Does the unqualified constitutional prohibition established by the Second Amendment delegate to government a free-floating power to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear weapons for purposes of security, safety, and self-defense?

Questions Presented ; 1. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, (2008), this Court rejected the government's belief that it has a plenary power over the individual's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Jd at 598-602. The Court further recognized the prohibition of government power over the right “is general” and that "{nJo clause in the constitution" could give to either the state or federal government "a power to disarm the people" as the Second Amendment is “a restraint" on both. Jd. at 607. Question: Does the unqualified constitutional prohibition established by the Second Amendment delegate to government a free-floating power to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear weapons for purposes of security, safety, and self-defense? 2. In NY Pistol & Rifle Assc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 34 (2022), this Court held that the government must carry the burden of demonstrating whether the evidence supporting their gun control regulation is consistent with the principles underlying the Second Amendment, to overcome the presumption of protected conduct. Yet, there is not an established standard of proof. Question: Does the constitutional burden of proof require the government to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that their weapons regulations, are consistent with the principles underlying the Second Amendment? 1