This is 1st year civics stuff.
It's the legacy of Roosevelt's court, and contrary to the Constitution. I'm sure you're a good conservative, but you're trying to realize our civilization's revival using the legacy of Leftist thinking—an America whose freedoms were all granted from Washington. The USC was never designed to do that. The First Amendment protects us from the Federal government. FUBO and his Congress are forbidden from interfering with your unflattering articles or speeches about him. And the 1A pretty much protects us from the State governments, because the people insist on liberty at the State level as well. That's why the states all have their own constitutions. But the Founders never intended, and never wrote into our Constitution, any powers for the U.S. Supreme Court—of all things—to outlaw local ordinances against loitering, blasphemy, obscenity, flag-burning, or, for that matter, abortion, which they have falsely claimed the authority to do.
The key legal (as opposed to moral) reason Roe is absurd is that murder is a state matter, and the Feds have no authority there. The reason Federal rulings on laws against loitering and flag-burning (except on Federal property) are absurd is that ordinary public order is a local matter. Meanwhile, notice there's a whole six-pack of laws peculiar to Federal property that restrict our liberties all over the place.
The Founders put their faith in people's willingness to change their own local governments, or if need be, to move to better jurisdictions—rather than in Federal micro-management. The problem is that, when "freedoms" come from Washington, they're too vulnerable to big lobbies, and mostly wind up being the freedom of an incompetent applicant to get hired by you, the freedom of the Federal government to make you pay for and build a handicap ramp to your office door, the freedom of the Feds to insist that you make more girls at your college go out for intercollegiate sports—or cut the number of boys' teams . . . and so forth. Post-Roosevelt (and Wilson) the Feds dispense a lot of theft and tyranny, because they are too distant to be sufficiently accountable to the people on such small-scale matters.
Small-town small-mindedness was always an obstacle in America's more Constitutional days. But you could always move to a livelier burg. Today, with the arrogant Feds crawling everywhere, there's almost nowhere to run from Big Sis and the EPA. The more I know about FUBO, the better I like Original Intent.
By using your interpretation then the individual states or towns can legally ban people from owning guns. If they can write laws in opposition to the First Amendment then everything else is game.
Bottom line the First tells us Speech is free and the Tenth tells us any law opposing such is unconstitutional. (save for where such can do harm like yelling fire in a crowded theater)