It’s going to depend on interpretations of “reasonable”. I do think an argument can be made for the “bear” part of keep and bear arms. Some states are so restrictive they make it illegal to even have in the car for anything other than going to the range or the gunsmith.
I am more concerned with patently unreasonable conditions like California sets which require any new handgun to be able to stamp the bullet with ID even though the technology doesn’t exist. Furthermore if the design of an older model is changed at all then they claim it is a “new” design and add it to the ban list.
The USSC’s reasoning in Miller was that a sawed off shotgun could be banned because it was not “reasonably related to the need for a militia”. ie it was a nonmilitary-type weapon. OK. Fair enough. By that rationale, every single restriction on or ban on semiautomatic rifles or high capacity magazines should be struck down as unconstitutional.
And it's within the prevue of the states to make those restrictions; under the 10th Amendment.
I am more concerned with patently unreasonable conditions like California sets which require any new handgun to be able to stamp the bullet with ID even though the technology doesn’t exist. Furthermore if the design of an older model is changed at all then they claim it is a “new” design and add it to the ban list.
Unreasonable? Perhaps. Unconstitutional? Possibly, if the required technology really doesn't exist. A requirement like that basically makes gun ownership illegal altogether, which the Heller decision struck down. But if it does exist then California can place the restrictions.
The USSC’s reasoning in Miller was that a sawed off shotgun could be banned because it was not “reasonably related to the need for a militia”. ie it was a nonmilitary-type weapon. OK. Fair enough. By that rationale, every single restriction on or ban on semiautomatic rifles or high capacity magazines should be struck down as unconstitutional.
You may be right on that. It needs to work its way through the courts.