Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 19:40:57 -0700 From: r.destephens@WORLDNET.ATT.NET (Richard DeStephens) Subject: Arms v Ordnance To: AZRKBA@asu.edu
State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 614 P. 2d 94, at 95, at 98 (1980)
"We are not unmindful that there is current controversy over the wisdom of a right to bear arms, and that the original motivations for such a provision might not seem compelling if debated as a new issue. Our task, however, in construing a constitutional provision is to respect th principles given the status of constitutional guarantees and limitations by the drafters; it is not to abandon these principles when this fits the needs of the moment."
"Therefore, the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several handcarried weapons commonly used for defense. The term 'arms' would not have included cannon or ther heavy ordnance not kept by militiamen or private citizens."
Of course, private citizens did own cannon and even warships during the Revolutionary war.Rick