[ApplegateRanch]

Neither, in my opinion, would violate the Second Amendment. (The language of the Second Amendment says "of the people," which suggests a certain concept of the good citizen. That some small class of dangerous people can be kept from owning weapons. There is no such terminology ("of the people") in, say, the First Amendment.

Wrong

First Amendment: ...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."

[California Patriot]

OK, yes, that's in the First Amendment. I was talking about free speech and freedom of religion.

But freedom of assembly is by definition a collective right. There is no news in the fact that the Framers said "of the people" in regard to freedom of assembly.
They did not need to say "of the people" in the Second Amendment. The fact that they did suggests that their basic concern was that the people as a whole be able to own weapons. That requires an individual right, but raises the question of whether all individuals, regardless of personal characteristics or behavior, have a right to own guns, as they do have such an absolute (in that sense) right to speak and worship freely.

Again, I simply cite this as a justification for the constitutionality of laws that restrict ownership of guns by felons or noncitizens, to the extent that such laws exist. Whether they're a good idea or justified is a separate question.