"Declare gun possession illegal except .." That is beautiful... with one tiny awkward part. Who would you suggest do this sensible declaring? I can *asser*t it is stupid to have so many guns, and have done so for years. I make sure to vote for only candidates who seem to be 'reasonable'. You surely don't believe Obama...or any president ...can make such a declaration? He'd be laughed off the stage.

I add in Rahere's discssion...with trepidation, as I am NOT a constitutional scholar. But Barack Obama is... he actually taught constitutional law for awhile.
   I submit that the constitutions of the UK, Belgium & Albania do have significant differences from ours... and different rules & standards for both interpretation and revision. It is technically possible that the right combination of Supreme Court justices could 'interpret' that ambiguous phrase about "the right of citizens to keep and bear arms" as being ONLY applicable to 'militias'... but we are nowhere near any such set of justices. The entire phrase needs to be stricken and/or amended to reflect the changes in culture, technology and geography.
Perhaps you, with your background, could pop over here and debate our legal wizards about how such amending could proceed?

I do not know he details of how a law in the UK applies to all local jurisdictions... but the [once useful] concept of 'states rights' makes it very hard to even design a National law that can supersede certain state's provisions. States can... and a few have... write local ordinances about various weapon restrictions. But other states, often right next door, can NOT do that.. and even be LESS restrictive! Yep... that sure does mean that illegal guns can often be obtained by just driving a few miles... and yes THAT is stupid, and that situation is being chipped away at by some jurisdictions. And IF such loopholes were plugged, there are all those millions of guns both legal AND illegal hidden away, with self-defined militias sworn to resist any attempt to ban or confiscate them. You think the FIRST Civil War was bad?

You say."In plain text, an interpretation is case law, and bounded by and must be coherent with primary law."
Seems sensible... I refer you to my idea of having you pop over and explain to the relevant parties how that applies and how to move from a sensible interpretation to carefully constructed statute. ... and I am only partially joking about that. I have very minor credentials as a graduate in Philosophy who tries to make sense of things. I have no credentials which would even get me in the door to testify to Congressional committee about the nuances of such laws.

And even with the length of some of my posts, I am not a touch typist.. I do this slowly with 2 fingers ...which need rest in order to spend more time in my workshop.....