Published August 15, 2026 at 10:30 AM ET · Updated August 15, 2026 at 12:43 PM ET
Second Amendment may cover cannons and armed warships, UPenn analysis finds
1 independent outlet is covering this story, first reported here by Instapundit. Verification: Watching (how we verify). Every headline links to the original reporting.
An analysis from the University of Pennsylvania finds that the Second Amendment may cover cannons and armed warships. The finding suggests the constitutional right to keep and bear arms could extend beyond handheld firearms to heavier weaponry.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 4 hr ago, when Instapundit reported it. So far this remains a single-source report. The most recent report came 4 hr ago from Instapundit.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Jaime Caetano v. Massachusetts held the Second Amendment reaches all bearable arms, even arms not existing at the founding, and military usefulness is not the test. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen held that when the plain text covers conduct, the government must justify regulation with historical tradition. Whether cannons and warships are bearable arms is unsettled.
Jaime Caetano v. Massachusetts 577 U.S. 411 (2016)
Vote: Unanimous per curiam (8-member Court, post-Scalia); no recorded vote split · Opinion: Per curiam (unsigned)
Summarily vacating the SJC's judgment without briefing on the merits or oral argument, the Court held that each of the SJC's three rationales contradicted Heller: the Second Amendment extends prima facie to all bearable arms, including those not in existence at the founding; 'unusual' cannot be equated with 'not in common use in 1789'; and protection is not limited to weapons useful in warfare. The case was remanded for further proceedings; the Court did not itself hold the Massachusetts ban unconstitutional.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Kevin P. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police 597 U.S. 1 (2022)
Vote: 6-3 · Opinion: Thomas
New York's requirement that applicants demonstrate 'proper cause' — a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community — to obtain an unrestricted public-carry license violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public. The Court held the Second Amendment protects a right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense, and rejected the two-step means-end framework lower courts had applied after Heller.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
