Responsible howitzer owner shells house 5km away...

[Cylinder]

That does not, to me, seem an overly onerous set of considerations given that we are talking about weapons that are considered to have killed more people in combat than most other weapons in the human arsenal.

The parts that qualify for that description are already very heavily regulated by the federal government.

 

[Cylinder]

I doin't think artillery can be banned or even regulated without either breaching or amending the constitution, can it?

Sure it can...and already is. There's just no evidence that crew-served weapons were a class of arms related to individual possession by the founders. That was a collective responsibility.

 

[3point14]

Sure it can...and already is. There's just no evidence that crew-served weapons were a class of arms related to individual possession by the founders. That was a collective responsibility.

It would seem to fall very fimly under the definiton of 'arms' as generally accepted. I don't see how you can restrict or regulate access to arms of this nature without breaching the constitution.

The founders don't mention any catagories of arms, as I understand it. The amendment is not '...the right to keep an bear arms of a certain size or catagorisation...'

Without opening the second up to all sorts of restrictive intepretations in other areas one cannot reasonably ban artillery and remain constitutional.

 

[newyorkguy]

There are some contradictions in the information conveyed by Mike Friend the owner of Mike's Auto Shoot...Why would he need to drill trained professionals on safety? ..

But that's the contradiction, isn't it?

I suggest what he's communicating here is that the person paying the fee is drilled along with the professional crew before firing the weapon...

"The person paying the fee is drilled along with the professional crew before firing the weapon." You're suggesting the weapon was fired by a "a person paying a fee" not "fired by professionals" as Mike Friend stated. Isn't that pretty much what I said?

Btw, if you look at the ads on-line for Mike's Auto Shoot, he states that he is also looking "to buy used cars." There's a photo of his facilty with junk cars staged as targets. They do seem to be at a much lower elevation than the firing area. So for them to fire the gun at a target at a lower elevation and hit a house three miles away... I know what my old First Sgt. at III Corps Artillery at Ft. Sill, Alvin Schuler, I know what he would say about that. And it's not printable!

[Does the name Mike's Auto Shoot come from shooting at cars or from shooting automatic weapons? Both?]

 

[newyorkguy]

It would seem to fall very fimly under the definiton of 'arms' as generally accepted. I don't see how you can restrict or regulate access to arms of this nature without breaching the constitution...

Antonin Scalia has already addressed this, specifically in an interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace. First the good news:

Obviously the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried—it’s to keep and “bear”, so it doesn’t apply to cannons

Now the bad news. Scalia also said:

—but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided. Link

.

 

[Cylinder]

It would seem to fall very fimly under the definiton of 'arms' as generally accepted. I don't see how you can restrict or regulate access to arms of this nature without breaching the constitution.

The founders don't mention any catagories of arms, as I understand it. The amendment is not '...the right to keep an bear arms of a certain size or catagorisation...'

Without opening the second up to all sorts of restrictive intepretations in other areas one cannot reasonably ban artillery and remain constitutional.

But that's really an ahistorical and uniformed analysis. There was never an individual right (or responsibility) to possess crew-served weapons. It was always a collective responsibility. When men and arms were counted, it was almost universal that their crew-served weapons were counted separately. Statutes required private men to muster armed but that never included artillery pieces.

Anyone on either side of the debate that pull out this bit of hyperbole are either lying or just really have no useful understanding to advance the debate.

 

[newyorkguy]

...Anyone on either side of the debate that pull out this bit of hyperbole are either lying or just really have no useful understanding to advance the debate.

What debate? I thought this thread is about an artillery misfire in the great state of Oklahoma? (And that's NOT sarcasm, newyorkguy spent eighteen great months there and has been back three times on vacation.)

Remember...AAH beckons!

 

[sadhatter]

So I've got to say it. I cannot legally own a butterfly knife, but artillery is okay. What a wacky world.

 

[Cylinder]

What debate? I thought this thread is about an artillery misfire in the great state of Oklahoma? (And that's NOT sarcasm, newyorkguy spent eighteen great months there and has been back three times on vacation.)

Remember...AAH beckons!

Debate over regulation. Some members here have expressed an opinion that the federal government should regulate artillery weapons. They already do. Some have claimed that artillery weapons are protected as arms in the 2nd Amendment. They are not nor have they ever been a class of arms that either had a custom uf individual protections at a time contemporaneous with the ratification of that amendment -- or really before or after. What today we call "crew-served weapons" have always been a collective endeavor both by custom and statute.

 

[DGM]

So I've got to say it. I cannot legally own a butterfly knife, but artillery is okay. What a wacky world.

What state? Most states you can own these knives, you just can't carry them (odd distinction).

 

[Cylinder]

"The person paying the fee is drilled along with the professional crew before firing the weapon." You're suggesting the weapon was fired by a "a person paying a fee" not "fired by professionals" as Mike Friend stated. Isn't that pretty much what I said?

Now we have to define fired the weapon. The professional definition isn't just the person actually pulling the lanyard (or otherwise initiating the propellant's ignition.) If the person paying the fee (which is an assumption I've made from the details of the article) was the gun's master when it was fired, then the guy needs all his permits pulled -- no question about that.

 

[Trakar]

The parts that qualify for that description are already very heavily regulated by the federal government.

Amount of existing regulation is irrelevant unless we are talking about duplicating existing regulation, particularly with regard to issues that pose significant threats to life, limb and property.

In the case of duplication, existing standards can be written in as appropriate substitutions for those standards. For instance I would think that military service with 13B MOS training and duty, along with a weekend class to familiarize the person with the particular artillery piece they wanted to be certified on, would be sufficient to meet all the requirements for being certified as qualified to serve on an artillery firing team.

Note: I am talking about the firing team that maintains, sets and prepares the weapon for firing, not just the person who pulls the lanyard. IMO, however, no individual who is not a part of the fire team should actually be in close proximity to the fire team while the weapon is set, prepped, and fired. Such can create distractions and enhances the opportunity for errors and/or misfires.

 

[I Ratant]

Crane Naval Ammunition Depot had a similar event back a few years ago. About 50 years ago, IIRC. In those days you keep things like that out of the papers.

.
60 years ago I could see the USAF practicing "toss" and "loft" bombing on the range at (then) Camp A.P. Hill, where daddy was the C.O., from my home room as a senior at Bowling Green VA.
"Toss bombing" had the delivering airplane (usually F-84F's) fly at low altitude towards the target, pull up in a 1/2 loop before getting to it, and releasing the bomb as it pulled up. The bomb would then fly along the path the airplane would have taken, and impact near the target.
"Loft bombing" had the airplane fly over and past the target, pull up into the 1/2 loop, and release the bomb on the way up, as the plane pointed straight up in the loop. The plane would then roll out of the loop and proceed back along its entrance route. The bomb (these were monstrous concrete filled nuclear shapes, 15-20' long) would fly up, lose momentum, and come back down. (Even B-47s had this ability!)
The manuver placed the airplane leaving the area where the nuke would go off.
Awesome to see, these giant things leaving the plane, going up, then coming down, knowing there was nothing that could stop the bomb!
Anyway, one of the planes one day was practicing the "loft" manuver, but the computer was set to "toss". His bombs were flying off the range into a farmer's backyard!
He received some compensation, ISTR.

 

[NoahFence]

I always figured artillery to be in the category of banned arms, that weren't specifically mentioned in the constitution. Like weaponized gas or nukes.

 

[I Ratant]

The school needs to do an analysis to determine what happened, why and how to prevent it. But it happens to the best of them.

Many years ago when I was assigned to Hq. & Hq. Battery III Corps Artillery at Ft. Sill there was a similar incident, though not as dangerous. I was with an NCO driving the test firing range to check the field wire lines. There were several units practice firing. At one point as I drove along the NCO exclaimed, "Oh man look at that!"

I turned to see an air burst -- a puff of smoke caused by an exploding shell -- over Ft. Sill's heavily populated barracks and administrative area. Some how a round had been fired the wrong way (?) and luckily had exploded in the air. The sergeant and I drove around checking the units that were practice firing but nothing seemed amiss. We had no possible way to explain what we had seen. But we saw artillery firing rounds every single day and we knew an air burst when we saw it. I never heard any more about it.

.
At a fire power demonstration at Camp A.P. Hill, the USAF sent up a group from Langley AFB, F-86s, led by Robert L. Scott, of "God Is My Copilot" Flying Tigers fame. On his pass to shoot rockets, instead of firing the rockets in the pods, he had the cockpit switches set wrong, and jettisoned the pods! Oops!
We went out to the area where the pods had impacted, and saw busted rockets all over the place!
Hearing the artillery rounds flying overhead from behind us where the cannons were to the target was awesome!

 

[I Ratant]

A colleague who was in REME in the 1980s would say that's traditional.

This week he told me that a lot of the grenades had fuses with "variable" timings. Apparently range days with grenades were interesting as one wasn't allowed to leave the range if there was an unexploded grenade.

.
The only accident I recall from my days at A.P.Hill was when a mortar shell exploded as it left the tube, killing the crew.

 

[I Ratant]

Flat trajectory, solidish ground, could happen.

.
As a kid watching low level bomb drops from one of the observer towers on the range (Daddy being Post Commander, and RHIP!) normal passes at the target with a low level drop, the bombs would skip some distance after hitting the ground)
We also watched some tankers try to hit radio controlled drones with the turret mounted .50 caliber on the M-47s. All the drones survived.
Even Dad, who had done that in anger during his tour of Europe, 1944-45, missed!

 

[I Ratant]

The way i see it is that if a gun has a legitimate use (defense, or hunting ), it is in societies best interest to let people use it as a toy (referring to target shooting, or other non defense related purposes) people will become more comfortable and proficient in it's use, leading to better outcomes in situations where it needs to be used and less accidental harm to the users. So for just about any gun, i say load it up and fire away. I'm pretty darn accepting of weapons of almost all kinds, i enjoy them, think they are beneficial to society, and that anyone who can safely be trained to use one should have one.

That being said, what the hell logic is used that says a civilian can have artillery? It is mind boggling, if we were talking reservists, or full time military personnel, who obtained a special permit, i could digg that, they may be able to put skills to use they learn via firing it, but seriously we are not talking something that can kill one other person (which for the record in cool with), or even something that can kill lots of other people if need be (again, totally down, who knows what one may face), but something that can take out buildings.

I just don't get it, i believe in weapon ownership because while violence is rare, it does happen, so people should be able to be prepared, and if people can own weapons they should be able to do what they want with them within legal boundaries, but come on folks, artillery? Could we maybe tone it down just a bit? Maybe stop at any gun to big to carry for private citizens? It's crap like this that really gives the anti gun folks ammo.

.
Artillery for personal defense... when the target is 5 miles away? Shouldn't there be some immediate (within arms length or so) threat?

 

[newyorkguy]

...If the person paying the fee...was the gun's master when it was fired, then the guy needs all his permits pulled -- no question about that.

If he had any to begin with.

Seriously, if I'm paying to fire an artillery gun I want to be the one to pull the lanyard or I'm not paying. I think the make-and-break in hitting a target is setting the gun elevation and the powder charge. It's not an exact science. Ask any former infantryman. When an infantry unit calls in artillery supporting fire they normally call for the first shot to be a good distance away. Then they "walk it in." Artillery units (at least in Viet-Nam) had a reputation for something less than 100% accuracy. (In fairness, infantry units not knowing exactly where the hell they were was a problem too!)

At Ft. Sill I never served on a gun crew, I was always with a supporting unit. But my observations are, aiming the gun "downhill" to hit a target a few hundred meters away, that's risky business. Mike said they only fired the gun the one time. He may find going forward -- if they continue to fire -- that a 105mm is not like a rifle or M60 machine gun. Whole different ballgame.

 

[3point14]

Don't you wish they'd just said what they meant?