I guess I didn't realize the gun laws of Australia had reached a level where the restrictions you identified appear to be lenient. Very helpful insight.

Your statement here sums up perfectly the dilemma facing the Supreme Court. I truly do not know what the founding fathers' view of privately owned artillery was, but at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment, the firearms legally available to private citizens were equal in effectiveness to that possessed by the State. This reality existed all the way up to the 1930's with the restriction of machine guns, short barrel weapons, explosive devices, etc. Even then, they were not banned, but rather merely taxed {$200 per gun}.