Really? Maybe the "well regulated militia" part...
But the history of gun case law belies your presumptive claim regarding private gun ownership. That was what you are claiming. Right?
Prior to Heller in 2008,individual gun ownership was largely related to a connection to a "well regulated militia". Even Scalia wrote in Heller that there were reasonable limits, and it's likelyScalia would be dismayed at how far in the opposite direction the pendulum has swung...
Yet somehow for 200+ yrs and those pre-Heller limits to gun ownership we managed as a country to uphold the 1st amendment. What part of the 1st Amendment would you say is dependant upon concealed and open carry? Or a teen being able to own an AK-47?
"Before the 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, gun ownership was generally viewed as a collective right connected to militia membership. In the decades following the 1939 United States v. Miller case, courts ruled on gun laws based on whether they supported a well-regulated militia. For example, in Miller, the Supreme Court upheld a federal restriction on sawed-off shotguns, ruling that the Second Amendment only protects weapons that are "reasonably related" to a well-regulated militia."
