Interesting

They mention “common law” ownership of firearms, but then blow right by it.  Aside from their specific analyses of the phrases right to keep and bear arms, the authors did not research words and phrases on general firearms ownership and use.  Private ownership was prolific and universal, and to suggest the founders considered it anything other than an individual right is either dishonest or a sign of incompetence.

Blah, blah, blah.

The Pennsylvania Constitution, ratified in 1776, is unequivocal:

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power

The irony for me is how minutely we parse the RTKBA yet completely gloss over the Founders' fear of standing armies.

Rendered utterly comical by the fact that one of the modern justifications for elimination of the RKBA is we have a standing army to defend us.

We all know the minutiae is grilled in the 2A to try to parse out exceptions, but even in their own conclusion, they still couldn't come out & say the individual right doesn't exist.

A constitutional amendment is the only legal means to nullify the 2A.  Otherwise, the only other alternative is conflict.

The last historic memory is that appropriation for the military have a two year limit.
With some larger projects taking more than two years we have found other ways of
hedging the Constitution without out-and-out breaking it.

Wouldn't most writing (written word being a somewhat expensive proposition through most of history) focus on larger public events (ie. related to the military) rather than the individual rights and goings on of the every-day person?  I'm surprised they found much that wasn't specifically related to the military.  It's not like sampling all of social media today.  I hope they do try to publish academically, because this needs peer review.

Also, why throw in the prediction about the New York City case pending?

The "Pennsylvania Constitution" is of very small value in deciding issues about the meaning of the Federal Constitution.