I'm not sure what he's arguing, exactly, but lets take this step by step.
Every colony had lengthy militia statutes which were then revised by the states after they gained independence. These regulations could be quite intrusive, allowing government to keep track of who had firearms and requiring citizens to report to muster or face stiff penalties.
Pre-Constitution. Refers to the Colonies. Has no effect on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
The individual colonies used their broad police powers to regulate the non-military use of firearms in a variety of ways. There were, for example, numerous regulations governing the storage of gunpowder. States also prohibited the use of firearms on certain occasions and in certain locations. For example, "An act in addition to the several Acts already made for the prudent Storage of Gun Powder within the Town of Boston, in 1786, empowered the town's fire warden to confiscate weapons and impose stiff fines for violating this law.
What's the point? Many places today still have rules on how certain quantities of powder are stored. Many anti-gun folks like to use THIS particular law (Storage of gun powder in Boston) stating that it prohibited having loaded firearms within the town of Boston. It did no such thing. It merely regulated leaving loaded weapons in unoccupied buildings, as it was dangerous in case of fire. Also of note: This particular law recognized that average citizens were allowed to possess "cannon, swivels, mortars, coehorns, firearms, bombs, grenades, and iron shells of any kind". Interesting, isn't it? In using this particular law, your lawyer friend is showing that ordinary citizens were allowed to own anything they wanted to, up to and including artillery. Not really what he was going for was it?
The state also retained the right to disarm groups deemed to be dangerous. It could use loyalty oaths and enact discriminatory legislation to disarm particular groups in society that were deemed to pose a risk to public safety.
The "state" also encouraged slavery. They enacted laws to and regulations that allowed blacks to be treated like animals. Perhaps this was one of the "dangerous groups" they were interested in disarming.
While he was a legislator in Virginia, Madison drafted a "Bill for the Preservation of Deer"; he proposed a stiff penalty for hunting out of season. The draft penalized people who "shall bear a gun out of his inclosed ground unless whilst performing military duty."
Already covered this one. He's taking the quote completely out of context to fit what he wants. The full proposed law obviously recognized the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Note that Madison's language shows how he understood the difference between bearing a gun for personal use and bearing arms for the common defense.
Important to touch on this. It's funny he should mention that. Madison recognized that even a criminal should be allowed to have a firearm to defend himself in his own home. If he didn't, he would have proposed a law that stripped the individual of even owning a firearm.
Virginia retained the right to regulate the use of firearms for personal usage and differentiated between the level of restrictions that might be placed on bearing a gun for such personal use and bearing arms for the common defense.
I'm apparently missing the point of this as well. Of course they regulated the use. You can't have folks target shooting on Main street in the middle of the day! It is perfectly acceptable to say that you cannot fire your arms within the city, unless for self-defense. Just like it is today. However, when fulfilling your militia duties, and the town is under attack it would be perfectly acceptable to disregard all storage and safety regulations. What's he getting at?
The language of the second ammendment is that which was commonly used for mlitary regulations. (sic)
The language used for the 2A is exactly the same language as used in the rest of the BOR. Does that mean that the rest of our rights really only apply to the military? That statement doesn't make a lick of sense...
Your friend is really grasping for straws. Everything he said is either fabricated or taken completely out of context. What's he gonna try next?
c2k