But, after you possess that same item, the government may then, under a "reasonable regulation", such as a ban on the use, sale, transport or transfer of said dangerous item, arrest and prosecute you with all due process applied if you actually do anything with your property. Is that your contention, or am I still not following you?
Okay, I finally see what you have been trying to argue.
Correct if wrong: You contend that no government can ban anything outright, because that is a violation of the 14th A. guarantee to property. That is, it is pre-emptive to your possession. Correct?
You're getting close. --- The power to prohibit is not delegated to any level of government in the USA. The 14th reiterated that fact to the rebel States in 1868. -- Although the 14th is still ignored today by States like CA & it's ban on 'assault weapons'.
But, after you possess that same item, the government may then, under a "reasonable regulation", such as a ban on the use, sale, transport or transfer of said dangerous item, arrest and prosecute you with all due process applied if you actually do anything with your property. Is that your contention, or am I still not following you?
Do you agree that CA has the Constitutional power to outright prohibit assault weapons, or booze, or drugs? -- I think 'laws' of that sort are unreasonable regulations, - thus unconstitutional, and unenforceable.
Why do you want States to have such powers?