I think so. We certainly want the Supreme Court to declare what IS protected. The problem arises when the Supreme Court declares what ISN'T protected.
At the time of our founding, "arms" were protected. That pretty much covers every weapon or device used for offense or defense.
The Heller decision established the "common use" test forbidding the banning of commonly owned arms. Machine guns are not commonly owned simply because the National Firearms Act of 1934 demanded a heavy tax and registration on them. Later laws outlawed the manufacture of machine guns for "civilian" use, a distinction which does not appear in the Constitution.
If the NFA of 1934 hadn't been passed, probably everybody who owns an AR15 today would instead own an M16. The cost to manufacture them would be almost identical.
Another test established by the Supreme Court is that some arms can be prohibited if they are "dangerous AND unusual". Every arm is dangerous since it can enable an attacker, like a firearm, or protect an attacker, like body armor.
So the real test results in the government being able to outlaw "unusual" weapons. That is ridiculous on its face. Stun guns, for example, would have been "unusual" up until the time they were common. The Caetano decision established that stun guns are commonly owned and are thus protected.
Another "myth" being supported by the anti-gunners is that weapons particularly suited to military use can be banned. Even Judge Benitez in California has a line in his decision overturning California's "assault weapons" ban that suggests that military weapons could be banned. That is absolute nonsense. The AR15 operates in a fashion quite similar to an M1 combat rifle from World War II. Does that make either one of them unsuitable for civilian use? I think not.
[[Another “myth” being supported by the anti-gunners is that weapons particularly suited to military use can be banned. ]]
Agreed, which is why they are trying to declare that any semi automatic rifle or pistol be declared a “weapon of war” or “assault weapon”.
Our Founding fathers wanted civilians to be as armed as the enemy in order to protect both themselves and the country, but our corrupt government stepped in and out of fear of we the people, banned certain weapons in order for the gov to maintain superior weaponry over civilians.
I guess my main point was that the sc should at the very least stop the left in their tracks, stop them from declaring semi-autos as “weapons of war”, and support our inalienable right to adequate self defense which means agreeing that citizens have a right to own guns to meet the enemy head on, ie automatic, select fire, and any other weapons that the enemy is bound to carry. We can’t as a nation repell an invasion/attack on the nation if we are outgunned at every turn.
I think it would be great if the sc stopped the relentless lying efforts of the left in their tracks,and then worked on restoring our right to own guns used by the military as well since we are going to be the ones cal.ed upon to protect this nation agaisnt all hostilities towards we the people by nations that hate us, and rogue governments- the left should be stopped by the sc from trying to further disarm us whole the rogue enemies within our nation become more well armed because they don’t follow the laws, and never will. The left in my opinion should be brought up on charges of pass8ng laws that make us more vulnerable and outlawing guns which are our inalienable right to own
I have a fairly long list of statements by our Founding fathers about guns on my profile page- it is really eye opening, revealing their common sense support of an armed society to protect us from all hostile enemies both foreign and domestic.