Truth be told, the SC case that most clearly indicates the second in an individual right is the old old case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, which is not a pretty case to be parading around as supportive of the second. Dred Scott, which was later overruled completely, held that black people were not "citizens" as used in the U.S. Constitution. In its discussion, the Court listed several examples (to them ludicrous at the time) of what the result would be if blacks were held to be citizens of the U.S. One such example was if every black born in the U.S. was a citizen, then they would obviously have the right to keep and bear firearms (which to the Court and the country AT THAT TIME, just putting the example forward was enough to indicate the ludicrousness of a holding that blacks were indeed citizens. Now, the case was directly overturned by another (can't think of the name at the moment) as to its principal holding (obviously, blacks are citizens and have been every since Lincoln's emancipation proclamation and the subsequent 13, 14, and 15th amendments). But it still stands for the principle that the Supremes clearly considered the right individual, not a "state militia" right. The latter is indeed absurb, now as much as then.