warships ships of comparable and greater gun power than even the largest American privateers. An interesting thing about the disparity in the gun power of smaller ships compared to larger is the development of the Carronade. This short, light, large poundage, short range, naval gun was created and deployed by the British during the American Revolution. This weapon enabled smaller British Ships to “punch above their weight” at larger ships within range. Perhaps if the American Privateers had these they would have been even more effective.

Afterword: When you consider that the largest Ships of the Line had decks armed of 32 and 48 pounders it is easier to understand why some historians considered these ships 18th Century weapons of mass destruction.

 

[Nom de Forum]

That is very interesting, edd. If anybody can confirm this, please do so. I think there should be many scholarly historians on this forum.

You should be able to find the same confirmation I found using a Google search.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

If the Second Amendment only applies to arms of the time like flintlock muskets, by that logic the First should only apply to hand-cranked printing presses, town criers and pens made out of bird feathers.

 

[JohnKSa]

That being said, I think the fighting power of these ships has been exaggerated in this thread and appreciation of the number of their victories should also be balanced with the knowledge of the target rich environment and American ship losses. For as many British ships American privateers captured more than half as many American ships were captured with far fewer American ships available to be captured. When American privateers engaged warships they did not far well.

Regardless, a private citizen was able to own an armed ship. The fact that it wasn't as capable as the armed ship of the super-power of the time is irrelevant in the context of the original question.

If you extend the fact of armed ship ownership during the Revolutionary War to the modern day, it becomes clear that quibbling over private ownership of "high-capacity firearms" would be considered nonsense by the founding Fathers.

They would clearly consider it to be reasonable for a person to own an armed aircraft, an armed ship or an armored/armed vehicle. Would that aircraft be as good as one that a super-power fielded? Would the armored vehicle be as capable as one owned by a large technological nation? Almost certainly not, but that's an issue of finances/technological capability/manufacturing ability, not an issue of legal prohibition.

 

[barnbwt]

A right can't exist if its circumstances can't exist, right, so why the discussion of nation state level arms that no one man would be capable of wielding, let alone procurring (yes, it is impossible that a Bill Gates would decide to buy an aircraft carrier or nuclear device and decide to play Cobra Commander, even if he theoretically has the means, for a number of reasons)

This line of thought is a red herring to distract from tangible facts, like how every colonist could and did freely own long guns just as 'deadly and powerful' as any military, if not more so, severly undercutting the notion that we should be restricted from --at the very least-- commonly issued arms of the prevailing military.

TCB

 

[TheAzn]

You should be able to find the same confirmation I found using a Google search.

I know Nom, but most of these are non scholarly articles. I'm just not sure if this info is a common misconception/legend or actual fact.

 

[JohnKSa]

... why the discussion of nation state level arms that no one man would be capable of wielding...

Because it's a huge mistake to limit the discussion to small arms instead of really looking at the full spectrum of "arms" in legal private ownership at the time of the Founding Fathers.

Artificially limiting the discussion to small arms makes it seem reasonable to quibble over whether this type of modern small arm, or that type of modern small arm would reasonably have been covered by the 2nd. In reality, it's not remotely reasonable.

The fact is that not only were ALL small arms available to the military, regardless of type or capability/capacity/range/power/etc., even weapons far more capable/lethal than small arms were also in legal private possession at the time.

Since the second seems to make it plain that the security of the nation depends on an armed populace and further since there wasn't a standing national army, it seems plain that any and all weapons of the time with any potential military application were explicitly covered by the second. That would certainly include ALL small arms.

If we're drawing analogs, the only reasonable conclusion would be that the 2nd was intended to protect the private ownership of any weapons up to but probably not including weapons of mass destruction. That exclusion only being in place because there was no reasonable analog for WMDs in the timeframe of the Founding Fathers.

What did they intend to protect?

All non-WMD weapons with any potential military application.

It's not that the people were guaranteed the right to own any type of "military potential" weapons that they could afford, it's that those weapons WERE the military weapons of the nation since the people were the national army.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Regardless, a private citizen was able to own an armed ship. The fact that it wasn't as capable as the armed ship of the super-power of the time is irrelevant in the context of the original question.

If you extend the fact of armed ship ownership during the Revolutionary War to the modern day, it becomes clear that quibbling over private ownership of "high-capacity firearms" would be considered nonsense by the founding Fathers.

They would clearly consider it to be reasonable for a person to own an armed aircraft, an armed ship or an armored/armed vehicle. Would that aircraft be as good as one that a super-power fielded? Would the armored vehicle be as capable as one owned by a large technological nation? Almost certainly not, but that's an issue of finances/technological capability/manufacturing ability, not an issue of legal prohibition.

I have never posted that during the time from the Revolutionary War to the War of 1812 civilians owning armed ships “an issue of legal prohibition”. Re-read post #24. I did post that if those ships were going to be used as privateers they required government authorization or they would be considered pirates. Never have I posted the Founding Fathers would have a problem with “high capacity” firearms. I have in fact implied the opposite. I believe it is only realist to think that the Revolutionary Government and later Federal Government would prohibit a civilian from owning large ship of the line warships not by laws specifically prohibiting it but by the demands of Realpolitik to ensure those warships do not pose a potential threat to the government. You are right no specific laws forbid ownership, I am right that in the Real World it would not be allowed. Re-read posts #46, #48 and #50. As far as I can determine the U.S. government stopped the authorization of privateers as soon as it possibly could, in other words as soon as it had a sufficiently powerful Navy after the War of 1812.

barnbwt posted - A right can't exist if its circumstances can't exist, right, so why the discussion of nation state level arms that no one man would be capable of wielding, let alone procurring (yes, it is impossible that a Bill Gates would decide to buy an aircraft carrier or nuclear device and decide to play Cobra Commander, even if he theoretically has the means, for a number of reasons)

This line of thought is a red herring to distract from tangible facts, like how every colonist could and did freely own long guns just as 'deadly and powerful' as any military, if not more so, severly undercutting the notion that we should be restricted from --at the very least-- commonly issued arms of the prevailing military.

In order for something said to be a “red herring” it has to be intended to deceive. I am not attempting to deceive anyone. The discussion about ownership of Privateer vessels versus Ships of the Line is about what is realistic to believe the Revolutionary Government and early Federal Government would permit a citizen to own. It in no way has any bearing on people then or today owning any particular weapon. An 18th Century major warship (large ship of the line) is a weapon system consisting of scores of the most powerful artillery and hundreds of men. The largest warships of the 18th Century were weapons of mass destruction and governments due to political realities do not allow individual citizens to own weapons of mass destruction in the 18th or 21st century. This bit of reality in no way has anything to do with citizens owning small arms, artillery, tanks, or armed aircraft. Prohibitions on those in the 21st Century are a completely different matter of law and political realities, and of course history has shown that the courts have upheld, rightly or wrongly, the legality of certain prohibitions on those arms.

JohnSka posed -If we're drawing analogs, the only reasonable conclusion would be that the 2nd was intended to protect the private ownership of any weapons up to but probably not including weapons of mass destruction. (bold added by NdF)That exclusion only being in place because there was no reasonable analog for WMDs in the timeframe of the Founding Fathers.

What did they intend to protect?

All non-WMD weapons with any potential military application.

It's not that the people were guaranteed the right to own any type of "military potential" weapons that they could afford, it's that those weapons WERE the military weapons of the nation since the people were the national army.

The 1st and 2nd Rate Ships of the Line were the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that existed during the Revolutionary War and War of 1812. This is not solely my opinion. I will attempt to identify the first historian who wrote of this. I completely agree that the Founding Fathers wanted the people to own arms comparable to those of the national army. I agree that the Founding Fathers did not have a problem with armed merchantmen unless they attempted to operate as pirates or as privateers without letters of marque and reprisal.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I know Nom, but most of these are non scholarly articles. I'm just not sure if this info is a common misconception/legend or actual fact.

I am attempting to help you find something "scholarly" on line. You may want to contact these people as I doubt anyone will have better access to information on Jefferson.

https://www.monticello.org/

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Who moderates these posts where the moderators get off track?????

 

[JohnKSa]

As far as I can determine the U.S. government stopped the authorization of privateers as soon as it possibly could, in other words as soon as it had a sufficiently powerful Navy after the War of 1812.

And before that time, during the time that the nation was being formed, the entire military (including the navy) was made up of the people and the privately owned weapons they brought with them.

I believe it is only realist to think that the Revolutionary Government and later Federal Government would prohibit a civilian from owning large ship of the line warships...

It's hard to be dogmatic, but given that the arms of the people WERE the arms of the nation, there's a good case to be made that any weapons of the time were protected.

Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that the protection extended to armed ships which are not overtly military warships but not to the most powerful warships of the day, it still makes it clear that the line of what is protected and what is not is drawn far, FAR above the power level of any conceivable small arm.

The 1st and 2nd Rate Ships of the Line were the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that existed during the Revolutionary War and War of 1812. This is not solely my opinion.

It's a huge world and it's possible to find support for nearly any opinion. In reality there was no analog for WMDs until WMDs were developed. That's why the entirely new classification was created.

However, if we accept for the sake of argument, your claim that the best warships of the time are analogous to WMDs and, again for the sake of the argument accept your claim that the best warships of the day were prohibited then my statement would still be accurate.

"...the only reasonable conclusion would be that the 2nd was intended to protect the private ownership of any weapons up to but probably not including weapons of mass destruction."​

The bottom line is that a realistic evaluation of the history and weapons of the time makes it abundantly clear that the 2nd, as originally intended, would absolutely not prohibit any small arm of any kind and would likely only place the most potent weapons of our time outside of the legal realm of possession without explicit governmental permission.

 

[Nom de Forum]

And before that time, during the time that the nation was being formed, the entire military (including the navy) was made up of the people and the privately owned weapons they brought with them.It's hard to be dogmatic, but given that the arms of the people WERE the arms of the nation, there's a good case to be made that any weapons of the time were protected.

This is not true. There was a Continental Navy of 64 ships controlled by the Revolutionary Government. They were by the way more successful, on a percentage basis, in capturing British ships. The arms of the Regulars of the Continental Army were not the arms owned by individual the people. Sure some personally owned arms were used, especially by militia troops, but the Regulars were primarily armed by the government.

Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that the protection extended to armed ships which are not overtly military warships but not to the most powerful warships of the day, it still makes it clear that the line of what is protected and what is not is drawn far, FAR above the power level of any conceivable small arm.It's a huge world and it's possible to find support for nearly any opinion. In reality there was no analog for WMDs until WMDs were developed. That's why the entirely new classification was created.

However, if we accept for the sake of argument, your claim that the best warships of the time are analogous to WMDs and, again for the sake of the argument accept your claim that the best warships of the day were prohibited then my statement would still be accurate.

The term “weapons of mass destruction” pre-dates (at least as early as 1937) nuclear and modern biological and chemical weapons. There are many definitions defining WMDs from various organizations. A very simple definition from Wikipedia is “Any weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to human-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere. I don’t think it much of a stretch to consider any weapon that can destroy a city to be a weapon of mass destruction. In the 18th Century a 1st Rate Ship of the Line having as many as 150 guns, with guns as large as 48 pounders, could by itself destroy many of the coastal cities in the 18th Century World. The demolition, burning, and killing would just be done much more slowly than can be done with todays WMDs.

"...the only reasonable conclusion would be that the 2nd was intended to protect the private ownership of any weapons up to but probably not including weapons of mass destruction."​

The bottom line is that a realistic evaluation of the history and weapons of the time makes it abundantly clear that the 2nd, as originally intended, would absolutely not prohibit any small arm of any kind and would likely only place the most potent weapons of our time outside of the legal realm of possession without explicit governmental permission.

Certainly a strong case can be made for that interpretation of 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Who moderates these posts where the moderators get off track?????

Long time no hear from you Steel Horse Rider. About a year since we exchanged PMs. Your post here makes me think that some of the talk about Realpolitik limitations of private ownership of 18th Century WMDs uncomfortably ruffles your libertarian feathers. I think if you except the broader ramifications of what the OP is talking about it all fits in. After all we are discussing gun platforms for cannons firing iron balls weighing as much as 48 pounds or dozens of smaller projectiles .

 

[barnbwt]

"the only reasonable conclusion would be that the 2nd was intended to protect the private ownership of any weapons up to but probably not including weapons of mass destruction"
A definition that somehow includes pipe bombs, nowadays. Also, way back when, germ warfare was practiced by civilians against indians without repurcussion, so...

Not sure I'd cite that as my defense in court, though

TCB

 

[JohnKSa]

I agree.

The Constitution in general is no longer what the Founding Fathers intended, it is what the Supreme Court says it is. The OP asked a question that spoke to the Founding Fathers original intent which is an interesting topic, but that isn't the final word (by a long shot) on what the courts currently think about the 2nd.

 

[old lady new shooter]

What's the difference between a privateer and a pirate?