I believe the second amendment is very clear, that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That means restricted in any way. Militias were armed civilians then and now; nothing more, nothing less.
Remember your history? There was the regular Continental Army and then there was the Militia. "Farmers with pitchforks."
The tenth amendment solidifies this on the national and state level. However, that hasn't stopped the federal and state governments as we have seen in our history. The biggest on the National scale was the National Firearms Act of 1934 which was actually created so that the .gov did not have to disband the vast 'army' of federal armed agents that had been hired for Prohibition which ended just six months before the NFA was enacted. It has only gotten worse since.
- "A federal judge denied a request for a preliminary injunction against a new Washington state law that bans the purchase or sale of certain semi-automatic rifles deemed "assault weapons" by gun rights advocates. Three lawsuits have been filed against the law, with each one claiming that it violates the Second Amendment.
- The judge argued that the plaintiffs misinterpreted two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding the right to keep and bear arms."
So, the law at issue, of course, is the always dis-ambiguous "Assault Weapons Ban" where the actual definition of an assault weapon can be changed with mere regulation, usually. I find most offensive the judge's actual remarks:
“Considering the exceptional dangerousness of these weapons, the public interest in their regulation by the State outweighs the Plaintiffs’ desire to purchase more assault weapons,” U.S. District Judge Robert Bryan in Tacoma. “In light of recent mass deaths caused by assailants using assault weapons, it is appropriate for governmental bodies to find ways to protect the public from dangerous weapons, within the limits of the Second Amendment.”
"dangerousness" My spell checker is flagging that one.