The Supreme Court has ruled the 2 amendment applies to the people. That should settle it. However, given the propensity of the progessives to try to skirt court rulings when they don't agree with them, I expect people to continue to get around it in various ways. We'll have to see how it goes.
Regarding the 4th amendment, Thei amendment has been twisted and turned somany different ways by courts over the last several years I'm not sure the current legal aspects of the 4th are understood by anybody, including SCOTUS.

The amendment reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Being a simple person, I would assume that this means exactly what it says. In order to search or seize property, personal effects, papers, etc you have to have a warrant. How may cases have you heard of lately that a warrant has not be used to seize property (the laptop case comes to mind immediately)
If there are any lawyers reading this, How do we get back to the "Original Intent" of this amendment?