Comment by Terr_
17 hours ago
I'd argue the modern equivalent would be anything you can mount/move with a pick up or a trailer. So a machine-gun, but not a howitzer.
Either way, those "field pieces" were the property of the state, that it was expected to supply by the AoC treaty, rather than something individuals were expected to bring along.
The Constitution explicitly states the government may grant "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" to private citizens.
What are those private citizens attacking enemy ships with exactly - strong words?
Was... was that nonsense supposed to be some kind of "gotcha"?
Giving the federal government the option to deputize individuals as international agents does not even remotely suggest that States were agreeing to completely abolish all their local gun-laws for all time.
That's like claiming the permission to establish a national postal service somehow bars States from having DUI laws, because any drunkard could maybe suddenly be hired as a postman.
I believe the argument is that in order to have the Letters of Marque be useful, it must have been the case that captains had these types of weapons.
So, to fit it into your analogy, I think it is more like the permission to establish a national postal service implies that the government in the past had not outlawed literacy. There is no need for the government to provide services where the only possible users are already breaking the law.
That said I’m not actually sure I believe this because ships have always been a bit weird legally, going about in international waters far away from any law enforcement… it wouldn’t surprise me if there was some specific cut out for weapons that were only to be used at sea or something…
1 reply →