OK, you do have to title an automobile even if it never leaves private property. The legislative intent is to be able to prove ownership. I consider that analogous to the deed to your house, to keep someone else from claiming it's theirs and ending up having to have the rightful owner clog the courts proving he owns it.
But you don't have to have a license to operate it on private property. The law says you require a license to operate on a public highway.
It is entirely possible that Florida doesn't try to register guns not because the 2nd amendment forbids it, but because they're typically not as valuable as automobiles or homes and proving who owns one is a fairly small claim.
It is also possible that their failure to require gun registration is due to their interpretation of the 2nd. I do not know.
What I'm trying to point out here is that comparing the absence of the "right to bear cars" in the BOR to the "right to bear arms" is questionable at best.
On the one hand, the BOR decrees that, if you read it to apply to individuals, you don't mess with peoples' guns. But that hasn't stopped regulators in the past.
The 2nd's existence could be looked at two ways. Either it could be an emphasis that arms are special enough to warrant a mention in the BOR, or it could mean that the original document preempted the government's ability to restrict your right to own ANY type of property, cars, jets, guns, hula hoops, etc., and that someone might have had some second thoughts and figured the public would think "they couldn't possibly mean we can have guns", and added that to the BOR just to make sure.
The thing is, the constutition and BOR pretty much give us the RKBA (Right to Keep and Bear Anything) unless a compelling reason exists to control the Anything.
How do we get compelling reasons for just about anything we want to? By the Commerce Clause, of course.
That is the culprit, or at least it is the abuse of said culprit, that everybody should be focusing on.
If I had the power, I could constitutionally keep you from owning anything I wanted. All I would have to do is either twist the commerce clause till it screams, or write a compelling public interest so long and twisted that it would take years to find any flaws in it.
An political attack should be commenced as soon as possible on those two abuses. Any politician who authors any legislation hinging on the Commerce Clause or on Compelling Public Interest should be ejected at the next opportunity, and any who have already done so should be treated similarly unless some wild scrambling to repeal such laws is done, and visibly.
