You can't extend it to semi automatics. Virtually all modern guns are semi automatics. You also can't limit it hunting/self defense. Magazines are limited to some extent, but your idea of only 6-8 rounds simply won't hold up in court.
No, that's not the job of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court cannot reinterpret the Constitution. The only way the Constitution can be changed is by a vote of 3/4 of the Congress and the State Legislatures. The Supreme Court can only interpret laws within the Constitution. The Supreme Court cannot change the Constitution itself.
That said, even under your framework, you admitted that 99% of the time rulings won't be overturned. Either way, it proves my point. You simply aren't going to be able to affect the changes you desire without an amendment to the constitution. Again, I'm dealing with the real world situation. You aren't.
Wow, ok, this is my last post on the subject because clearly you aren't understanding this. Every ruling of the Supreme Court is based on the interpretation of an amendment.
The Supreme Court's job is
literally interpreting the Constitution. Go and read an actual SC decision. They break down the words and phrases actually stated in the amendments to give their interpretation of what the amendments state and what the meant at the time they were written. The 2008 decision spends 3,000 words defining "bear arms." Here are excerpts.
5 justices voting for the opinion
"It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting."
"Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause."
4 Justices dissenting
"The stand-alone phrase “bear arms” most naturally conveys a military meaning unless the addition of a qualifying phrase signals that a different meaning is intended. When, as in this case, there is no such qualifier, the most natural meaning is the military one; and, in the absence of any qualifier, it is all the more appropriate to look to the preamble to confirm the natural meaning of the text."
"When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms. Even if the meaning of the text were genuinely susceptible to more than one interpretation, the burden would remain on those advocating a departure from the purpose identified in the preamble and from settled law to come forward with persuasive new arguments or evidence."
That is the justices
literally disagreeing over interpretations of the actual text in the Constitution. That 2nd quote I listed from the majority is especially important because it shows that they have interpreted limitations on the amendment that are not directly stated in the amendment. They later define the limitations to include
"weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity."
So right there, in the opinion the SC states that civilian ownership of weapons used by the military and employed by the military are not protected under the 2nd Amendment. That is why automatic weapon bans were not overturned from this decision, because 5 Justices interpreted the word "arms" to be defined as non-military weapons.
They also allow for restrictions on firearms in sensitive places like schools, hospitals, government buildings, etc. They also allow for restrictions on felons and those with psychological problems. It also allows for a ban on dangerous and unusual weapons, but does not give a definition for those weapons.
My point is that it is not cut and dry at all, there is still a ton of room for interpretation of the Amendment as well as interpretation of the SC decision. So cases involving magazine size, fire rates, accessories, stock types, gun registration, etc. can all be challenged without the Supreme Court overruling its previous judgement.
Want a "real world" application of this? There have been multiple challenges to state laws restricting the sale of assault style weapons and magazines greater than 10 rounds. These laws have been upheld by multiple Federal Appeals Courts using the "arms" definitions provided by the SC decision, with petitions to be heard by the SC. The SC has declined to hear these cases every time, allowing the laws to remain in place.
