Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Regarding ‘Citizen-owned’ Artillery
Can private individuals own and possess artillery?
This question came up during the Ricochet podcast of the recent New Orleans meet-up (link here) attended by R> co-founder @roblong and R> owner @charlescwcooke; “Is it legal for private citizens to have cannons?” Charlie answered quite succinctly, and I’ll summarize here: Yes. The US Constitution protects the rights of private citizens to purchase ordnance and stores for heavy, crew-served weapons in addition to the individual small arms addressed in the Second Amendment.
My US Constitution students are always surprised to learn that it is 100% legal for them to own artillery…real, live “big boom-boom” guns. “Professor Hoplite, can we actually buy cannons?”
Sure, I reply…the catch is whether or not you have enough cash (or credit) to place the order.
Let’s consider a typical field artillery piece: an M777 howitzer, 155 millimeter in caliber (about 6″ or so in diameter). It is a towed gun, takes a crew of five “red legs” to fire it, and can hit targets from a range of 13 to 15 miles with simple high-explosive shells. There are four guns in a battery, fighting as a single unit (usually all four guns fire at the same target.) So, what does an M777 cost? $3.08 million USD, assuming you buy 37 of them in a single purchase order. Of course, that includes spare parts, but the total order price in 2008 was about $114 million. (here)
Then, you’ll need ammunition. Prior to the start of the Russo-Ukrainian War, the US Army standard production run was 14, 400 155mm artillery rounds a month. Exact numbers are difficult, but a good cost estimate (pre-Ukraine) is about $2200 ea. here. That means the Department of Defense spends an average of $31.7 million per month buying 155 artillery rounds (not counting the increased demand for supplying Ukraine*). A typical artillery fire mission includes three to five rounds to zero-in on the target, and then three volleys from the battery on the target, and then a report back from the forward observer: 15 to 17 rounds. For those of you keeping score at home, that’s about $35,000 to fire a simple single-point artillery mission.
So what can we glean from all these numbers? Well, to start with, cannons are not sold in single units; if you want to buy a cannon, you have to buy them in the Costco-size packages (35+ per order). Be ready to write a big check: $108.5 million at least. Typical combat load of rounds per gun is 2,222 (here) so buying ammunition for each of the cannon will add another $171 million ($2,200 per round x 2,222 rounds per gun x 35 guns). Total for the field artillery starter kit? $279.5 million.
My conclusions? Legal, yes. But there are few civilians who have the means to buy cannons (certainly not any cannons that are anything more than dangerous noisemakers). If and when the time comes that citizens need cannons, they had better have figured out what the “work-around” is going to be, because waiting to buy them won’t really be an option.
*Currently, the US defense industrial base doesn’t have the expansion capacity to meet this demand, regardless of how much money the Biden administration is chucking around. The backlog in production orders has to be measured in years.
Published in Military
I agree with your assessment about modern day procurement of anything except vintage ordinance; however, I get a kick out of it whenever any politician says the second amendment didn’t protect your right to own a cannon. Up through the civil war individual commanders were providing there own privately owned cannons to the regiments or militia companies they commanded. During the revolution and war of 1812 you could own the equivalent of a frigate, i.e. a minor surface combatant the absolute equivalent of, and in some cases superior to, the US Navy’s principle warship of the time. As with most things now it is a question of practicality and expense rather than legality.
Seems odd to limit it to the newest stuff, and for use the way the USG uses it.
I’ll take a Korea-vintage howitzer and mount it looking down a long driveway in direct fire, thank you very much.
That’ll teach them not to, uh, use the driveway.
I wouldn’t pay much attention to Cooke’s views of the Second Amendment, which are quite contrary to history and even conservative jurisprudence like that of Scalia.
I think that “arms” in the Second Amendment meant personal arms, like a musket, rifle, pistol, or sword. A suitcase nuke is right out, to take it to an extreme. The borderline case, I think, is a modern automatic rifle or pistol.
Yeah, the Framers even assumed this would be the case. Not sure how Letters of Marque and Reprisal would work if private citizens couldn’t own cannon, etc.
In this video from the Forgotten Weapons channel, the host fires progressively larger weapons up to a 76mm tank gun.
These are all privately, and legally, owned. I have the impression that the owners load all their own ammo.
Oddly enough, and despite Joe Biden, there are no statistics showing artillery usage in crime.
The way I see it, anything that’s good for the police is good for the citizenry. Police armament is the obvious standard of reasonableness for responding to non-military issues, right?
With a militia being simply all able-bodied males of an age range (females now too!), and the purpose of the milita being the maintenance of our own freedoms, nobody expects the milita to outgun the military. That’s what proper war is for. The militia assembled should be able to outgun any rabble, and to present a credible threat for any wayward, rogue, or tyrannical police force.
On that basis, I agree — suitcase nukes are not covered under the second amendment — but only because police don’t have them.
Michael Dorn, who played the Star Trek Klingon character Worf, has owned several older military aircraft, including an F86.
We’re taught that the Redcoats marched on Concord because they were trying to capture Adams and Hancock. If you read the actual order from General Gage, what he really wanted was to recapture four cannons that had been stolen from the British in Boston, before someone reported the embarrassing incident to Parliament. It was a great example of how good the Sons of Liberty were at pissing off Gage; they cut through the wall of the armory and snagged the cannons while the Brits were changing the guard in front of the building, with all the attendant fife-and-drum noise and marching.
Damn right we’re allowed to own cannons.
Got to admire a militant version of Jay Leno. If I had that kind of money I would have a shed or two with something interesting in them.
That view is a perversion of the original understanding of the Second Amendment. As others have states (and you apparently ignored) at least through the American Civil War artillery was routinely owned by private citizens in the United States. The owners of privateers routinely possessed as many as two dozen large guns. (Otherwise the authority of Congress to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal would have been meaningless.)
Just because the present government finds it inconvenient for citizens to own artillery does not mean the framers of the Constitution did not intend for private citizens to own artillery. If you can argue that is no longer relevant in modern society you can just as easily argue that the rest of the right to keep and bear arms is irrelevant.
“Our founder, Cole Palen, grew up next to a great 1930’s Hudson Valley airport dreaming that he would own and fly the machines he saw overhead and spent the rest of his life bringing the vision alive. He believed, “It isn’t an airplane if it doesn’t fly,” and the non-profit Rhinebeck Aerodrome Museum continues his work of collecting, restoring and exhibiting more than 60 aircraft of the Pioneer, WWI and Golden Ages of aviation. Cole also believed in having fun and presenting his treasures in an accessible way and we continue this tradition. We’ve been flying, educating and entertaining for six decades.”
Another post where my military experience, sparse though it is, comes into play.
I was trained as a cannoneer at Fort Sill, OK and spent the balance of my 2-years service in a towed 155 Howitzer battalion at Fort Bragg, NC. I suspect our equipment was almost as effective as today’s. Maybe it was better.
I don’t know exactly what process the Army uses to move excess armaments but if they were to dispose of weapons as they do other excess equipment it would cost next to nothing for those with government contracting authority with the only requirement being a short holding period before the buyer can sell it. I know a lot of this kind of action takes place with Humvees but I don’t think they include those with mounted weapons. This is a process where many tax dollars are wasted and it is also why market investors like industries with repeat business like military equipment and pharmaceuticals, thus the big numbers in the OP.
Should have thought of that myself. Mind, Arizona doesn’t much like Texans.
Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the powers “to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.” The US made extensive use of privateers in the War of 1812. The privateers did more damage to British shipping than the puny USN did. All of those ships, and all of their ordinance, was privately owned.
No, no, no! Cover the driveway with a Mk 19.
If you consider “modern” to be any automatic weapon manufactured after 1986 (I think), those are prohibited. Automatic weapons made before that date are perfectly legal to own. However, one must apply for and be granted a tax stamp under the NFA.
pootpootpootpoot, bambambambam
Loved that thing.
Congress issued the letters of marque – some 500 of them. President James Madison, who history deems “the father of the Constitution,” signed them.
This is surprising, given how easily concealed a 155 mm Howitzer is . . .
Yes, you’re right. I felt like I had to pick a reasonable variant (heck, imagine what a M109 Paladin costs?), one that a civilian crew might actually be able to man-handle and move, and for which relatively up-to-date data was available. The 75mm M116 howitzer would be a lot more manageable, too.
Thank you for your contribution.
A great read – I have the Kindle edition, myself.
No kidding! I once almost bumped into one of the da*n things w/o seeing it, and when it fired, scared the…HECK out of me! (Well, I kinda knew it was somewhere close by…but I didn’t exactly SEE it right away.)
I recommend that everybody take concealed arty training.
Let’s see what the Taliban innovators come up with.
I wonder what are the heaviest arms used by Private Military Contractors?
You will need anti-personnel mines to cover the backyard.
Good question. I don’t know for sure, but when I was a student at the US Army War College in 2008, it was a topic of discussion among several of my classmates. Blackwater was often in the news at that time, and was reportedly building the capacity to field a full motorized brigade combat team (3,500 trigger-pullers). Nothing ever came of it, but such an outfit would certainly have the wherewithal to make big lot purchases of artillery (of some size).
I drove a 5-ton truck to move the 155 Howitzer and gun bunnies, so there are other expenses.