I am far from being a Constitutional lawyer (not qualified - my parents were married), but it seems to me that the Court has totally thrown out the "militia clause". The decision says The Amendment's prefatory clause [the militia clause] announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Now, if the purpose of the "keep and bear arms" clause is directly related to the militia, how can the Court possibly separate the two? Understand, I don't own a firearm and have never seen a reason to have one in my home, but I could care less if Mick, Rapaire or any other law-abiding and trained individual wants to own and carry one. That's not the point. If this Court can throw out part of a sentence in the guiding document of our nation, even if they then try to weasel-word their way out of admitting what they did, what's next?