On the surface what you state would seem plausible to many who are not students of the Constitution. If you read Heller however, you are bound to come to an entirely different conclusion. Canadian and U.S. law (except for State law in Louisiana) both stem from English common law. Scalia successfully argued in Heller that, regardless of the Second Amendment, the right to own and use firearms is inalienable. Naturally, Scalia's argument would hold doubly in Canada, from a U.S. Court perspective. In other words, from the perspective of settled U.S. Law, gun ownership in neither Canada nor in the U.S. is a privilege; instead it is an inalienable right in both countries. Paraphrased, what Scalia wrote in Heller, that is now the official opinion of the Court, was that this inalienable right which is incorporated by and delineated further in the Second Amendment, is not an unlimited right. In fact, Scalia goes on at length in his 64 page Opinion to make it clear that nothing in the Opinion would preclude reasonable restrictions on the types of firearms that could be owned, but that the requirement of the D.C. law, that all firearms kept in the home be inoperative, was unreasonable and too restrictive and violated Heller's Second Amendment Rights. We have for years restricted the types of firearms that may be owned. We banned completely automatic firearms! And that ban has never been successfully challenged. The Court's ruling in Heller reaffirmed that the second Amendment right is not, however, an unlimited Right!
From the perspective of D.C. v. Heller, the current law of the land, there is no reason to think that Canada's Law applied in the U.S. would not be entirely consistent with the Second Amendment.
