Reading the 2nd amendment I think you could make a strong case that requiring ownership of a rifle or possibly a handgun could pass constitutional muster.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
If a militia is necessary to the security of a free state, I see no constitutional reason you could not be required to maintain a firearm.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
If a militia is necessary to the security of a free state, I see no constitutional reason you could not be required to maintain a firearm.