A bit of a tangent, but I never understood the legal reasoning for how (states having the right of well-regulated militias) implies (individuals having the right for private ownership of arms).
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
1. The reason is well-regulated militias, but the right is of the people.
2. The militia isn't a state apparatus. Indeed, the goal of the militia is to enable a rebellion if the state is no longer free.
Now, here again, "well regulated" gives plenty of leeway. For example, one might argue that the following scheme fits:
1. I can have whatever arms I want, including an F35
2. The F35 lives with a militia, which is well-regulated. I can use it in trainings there.
I don't think one could argue the militia could be under state control (that defeats the purpose!), but one could easily argue that it could be well-enough regulated that the current far-right extremist groups would not fit.
The concept was a group of citizens under e.g. a town / city council.
That's obviously not where case law went, but in an alternative reality, it very well might have.
3. the militia is supposed to be under state control and its purpose is to keep the state free, aka prevent overreach of the federal government
4. The "well regulated militia" is the motivation, not the right. That makes the "well regulated" part irrelevant and there is no basis for any regulation of arms
One would mean any effective state milita should have some F35, the other means you can have one personally
Read your militia clauses in the U.S. Constitution.