divemedic
Member
In another thread, we were discussing what the FFs meant when they mentioned 'arms' in the 2A. There is a widely held belief on this board that the term 'arms' does not include cannons, mortars, and other heavy weapons. I want to continue that discussion, but the thread veered in another direction.
I believe that opinion to be in error, and I would like to lay out my proof. Anyone who can refute that, please do so. I would also like to see people refute my proof with actual evidence of their own, and not just personal opinion. With all of that said, here we go:
There was a point in time when the 2A meant cannon, warships, sea mines (called torpedoes) and a host of other weapons. Congress (in COTUS) is granted the power to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Just who did the FFs expect Congress to issue this letter to, if citizens did not possess the means with which to execute them? Privately owned warships helped win the Revolutionary war. Those privateers owned over 14,000 cannons, and were over 96% of the Continental Navy.
I think that the 2A included (at the time) warships, explosives (which were certainly in private use at the time), field pieces (many of which were in private hands), and other sundry methods of destruction. (my opinion: Expanding on this theme, modern artillery, rockets, aircraft, missiles, etc. would certainly fall into this category.)
At this point in the discussion, Legaleagle said:
and my reply to that line is this:
Mr Kilmer has it backwards. The letter of Marque is intended to prevent a privateer from being labeled a pirate, which is punishable by death. The cannon was owned, and the ship outfitted, before the letter was granted.
The letter of Marque was a license, but not to OWN the privateer and its weapons, it was a license to seize the merchant shipping of a particular nation.
For example, click here to read a Letter of Marque issued by the United States in the year 1812 (signed by President James Madison) to Captain Millin:
Note that the letter of marque describes the vessel as mounting 18 guns ( a common way of describing armed ships of the period) but does not license the arming of the vessel, instead licensing the vessel to capture British vessels. The vessel is described as if it already were in existence as an armed vessel.
More on letters of Marque here.
So there you have it. Tell me what you think, and anyone who can refute that with more than someone's opinion, please do so. I found this to be so interesting, that I have ordered some books on the arming and outfitting of privateers during the War for Independence. Should be interesting.
I believe that opinion to be in error, and I would like to lay out my proof. Anyone who can refute that, please do so. I would also like to see people refute my proof with actual evidence of their own, and not just personal opinion. With all of that said, here we go:
There was a point in time when the 2A meant cannon, warships, sea mines (called torpedoes) and a host of other weapons. Congress (in COTUS) is granted the power to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Just who did the FFs expect Congress to issue this letter to, if citizens did not possess the means with which to execute them? Privately owned warships helped win the Revolutionary war. Those privateers owned over 14,000 cannons, and were over 96% of the Continental Navy.
I think that the 2A included (at the time) warships, explosives (which were certainly in private use at the time), field pieces (many of which were in private hands), and other sundry methods of destruction. (my opinion: Expanding on this theme, modern artillery, rockets, aircraft, missiles, etc. would certainly fall into this category.)
At this point in the discussion, Legaleagle said:
Don Kilmer (attorney who represents the Nordyke Plaintiffs) uses that same passage to argue exactly the opposite.... to wit that private ownership of such items required special governmental permission.
and my reply to that line is this:
Mr Kilmer has it backwards. The letter of Marque is intended to prevent a privateer from being labeled a pirate, which is punishable by death. The cannon was owned, and the ship outfitted, before the letter was granted.
The letter of Marque was a license, but not to OWN the privateer and its weapons, it was a license to seize the merchant shipping of a particular nation.
For example, click here to read a Letter of Marque issued by the United States in the year 1812 (signed by President James Madison) to Captain Millin:
BE IT KNOWN, That in pursuance of an act of congress, passed on the 26th day of June one thousand eight hundred and twelve, I have Commissioned, and by these presents do commission, the private armed Brig called the Prince Neufchatel of the burden of three hundred & Nineteen tons, or thereabouts, owned by John Ordronaux & Peter E. Trevall of the City & State of New York and Joseph Beylle of Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania Mounting eighteen carriage guns, and navigated by one hundred & twenty nine men, hereby authorizing Nicholas Millin captain, and William Stetson lieutenant of the said Brig and the other officers and crew thereof, to subdue, seize, and take any armed or unarmed British vessel, public or private, which shall be found within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, or elsewhere on the high seas, or within the waters of the British dominions, and such captured vessel, with her apparel, guns, and appertenances, and the goods or effects which shall be found on board the same, together with all the british persons and others who shall be found acting on board, to bring within some port of the United States; and also to retake any vessel, goods, and effects of the people of the United States, which may have been captured by any British armed vessel, in order that proceedings may be had concerning such capture or recapture in due form of law, and as to right and justice shall appertain. The said Nicholas Millin is further authorized to detain, seize, and take all vessels and effects, to whomsoever belonging, which shall be liabel thereto according to the law of nations and the rights of the United States as a power at war, and to bring the same within some port of the United States, in order that due proceedings may be had thereon. This commission to continue in force during the pleasure of the president of the United States for the time being.
Note that the letter of marque describes the vessel as mounting 18 guns ( a common way of describing armed ships of the period) but does not license the arming of the vessel, instead licensing the vessel to capture British vessels. The vessel is described as if it already were in existence as an armed vessel.
More on letters of Marque here.
So there you have it. Tell me what you think, and anyone who can refute that with more than someone's opinion, please do so. I found this to be so interesting, that I have ordered some books on the arming and outfitting of privateers during the War for Independence. Should be interesting.