No, I claimed that you are wrong in saying that: "-- The Constitution says what SCOTUS says it does. -- "
Scotus can 'interpret' all they want; but they have no power to declare that short shotguns can be prohibited by congress; - just as Congress has no power to make that prohibition.
Where do you think the entire concept of finding an act, law or regulation "unconstitutional" comes from?
We both know the concept comes from our Constitution itself. -- Which cannot be changed except by amendment. -- In effect, you're claiming guns can be prohibited by congressional & judicial fiat.
The problems that have resulted from the Court's decision that it can hold a law/regulation/etc. to be unconstitutional in Marbury lie primarily, not with SCOTUS, but with the then President and Congress. Had the Prez or Congress said "No, you alone cannot invalidate a law by holding it unconstitutional," what could SCOTUS have done? Send in the SOCTUS Army? The problem is two fold:
Like it or not, we have 200 years of precedence for such SCOTUS holdings.
Nope, -- for nearly 150 years [till 1933], -- we had the right to own & carry most any arm - anywhere.
Secondly, if the courts cannot decide, then who shall?
Our 2nd amendment rights were 'decided' 200 years ago. Congress & the Courts 'decided' they could infringe/ignore them in 1933, and now even the States, and lawyers like you agree.
An ever-changing Congress? A dictator President? Can you imagine "All firearms are legal" under Nixon. "No, they are not" under Carter. "All are legal" under Reagan. "Most firearms are legal" under Bush I. "No firearms are legal. All are to be confiscated unless you are a member of the state National Guard" under Clinton.
?
Why the question mark? -- I support the threads premise, -- having a: "-- Pilot Program: Repeal All Gun Laws For Five Years --"; comply with the 2nd..
Obviously, you don't; -- you accept our existing gun law mess.