On 12/2/2022 4:11 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Joe Gwinn" wrote in message news:cjukoh9q8gk7uc1fi9lrrvi52676k4i155@4ax.com...
On Fri, 2 Dec 2022 13:00:47 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 1:44:14 PM UTC-8, Robert Gowan wrote:
On 12/1/2022 12:29 PM, governo...@gmail.com wrote:
But Uncle Sam still isn't going to allow you fully automatic rifles or >>> > armed tanks and submarines.
And of course, prohibiting those to private citizens is not
infringing their
right to arms, because the right never extended to them. The right to
arms is
not a right to just whatever arms people might wish to have.
Yeah, at the time that amendment was adopted, no one would have called
a nuclear weapon 'arms'. We've used that word for lots of new things
since.
Plimouth Plantation's fort had six cannons, to fend the French,
English, and especially the Indians off. The cannons would be tested
from time to time. I imagine that the local Indians were quite
impressed by the effect of grapeshot on the nearby trees. No attack
ever came.
In those days, anybody could own cannons, limited only by expense.
Rich men often founded and equipped their own militias. This was
common in the Civil War.
Riffle through the photos at the upper right to see the cannons.
.<https://www.google.com/search?q=plimoth+plantation&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS895US902&oq=plimouth&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i10i433i512j0i10i512j46i10i512j0i10i433i512j46i10i175i199i512l4j0i10i512.4186j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#lpg=cid:CgIgAQ%3D%3D,ik:
CAoSLEFGMVFpcFAtaHVDQnZPV043TGVlRkJyNzBldkdONzlKVTNpX2QxUVNDYi1m>
.<https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/cannons-plimoth-plantation-plymouth-massachusetts-usa-87308434>
.<http://mayflowerhistory.com/militia>
Joe Gwinn
----------------------------
Under Federal law you can still own those cannons and modern replicas. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-muzzleloading-cannons-considered-destructive-devices
https://southbendreplicas.com/
Be aware that the BATFE can sometimes play fast and loose with the
rules. Mostly not in your favor. Sometimes even their own information
is not what they practice, and their attitude is, "If we change our mind
and decide something is not legal it was always not legal. We just
didn't know it yet."
No shit. This brings up two fundamental problems. One is Chevron
deference. That deference is give to the enforcement agency in
interpretation of the law. This is in conflict with a long standing
legal doctrine that if a "law" can be interpreted two ways it should be interpreted in the way best suited for the person charged under the law.
The party that did not write the law. Their is a parallel in civil
contract law as well. Deference goes to the person who did not write
the contract. The second is the basic premise that enforcement agencies
who are UN-ELECTED bureaucrats with federal law enforcement powers get
to write their own laws (rules that have e force of law) that are not
voted on by any elected party. Functionally Barney Fife getting to
write his own laws as he sees fit. No disrespect to Barney who seemed
to have the best of intentions most of the time. He just shouldn't get
to write his own rules.
Back on the specific topic: There are black powder arms manufacturers
that make muzzle loading rifles that are absolutely NOT replicas of
antique rifles. Many have a slam fire bolt, 209 shotgun primer, and
synthetic stock. Some actually have a break action for loading the
primer. It will ship like any other black powder muzzle loader sans one
or two states that might have excessive restrictions on all arms antique
or otherwise.
One would then assume it is legal to manufacturer any similar arm that
uses the same overly general mechanism of operation. Powder and bullet
gun in the front. Cap/primer/flint/match/fuse goes on the back.
Then I run across articles like this one.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/washington/articles/2021-07-07/man-who-built-working-cannon-sentenced-to-2-years-prison
If it was a propane operated cannon technically it would be a firearm,
but the BATFE in the past has said spud guns (dangerous hand held
propane cannons usually) are okay. Huh?!
Unfortunately there is not enough information to determine if it was
merely the core principal of the cannon that got him in trouble or if it
was some sort of fixed cartridge arm. They just say larger than 50
caliber.
Then there is this page on the Dixie Gunworks website.
https://www.dixiegunworks.com/index/page/product/product_id/1363/category_id/541/product_name/CB0601+Field+Cannon+Barrel+23+Scale
The gun on the Dixie Gunworks size is a very much a historical replica,
but they clearly say that a cannon form is required to purchase. This
means its NOT just like any other historical antique replica as far as ownership and possession. Ie: The page you linked to on the BATFE
website is dishonest. I do not need any special form to order a cap and
ball revolver replica, a Pennsylvania rifle, or even a CVA Wolf 209.
However in defense of the most basic premise of your post it is possible
to legally own a back powder cannon. I would argue that that it is not
"just like any other antique or antique replica."
Saying its legal is at least in a limited extent like saying its still
legal to own a machine gun. You have to get a permit (tax stamp is the
word used to skirt the constitution), and notify the BATFE if you want
to transport it outside of your home state, and you can not own one manufactured after 1986. This makes it not realistic to most gun
owners. Look at the price of a transferable M16 on Gum Broker. Heck
even a piece of shit stamped sheet metal blow back machine gun is priced
as a "barrier to entry."
I am a license holder (03 collector), and I grew up working for family
business which was an 01 licensee where I was educated in how to stay
within the law. I try to keep up, but I don't have any particular
interested in cannon. Just a passing interest at most.
All that being said there is a .72 caliber air rifle with tremendous
power that is not regulated by federal law at all. Its not a firearm.
Not by any legal US definition. That doesn't get you off the hook
though. Many lesser jurisdictions have ordinances that place all
projectile launchers from slings and slingshots to the largest firearms
in the same category. Using a pellet gun (the kind you can buy at
WalMart) or a bow and arrow safely in my backyard was the same
misdemeanor offense in a city I once lived in as it would be to blast a magazine full of 9mm into a bullet trap any place except a city licensed
range.
** Tax stamp vs license. I am not making this up. This is the actual
legal loophole they jumped through to pass the GCA, and they talked
about it as such. An end run around the bill of rights. There is still
a problem. The basic premise that you can't tax a right, but I'm not
prepared to argue that at this time. Its either self evident to you or
its not. Mostly depending on your goal and point of view. Its far
beyond the scope of this post.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)