..<How far would you be willing to take that? Logically, you would have to believe that the people should be able to possess any and all weapons necessary to wage modern war.>>
Not sure anyone challenged the law in regards to definition of arms including cannons.
Fascinating how the framers of the Constitution
could sum up the "laws" in such short sentences leaving the concept but excluding the legalese. Makes it almost intelligible, understandable
In regards to 'arms' and considering it was frontier days
then arms would include bows and arrows, swords, knives, rocks, pistols, rifles,muskets - anything commonly needed to defend ones self from animals or humans or to obtain food.
'Bear' would mean to possess, to carry with one, to use.
I see no problem with possessing a small cannon, but loading it and pointing it at the County Courthouse ( as might be considered in King County) could be prosecuted under State laws.
Pretty neat the way gun laws have developed without the need violate the Constitution. One still has the right to possess a gun, but you need a permit to carry one in certain areas or circumstances. Airline pilots, police, security personnel, store owners, etc.
Lawyers can make a living arguing about the possession of machine guns or automatic weapons.
I will let someone else look up the laws about parking a cannon on the front lawn.
Sig |
