But it would seem that by doing so they have invalidated the opinion held by many people for many years (200+ in some cases) that the two clauses have equal weight. In fact, the 1939 case (Miller) seemed to give greater weight to the militia clause, when it said "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." and, referring to calling out the militia, "it is With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." And yes, I'm aware that yesterday's decision also said that Miller really had nothing at all to do with the Second Amendment.