In a month, it will be the anniversary of the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision in which the Supreme Court acknowledged that the Second Amendment does indeed protect the right of the individual to arm themselves in self defense.
However, according to this post from reason.com, the Court hasn’t taken any steps since to clarify the counters of that right, leaving many state laws in place that infringe on Second Amendment rights.
As the story points out, the only clarifications have come from McDonald v. Chicago in 2010, in which the Court said the 2A contains states and cities as well as the federal government, and Caetano v Massachusetts in 2016 which involved a ban on stun guns. The Court reiterated that weapons covered by the Second Amendment include those beyond what is suitable for warfare—and here’s the important part—those that were in common use when he amendment was enacted.
This later decision is often glossed over, but it directly refutes the oft-voiced anti-gun argument contending that, at the time the Second Amendment was written, firearms were limited to single-shot muzzleloading rifles and pistols, and that it should not extend to modern firearms.
For the full, and thorough piece analyzing the effects of D.C. v. Heller from reason.com, go here.