yes, but, they also say “reasonable” restrictions and regulations are permissible. What you and I believe to be reasonable, is a far cry from what SCOTUS and politicians will deem to be reasonable. Other than an all out ban, I think SCOTUS will refrain from interfering with most gun control legislation.
OK,
but in a previous SC decision of 1939 it was argued that a short barreled shotgun was not 2A protected because it was NOT an "ordinary military equipment"
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) - The Court stated in part:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.