but rick, that is not the way our system works. if congress were to try to change a statute to defy the scotus, it must itself be approved by the court. the court has the last word. been that way since marbury v. madison, during the time of the first supreme court.
Federal appeal court rules that Illinois’ ban on concealed handguns is unconstitutional
The federal court’s decision in Illinois did not address the constitutionality of various restrictions on the carrying of concealed guns at “sensitive” places such as schools, airports, churches nor did it address any particular concealed carry permitting requirement.
<i>"Which in regards to the upcoming ban, the Heller case said Congress could ban certain guns owned by the people that can be used in a milita."</i>
Heller affirmed the right to own and use a handgun in your home to defend yourself. Heller did not address any other issues, because they were off topic to the lawsuit.
The SCOTUS ruling that did address this issue was 1939 US v Miller et al, wherein the court ruled that only those firearms with "contemporary military utility" were protected by the Second Amendment. At the time that was guns like the 1911 pistol, the 1917 revolver, the 1903 Springfield, the 1917 Enfield, and the 1897 and M12 Winchester shotguns. The Thompson, BAR and 1917/1919 Brownings should also have been included but the 1934 NFA blurred that. Even so, they were still available if a tax stamp was purchased.
Today, firearms with "contemporary military utility" would be the M16 rifle, the M4 carbine, the M14 rifle, the M21 and M40 rifles, the M9 pistol and the 590 shotgun.
Nowhere in this ruling were sporting firearms even mentioned. Does not mean that they are not protected by the Second Amendment, but the court was addressing the specific issue of unsporting firearms (the case centered around a sawed off shotgun).
"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights
interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
What does all this mean? Well, for the majority of people traveling on commercial aircraft, the ability to transport firearms on the aircraft is severely restricted. In almost all cases, unless you are flying in a private aircraft, carrying firearms with you on an aircraft, either on your person or in your carry-on luggage, is prohibited.
You may still bring firearms and ammunition with you on a flight, but they will need to be unloaded and contained in a locked case within your checked luggage in compliance with your airline or aircraft operator’s policies.