The first question that the Supreme Court addresses in analysis is whether the right infringed upon is a "fundamental" right or a lower level right.
Anyone with a decent civics class under their belt understands that the first ten amendments of the constitution cannot be altered or changed, and that they are individual and inaliable rights, any attemps to limit the protections of these first ten rights must have compelling reasons based on a standard of what is necessary and proper. Compelling reasons for fighting words, incitement, and incendiary speech are an immediate, provable, clear, and present danger to the public in the form of ensuing chaos stemming from the
utterance (action)of the words. In the scenario that you wish the supreme court to mis-interpret the second using the same standard, there is no clear and present danger inherent in simply possessing a fire arm, the action of mis-use and you would have a point, but we already have laws in place to do that, such as murder, negligent homicide, unlawful discharge, public nuisance, etc. therefore a pre-emptive ban would be an unnecessary and thus unlawful infringement of a god-given, hence inaliable right. Certain justices always get that wrong whether intentionally or unintentionally, but the effect would be the same.
Assuming for sake of argument that the Court were to find possession of assault weapons to be a "fundamental" right...(which is unlikely)...the next step of the analysis would be whether curtailing that right serves a "compelling" governmental interest.
If assault weapons existed then they would be protected because the first is all encompassing and shall not be infringed.
One of the main compelling arguments would be that assault weapons place law enforcement at risk. Do you recall the North Hollywood shootout in LA?
Law Enforcement were held off for hours because they could not match the shooting power of the men with the assault weapons.
That is not a compelling argument in that they would have access to the same firearms as the general populace, likewise protected by the very same second amendment, secondly, what would the weapon class in question be? are we talking about assault rifles, machine guns, sub-machine guns, rifles, shotguns. Let's talk about real weapons and not the "assault weapons".
Regardless...it is unlikely that the Court would ever find possession ofassault weapons to be a "fundamental right". It was difficult for them to find possession of handguns to be such. Likely they would find the right to possess AW to be a lower level right which would require the goverment to only have an "important" or "legitimate" reason to limit them.
Any court that needs to invent compelling reason is wrong, the language is simple.