While speaking about the Uvalde school shooting at a White House Press Conference on Wednesday, President Joe Biden stated that weapons bans existed when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1789.
The conference announced a new executive order regarding reforming policing practices. Members of George Floyd’s family were in attendance at the White House. Floyd died two years ago as an officer kneeled on his neck while detaining him.
“When in God’s name will we do what needs to be done to, if not completely stop, fundamentally change the amount of the carnage that goes on in this country?” said President Biden.
He later added, “The Second Amendment is not absolute. When it was passed, you couldn’t own a cannon. You couldn’t own certain kinds of weapons. There has always been limitations.”
The statement echoes a claim made by the President last month in another speech about gun control that took place after he signed another executive order regarding background checks for firearms purchases.
An article by Constitutional Law Scholar Jonathan Turley suggests that the President’s statement is untrue.
When the Second Amendment was established, there were no federal laws prohibiting the ownership of cannons. Gun regulations were largely localized, but Turley says he was not aware of any prohibitions on cannons or other firearms until much later in our history. Early local ordinances did regulate concealed weapons, but they did not include cannons.
Turley points out in his article that the Constitution explicitly allows for private cannon ownership. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 allows Congress to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which allowed private parties to privateer with cannons on the open seas.
Last year, The Washington Post also fact-checked a similar statement made by the President, and the outlet agreed that his comment was inaccurate.
“We have no idea where he conjured up this notion about a ban on cannon ownership in the early days of the Republic, but he needs to stop making this claim,” said Glenn Kessler with the Post.
Although he was incorrect about a previous ban on cannons, experts say Biden’s broader point about the government’s capacity to restrict weaponry is supported by history.
“While Biden’s specific claim was wrong and poorly worded, he could have easily made his point by saying something like the following: ‘At the time of the Second Amendment, there was nothing to prevent government from regulating arms, including dangerous or unusual weapons,'” wrote Saul Cornell, a history professor at Fordham University.