[DoodleDawg]

The laws you mention limits the type of weapon you can purchase in some cases but they do not impair a citizen's right to keep and bear arms. I can still buy other weapons for my own defense.

The federal gun transportation law is temporary an only allows me to carry over state lines as long as I comply with my own state's laws. If I want to settle in any of those states I need to comply with their laws.

My general point is that there is all sort of line-drawing here, and nobody knows what a court will decide.

And the courts should continue to rule it's a state matter. Unless you really want a central solution imposed be Congress.

[Cboldt]

-- The laws you mention limits the type of weapon you can purchase in some cases but they do not impair a citizen's right to keep and bear arms. --

I think "impair" isn't the best word for what you are implying. "Obviate" maybe. If the law was that a civilian could have a .22 caliber single shot, and could carry it, that would not impair the RKBA either, by your logic, becuase a person could be armed, and could bear the arm. Not total impairment. I'm not saying you would find this constitutional, just that is a logical end-point of your interpretation.

-- And the courts should continue to rule it's a state matter. Unless you really want a central solution imposed be Congress. --

That of course would depend on the central solution imposed by Congress. Congress could try to disarm the people, or it could, as it did early oin, provide everybody with the current military small arms issue and not discourage private ownership of any arm.

I'd expect some discussion over "arms" vs. ordnance or munitions - but even if you don't get the point, I'm sure others will.