[robertpaulsen]

"Under this Court’s precedent, the arms whose individual possession is protected by the Second Amendment are those arms that (1) are of the kind in common use, such that civilians would be expected to have them for ordinary purposes"

I disagree. Muskets were protected but not used for ordinary purposes.

In 1792 (under the Militia Act of 1792), Militia members had six months to obtain a musket for use in battle. Smooth bore muskets were inexpensive and suitable for volley fire, quick to load and not prone to fouling by black powder. They were, however, inaccurate.

If civilians possessed a weapon for ordinary purposes (hunting and defense) it would have been a rifle. They were expensive, slow to load, and had to be cleaned after a few rounds were fired. But because they were rifled, they were accurate.

[El Gato]

If civilians possessed a weapon for ordinary purposes (hunting and defense) it would have been a rifle

Now that depends on what they were hunting and what sort of defense. A musket could be loaded with birdshot, and used as a fowling piece, or it could be loaded with buckshot or "buck and ball", and make a good defensive weapon, although not as handy as it's short barreled cousin the blunderbuss. As you point out, rifles were expensive and slow. Slow might be a bigger problem in the "Big Woods" than "inaccurate", not so much so in more open country, but expensive would be a limitation everywhere. Many colonists, especilly on the frontier were people of extremely modest means.