You are going way out into left field. The right to own is not modified. The rest of what you bring up is inventing phoney issues that have no bearing. A stolen gun is stolen property and is dealt with in law- Thou Shalt Not Steal and all that. It has no bearing whatever on the RIGHT to keep and bear which, to answer a caveat you will likely make, a right is not a requirement nor an exception to economics.
“The right to own is not modified”...
...By the right to keep and bear arms.
The right to keep and bear arms does not cover someone keeping and bearing arms that were stolen from me.
Are we in agreement on that?
“It has no bearing whatever on the RIGHT to keep and bear”
The right to own bears on the right to keep and bear arms if the arms are stolen.
I’m not going into left field, I’m digging deeper.
I’m trying to discuss the meaning, scope, extent of the first clause.