Common law has no relevance to any argument in the Federal system and it is not even relevant in several states which have legal systems based on other models, like the Code Napoleon in Louisiana, and the odd mixture of several systems in Florida.

There is no fundamental right of self defense. That is a justification for the use of force that is recognized in fundamentally different ways depending on the jurisdiction involved.

You need to read some history of the United States and the legal system before you can effectively argue your case. You are lacking in multiple basic facts and short summaries found on the Internet are not going to make up for that lack, and I have no interest in tutoring you.

In other areas of constitutional law involving rights, prior restraints on exercising those rights are generally regarded as invalid, and the courts place the severest burden on the state in these types of cases. This law would be a prior restraint, with no due process protections. You are, in effect, severely limiting one’s right to self-defense, or at least to have access to tools that are useful for that purpose. It’s a presumption of guilt. It’s the citizens burden to prove otherwise that he is not guilty. It’s a complete mockery of our constitutional system to do something like this.

This affects the “instant background check,” not your right to own a weapon.

You have the right to vote, but you still have to register and prove you have the right to vote in a particular area.

This is because they are whiny-assed crybabies who suspect that their opponents are as vicious as they are in intent.