Would a state militia 2nd Amendment interpretation by SCOTUS undermine federal gun laws?

[LogicMan]

So I was pondering, but we all know how the gun controllers all claim that the 2nd Amendment was written to protect a right of states to possess state militias to check a federal tyranny, and not an individual right. So my question is, if the SCOTUS was to rule that way at some future point, what would be to stop a state like Texas say from creating a "Texas State Militia" and making it where aside from meeting a few requirements, anyone could join, and then as a member of the Texas State Militia, you could own any and all firearms you wished, up to and including automatic fire weapons, sawed-off shotguns, etc...without any permission from the Federal government.

How could the Federal government interfere with such a thing when the SCOTUS, in this hypothetical, had ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects a right of states to maintain militias to check a federal tyranny? I mean it would seem pretty odd to claim that the states have such a right, but then claim that the very Federal government they can maintain a militia to check against has the power to dictate how that militia is armed.

So would such a ruling basically undo federal gun control laws?

 

[Frank Ettin]

We're not going down that rabbit hole.

1. The Supreme Court has already ruled in Heller that the Second Amendment describes and protects an individual right to keep and bear arms independant of any service in a militia.
   
   
2. It's therefore unlikely that the Supreme Court would ever rule as the OP suggests.
   
   
3. And there's no way to guess what the results might be.