[publiusF27]

From the article:

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. That decision supported the collective rights view, but did not squarely answer the question in the view of many constitutional scholars.

No, it did not. They should read the Miller case and also the NRA amicus brief in the Parker/Heller appeal.

[TLI]

No, it did not. They should read the Miller case and also the NRA amicus brief in the Parker/Heller appeal.

Actually the article is very inaccurate and full of assumptions. It also has the "incorrect" version of the second Amendment, the one that has the magically appearing third comma. In the article it quotes…
The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

There is no comma between “arms” and “shall.” The correct version can be determined by looking here. It is the original final text version that was used to determine which of the articles would be included in the bill. It has all twelve Articles, of which two were omitted.