Yes, I would agree that prohibiting gun ownership based on something arbitrary like color would probably, rightly be viewed as an indirect attempt to limit firearms, even though avoiding any ‘illegal’ colors would probably be easy enough.
I guess the real question is, does the 2nd Amendment protect any feature that may be built into a gun, just by virtue of the fact that it is attached to a gun? If that premise is accepted, then things which would normally be prohibited would be allowed just by virtue of the fact that they are a feature on a weapon. If bullets are considered part of a gun, does the 2nd Amendment protect bullets that are radio-active, or are coated with some disease spreading pathogen? I don’t believe so.
Avoiding “illegal” colors would be as simple as avoiding illegal firearms currently is.
I see where you’re going with this though. “Where is the line one cannot cross?”
A weapon is its parts, is my point.
How those parts are used determines what a weapon does and how.
The total of that weapons parts make it a functional arm.
If “arms” is undefined, anything that is part of a particular arm falls into that category, does it not?
But, is the rest not moot? Radioactive and biologically hazardous materials being used on people is already and act of war or terrorism. And the citizens are to have the final word per the constitution.
The line is what then affects others. At which point, those affected require the arms most suited to their purpose in defense. Not arms suited to an arbitrary or bureaucratic purpose.
It’s no different than having vehicles limited.
Only those who can demonstrate a need can own a V8 engine.
Fuel tanks should be limited to 5 gallons to prevent criminals from escaping the police.
Mufflers are only used by those up to no good so they should be registered.
I feel extraordinarily absurd using their arguments for limits like that, but it seems a decent comparison.
That’s a big philosophical argument there.
Historically, it covered the private ownership of armed warships and artillery. That’s pretty expansive.
I would argue that the 2A does not extend to arms that are directly used as an expression of sovereignty or political authority. This would be your WMDs which are primarily about foreign policy, a power that is legitimately ceded to the federal government in the constitution.
There is little other regulation that is constitutional. I think you can make a case for a licensing system for arms that are dangerous by their presence without human intervention. This would cover your radioactive ammunition. IE, a rifle sitting on a table and no one touching is incapable of causing harm, and safe handling requires no special technical knowledge.
Radioactive ammunition is harmful by its unattended presence, and would require specialized technical knowledge to handle it properly.
This leaves a lot of stuff unregulated. Belt fed MGs, shoulder fired anti tank weapons, portable surface to air missiles, and field artillery to name a few. I don’t see this as a problem. Most of that stuff is incredibly expensive; the only people who would buy something like that would be rich people for the occasional lulz. Those people aren’t a threat.