Forums:
Irrespective of the Second Amendment, a federal law banning the purchase or possession of specific arms would be unconstitutional as an ex post facto law.
The debate over what the second amendment really means is moot, because all it does is give the people of the states the right to BEAR arms. That is to constitute militia for the purpose of defend the state against attack, which in 1789 was against the Indians and the probable incursion again by the British or even the French, who had made war against the colonies with the Indians. Individual ownership of guns was never an issue and the manufacture of firearms and their ownership was not prohibited, nor could it be.
The Constitution of the United States and the constitution of Maine does not give the government the power to ban anything and that includes the manufacture of alcohol, tobacco or anything else, including opioids or marijuana. If anyone disagrees I would ask them to cite the specific authorization and the purpose for which it was intended. Let the debate begin. I would remind those who want to cite the U. S. Constitution that the original document made the States and counterfeiters, pirates and those who commit treason against the United States its only constituents and not the people of the States who are constituents of their own individual constitutions. The States then were sovereign.