"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

This is the Amendment. The way I have always heard this interpreted is the "people", being individuals, had the right to keep and bear arms. It was the "people" after all, that made up the militia of the time.

There is another passage that has always been a curiosity to me related to the 2nd Amendment and what was the Founding Fathers intent. This passage is from the Declaration of Independence:
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security"

How would the "people" do this without the ability of keeping and bearing arms?

For the record, I am a gun owner and advocate. I have shotguns, rifles, an AR 15, and a .22 pistol. All of my brothers and father CCW. I choose not to, because I have two small children, and just as things "could" happen in attack, accidents also happen, even to the best prepared.

I would like to CCW at some point, but its just not time as 4-6 year old kids can hear instructions, but can also be curious. I teach my kids about firearm safety, and the thing they know most right now, is not to touch daddy's guns!

Anyway, as for the SCOTUS, I think they will either kick it back to the lower court or come down somewhere in the middle, that individuals can keep and bear arms, but reasonable regulations will also be somehow defined.