It was settled legally, but it was hardly settled definitionally or interpretively. The court decision was split 5-4. I wasn't mad; I was just on a weekend getaway with the wife and friends, and didn't want to spend it talking to you. But in what sense does it extend to the people? Militias are comprised of individuals; so in that sense, it must extend beyond the abstract notion of a militia and to concrete persons. This doesn't necessarily translate, however, into individual rights often associated with gun ownership and distilled from the language of the second amendment. You might look at Saul Cornell's book A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America, published by Oxford UP. Cornell argues that gun ownership is neither a collective right (i.e. of states to maintain armed militias) nor an individual one (i.e. of individual citizens to own guns for any reason they deem appropriate), but a civic right--an obligation citizens owed to the state to arm themselves in order to participate in a militia. The second amendment contains no provision of ownership for personal reasons. I'd also point to this paragraph from the blog for UIllinois, which discusses the weird grammar of the second amendment (a major source of uncertainty when diagnosing its meaning, much less what the authors intended): https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/3721 The comment about the phrase "bear arms" refers to how this terminology was commonly used in the eighteenth century. The problem with simply looking up words in dictionaries is that while that might tell you what "bear" and "arms" could mean, it won't tell you what they mean when combined. See here: https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/corpus-linguistics-and-the-second-amendment/ also: These arguments/essays are much longer and contain more interesting nuances than these excerpts reflect, but that's why I linked them. tl;dr, most interpretations acknowledge the right of individuals to own firearms, but they state that ownership cannot be extricated from military duties. There's nothing in the second amendment that legalizes or even permits the use of firearms for unspecified individual purposes. For what it's worth, I'm not a constitutionalist, and I think individuals should be able to use guns for personal reasons (i.e. hunting, target shooting, home protection, etc.). My concerns with gun control are with what kind of firearms people are allowed to "keep," and I currently believe that many semi-automatic weapons with high-round capacities are unnecessary for personal use. How was what I said fascist in any way?