Isnt one reason that you have a Supreme Court to reverse bad "actual case law" that contravenes your Constitution? Whether it DOES that is another question; I've often wondered why the High Court seemingly AVOIDS cases where they COULD make a clear unambiguous ruling in support of the Second Amendment being exactly what it APPEARS to be and TOSS the whole concept of 'gun control' on the ashheap of History where it belongs eh?
Good questions..
I predict you will not get a rational answer from RP, -- as he supports a States 'power' to ignore the 2nd.
Yes. Ever since the 1803 landmark case, Marbury v Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court has been the final arbitor and interpreter of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court decides (it is totally up to them) if it will hear a controversial case. Their ruling is then final.
This usually happens when there is a conflict between two lower federal courts rulings on similar cases.
"I've often wondered why the High Court seemingly AVOIDS cases where they COULD make a clear unambiguous ruling in support of the Second Amendment being exactly what it APPEARS to be ..."
Sure. A lot of down here wonder why the U.S. Supreme Court takes some cases and avoids others. Usually the case is simply not a good one to rule on due to various complications in the case.
When it comes to the second amendment, however, I believe the U.S. Supreme Court is waiting for a challenge to some federal gun control statute, not a state law. The second amendment does not apply to state law (bet you thought it did, huh?).