Interesting proposition, that all rights "come with" restrictions -- that certain restrictions exist due to the nature of a right, as opposed to those placed upon it by the state.
What "restrictions" are inherent to the right to arms?
Please be sure to explain your response.
I wouldn't say that restrictions exist because of the nature of the right;
some restrictions are legitimate because of the structure of the Constitution being a charter of conferred powers.
It is a foundational principle that all power emanates from the people. We the People established the federal government by surrendering powers via a contract and that structuring and specific enumeration limits the extent of the federal government. The most fundamental principle of that is, ALL NOT CONFERRED IS RETAINED.
The weapons of warfare like rockets and missiles and fighter jets and NBC WMD's are legitimately under the control of the federal government because We the People have surrendered the acquisition, maintenance and control of those types of arms to government through the war powers.
In Article I, § 8: the Constitution states:
Congress shall have the power:
11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal,. . .
12. To raise and support armies, . . .
13. To provide and maintain a navy:
14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces:
The powers granted to the federal government preempt other entities acting in similar fashion, i.e., states or the people printing their own currency or raising and supporting their own army or entering into treaties with foreign nations . . . Laws restricting people from doing those things are not violations of the freedom of press or assembly or the right to keep and bear arms because we have surrendered any claim of those things as "rights" (exceptions of powers not granted).
Interestingly, this principle is actually applied to private citizens and weapons of war in the Constitution in clause 11 above and remains true and is applicable today.
The most devastating weapon of the time (Man o' War's) were owned by private citizens (Privateer's) and after the War, through the Constitution, power / control over those weapons was granted to Congress. Private citizens could not maintain or sail these ships without the permission of Congress (receiving a letter of marque and reprisal).
I believe the principle allowing government to place restrictions on citizens owning / using those weapons of war can be applied to restrictions over citizens owning weapons of modern open / indiscriminate warfare.
When considering this (and other questions of rights) it is important to remain tethered to the fundamentals:
The interests we have conferred to government we can not claim as a right.
Those interests that we have not surrendered but fully retained, the government cannot claim as a power.
