periodically prior to 1903 as well. Weapons and the militia have a deep legal and political history in this country, which is why the hyper-focus on the second amendment wording is crazy. It must be looked at in the context of the whole Constitution and the body of laws. In fact, it used to be that the SCOTUS tried to avoid ruling constitutionally when they could rely on law and precedent instead.

Roe v Wade was a good example of overstepping that, IMO. Citizens United was another. So was the Hobby Lobby case. I think they could have decided any of these without reinterpreting the Constitution. Stevens said as much in his brilliant Citizens United dissent.