With the caveat that I’ve not read the full text of the SCOTUS opinion on Heller, but am relying on summaries and articles about it, I will say that I agree that there is nothing in the Second Amendment that would indicate its protection of the right to bear arms should be narrowly limited to militias. But I understand that it is an issue that has been debated for decades, and that the closeness of the decision—another 5-4 vote—underscores not only the political leanings of the current Justices, but the complexity of the discussion.
My additional thoughts are that this SCOTUS decision underscores, as do so many others, the importance of the coming presidential election in terms of the future composition of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. The next president, with the help of what is promising to be a large Democrat majority in Congress, will be appointing quite a few new Justices and judges. Does anyone believe that a couple more liberals (or perhaps even one more) on the bench would not have had the almost certain result of a very different decision here?