SCOTUS cannot make spontanious declarations. If no suitable case arises, they cannot rule. If anything, SCOTUS has made noise recently to the effect "we want a good clean RKBA case, but haven't seen one." Silence does not equal complicity.
'No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.'
I'm not surprised it was rejected, being phrased in that form.
The rights do indeed exist
That's a step in the right direction.
If the rights do indeed exist, then why all this talk of "no right to crew-served arms"?
the core premise is "Are they protected? And if so, by who?"
They only need protecting if they are threatened with infringement. Perhaps you confuse protection with infringement.
I have a RKBA right to own a cannon. Having a court declare "you have a right to own a cannon" is only really relevant if someone, most likely the state, says "you can not own a cannon".
As I said before, yes you do. Why are you phrasing it that way? Why aren't you simply saying, "I have a right to own a cannon"?.
"Having a court declare "you have a right to own a cannon"
Whoa! What court? A state court? Well, a state court would say that only if the state constitution says that. And it may. But there may be some stipulations attached (cannot be fired, must have a license, maximum size, etc.) Why are you even in court?
"is only really relevant if someone, most likely the state, says "you can not own a cannon"."
It would be the state constitution that says "you cannot own a cannon", or in other words, "this state does not protect your right to own a cannon".
If you can get enough people who feel the way you do, you can change your state constitution to make that possible. Cool, huh?