I would very much like to see a cite for this.
Probably not much before the sailors walked over to sort you out. That’s not exactly a typical naval situation.
I don’t think the primary idea of firing cannon at a sailing vessel was necessarily to sink it, but to damage the rigging and masts such that it couldn’t maneuver. And that could be accomplished with cannons that couldn’t actually penetrate the sides - masts are not nearly as resistant as the hull.
Regards,
Shodan
https://www.nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/privateers.html
*
With the passage of an act on March 23, 1776, the Continental Congress formalized the commissioning process, and uniform rules of conduct were established. Owners of privateers had to post monetary bonds to ensure their proper conduct under the regulations.
Although the documentation is incomplete, about 1,700 Letters of Marque, issued on a per-voyage basis, were granted during the American Revolution. Nearly 800 vessels were commissioned as privateers and are credited with capturing or destroying about 600 British ships.
Vessels of every size and description were pressed into service as privateers. At the upper end of the scale was the 600-ton, 26-gun ship Caesar of Boston. At the other end was the 8-ton boat Defense of Falmouth, Massachusetts. Crews ranged from a few men in a whaleboat to more than 200 aboard a large, fully equipped privateer. Two-masted schooners and brigantines were most often used in privateering, reflecting the kind of vessels available to American seamen.*
When’s the last time the US issued a letter of marque, though? The notion is completely outdated and also doesn’t really bear on the individual right to bear arms, as it’s a special license to, essentially, be a mercenary.
The question here is what limits on private firearms would the founders have considered reasonable. And I suspect that’s unanswerable because the context in which the second amendment was written was completely different than now.
Well, bsides that, most merchant ships carried a few cannon for defense. Privately owned cannon were by no means exceptional.
Armament: 10 cannons, 2 heavy stern chaser guns, 4 heavy and 4 lighter broadside guns.
The point isn’t the letters of Marquis, it’s the fact that there were so many heavily armed private vessels that the government pressed them into service to fight the British Navy, and they managed to sink 600 ships, which means there were a LOT of them.
Privateers were used in the War of 1812 as well so you can add to that.
- The 1856 Paris Declaration abolished letters of marque and reprisal for major European powers, and most countries have followed suit. The US is not a signatory, but adheres to the abolition as a matter of policy. If the US was to resume issuing them, this is a specific enumerated power of Congress, so would need legislative authority.
Thank you for that. And again, arming privately owned ships, merchant or not, is fundamentally different that the rights (or lack of same) that pertain to private ownership of personal arms. We see today that large shipping companies, some US flagged, do or do not arm their crews according to how they judge the risk of piracy, but this doesn’t really relate to the domestic questions about gun ownership.
What it establishes is that private arms were widespread and included weaponry as powerful as anything the government had.
The question you specifically asked was what were the limits on firearms ownership during the time of the founders. The question has been answered, and it was essentially ‘none’. You might not find that answer helpful to your cause, but you don’t get to declare it irrelevant because it didn’t go the way you thought it would,
OP was asked and extensively answered in good thread for what people were packing back then and the law: 1) Legal weapons in US states ca. 1790? 2) Which arms were possessed by the Army but not citizens?