That's not defining the right...when they go that route and read into, change, re-interpret the clear language of the founders who wrote the constitution (and doi so without any properly ratified amendment)...as they have done many times (ie. Roe V. Wade, exisitng 2nd amendment laws, etc.)...they themselves are stepping outside their bounds and fall under the umbrella, IMHO, of what I said in the earlier post about why so many violations of the constitution exist these days.
In the end, as regards the 2nd amendment, there are 90 million or more gun owners in this country who ultimately will have the say on what it means. That can (and hopefully will) happen at the ballot box, and in the hearts and minds of the resulting statemsmen and judges with virture and integrity. I pray that is the case and of late there are many reasons to continue to hope that it will and that a resort to other types of boxes will not be necessary.
But, our founders themselves showed that from time to time in human history such recourse can become necessary, and it is a good thing to remind politicians (no need to do so with true statemen) that millions recognize that, that was the real intent of the amendment in the first place.
Oh, they can and they have. Do you need recent examples of that?
What if some future liberal court defines "arms" as those weapons carried by the average soldier -- since the average soldier does not carry a handgun, handguns are not protected? That "to bear arnms" does not include concealed carry? That "to keep" means to keep in a state armory?