Of course a judge is not unbounded by law. The process by which to correct a judge’s error is appeal.
If appeal does not lead to justice, either by continued court error, or by error in law, the judges may be corrected by changed law. That can be changed common law, changed legislative law, or changed constitutional law.
One can also file a writ of error, asking for appeal long after the fact. That is how Fred Korematsu eventually got justice after being ordered to report to a concentration camp. That was an injustice much more severe than any complaint of the southern states in 1860.
Of course errors in any human process can happen. There are legal and political processes by which errors can be corrected. Individuals are bound to use those processes rather than resort to violence. States are bound to use those processes rather than resort to violence.
You just asserted, in post 143 that judges control their courtrooms, with the implication that control is absolute.
If appeal does not lead to justice, either by continued court error, or by error in law, the judges may be corrected by changed law. That can be changed common law, changed legislative law, or changed constitutional law.
Ahm, so why does it not work the other way: if the deprivation of arms in the court is really needful, why not amend the Constitution to say: "excepting courtrooms, no law shall abridge" [etc]?
Apparently it is precisely a case of either (a) "do what what the Constitution [or other laws] means, not what it says [oh, and the court determines what it means!]", or (b) "the laws don't apply to me."
Which is it?