You're right. The courts have no power to keep books from felons and criminals. The insane. 8-year -olds. Great analogy. It's real clear now.
My point is that it's significant that the 1937 USSC was interested in the relationship of a weapon to the militia, in this case a "shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length".
Don't you ever ask why? Could it be (gasp!) that the 1937 USSC saw a direct relationship in the second amendment between the RKBA and a state's militia? And that they were trying to determine if Mr. Miller's weapon qualified as a suitable militia weapon -- one which is protected by the second amendment?
"The Miller ruling, suggesting that the courts shall be the judge of what is suitable is in error. The Founders mandated that such infringements shall be prohibited."
That the courts shall be judge of what is suitable is in error? BWAHAHAHAHA! That's their function, for crying out loud.
Who determined that nude dancing was protected speech but that political advertisements within 30 days of an election were not? Who determined that the ten commandments was "establishing religion"? Who determined that a right to privacy allowed a woman to kill her baby -- but if someone else did it was murder? Who determined that feeling a container was not an unreasonable search?
Ah, but they're not allowed to determine what constitutes a militia arm, huh? You kinda lose your rationality and objectivity when it comes to the RKBA, don't you? You want the courts to treat the second amendment differently, don't you?
The USSC could have simply said that the 1934 NFA was constitutional in that the second amendment does not protect an individual RKBA. OR, they could have agreed with the lower court and said that the 1934 NFA was unconstitutional because the second amendment proteced an individual RKBA.
But they didn't. They questioned the weapons relation to a militia. You refuse to see this as significant. Fine.
Their function is to obey the Constitution. I'm even of the opinion that they take an oath to do so. The Second Amendment DOES NOT say that the courts shall allow certain infringements of the right to keep and bear arms. It states quite the reverse.
When lower courts rule on "suitability" they are often overruled by the Supreme Court. How is that possible if the court's job is to judge suitability? The Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of suitability. The Constitution is. The means by which the well-regulated militia will be preserved is mandated; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
You have admitted yourself that machine-guns are essential to the well-regulated milita. How is it possible for courts to find otherwise? What went wrong? What do you think our Founders would say to explain this infringement? Would they not say that the Supreme Court erred in Miller?