For all those "interpreters" of the Second Amendment, here's a question for you:

[petronius]

90. With the caveat that I am neither an attorney nor a Constitutional scholar, I don't

think it's quite that simple. Heller wasn't really about 'individual' versus 'collective' rights, although all of the opinions mentioned it. That aspect was unanimous, so I would think that even if all nine of them were replaced, the 2A would continue to be recognized as an individual right.

But as I understand it, what was so important about Heller is that it also found that 2A protects a right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and non-militia use. Only five of the Justices saw it that way; the dissenters argued that only arms connected with militia service are protected and the Constitution is silent when it comes to restrictions connected to purely civilian use.

I know that the Court gives a great deal of deference to past decisions, and doesn't like to overturn itself, which suggests that Heller is safe to some degree. Stevens makes repeated mention of this principle in his dissent. But Stevens seems to be framing it as though it's Heller itself that is a revisiting and overturning of past precedent; the tone of his dissent makes me think he'd like another whack at the issue, with maybe another Justice in his corner. So my (semi-educated and amateur) sense is that the 'individual right' component is highly likely to remain intact, but the expansiveness of Heller could be reigned in a bit if the composition of the Court changes...