The central right identified in the Heller decision is

[jimmy the one]

17. miller decison unanimous 9 - 0

dairydog: Heller did not reverse 200 years of history. >>>> Yes it did.

dairydog posted: Dred Scott (1857) .. the majority commented that if African-Americans were citizens of the United States, they would automatically possess Constitutional rights, including the rights ".. to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

This supreme court might have interpreted dred scott's states consititutional RKBA as granting scott that ability, dunno.

Also, wiki words this a bit differently than yours, & doesn't specifically call it a {2ndA} 'constitutional right' to keep & carry arms wherever they went. Have you a reputable link? - wiki: It would give to persons of the negro race, ...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ...to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased ...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went
------------------------------------------------
dairydog: As far as I can tell, the supposed "200 years" actually only goes back to Miller, a 1939 decision.. it does not openly state that the right is collective as opposed to individual. What it does say, rather specifically, is:
.. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.."

Let me add another quote from the 1939 supreme court miller ruling: 1) "The Constitution as originally adopted granted to theCongress power - 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union'.... With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such {militia} forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

Now, this ruling was UNANIMOUS, 9 - 0, and it contained the above two passages, affirmed by all 9 justices in 1939. Don't you think, if they had indeed thought it an individual RKBA disconnected from militia service (as scalia ruled) at least ONE of the nine justices would'nt've chirped up 'whoa, fellow justices, look how we've worded our rulings, people in future generations are gonna think we intended a militia based Right to Keep & Bear Arms'.
YET NOT ONE SINGLE JUSTICE OBJECTED TO THOSE WORDINGS.

scalia in heller, 2008: We have found only one early 19th-century commentator {being Benjamin Oliver} who clearly conditioned the right to keep and bear arms upon service in the militia -- and he recognized that the prevailing view was to the contrary." - scalia blows smoke in his tailing, so what?

Benjamin Oliver, from Right of an American Citizen, 1832 (+emph): "The provision of the constitution, declaring the right of the people to keep and bear arms, &c. was probably intended to apply to the right of the people to bear arms for such {militia-related} purposes only, and not to prevent congress or the legislatures of the different states from enacting laws to prevent the citizens from always going armed. A different construction however has been given to it."