The right to bear arms exists independently from the US Constitution and it's rules and laws. The Right to Bear Arms was never granted to the US Constitution as an enumerated power. The federal government , which is established under the powers granted to the US Consitution, has no authority to regulate the Right to Bear Arms, because they do not have Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
The Right to Bear Arms is also not regulated by the 2nd amendment, which itself grants no rights, but serves to limit infringement of that most sacred right and adds an extra layer of protection between the people, and those who would abuse their authority.
The Supreme Court says,
"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail.
This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . . A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)"
So,.. with no authority, no Constitutional Foundation, no Subject Matter Jurisdiction, how does the Federal Government get away with writing laws that limit the Right to Bear Arms, anyway?
They mis-use the Commerce Clause. Section 8, Item 3, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
Yep, every federal Gun Ban Law that has ever existed is given power under the COMMERCE CLAUSE!
How is this not an abuse of power?