I don't think it is worrisome.
I think it is the reflection of what DC has stated in their submissions; that individuals who are not members of a militia are not protected by the Second Amendment.
And despite what some have stated, this "narrow" decision will be huge. It will invalidate every lower court decision which has claimed a "collective right" mis-interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Stating clearly that the right of the people to keep arms is a protected individual right ALSO establishes that the right of the people to bear arms is protected; it is the same sentence for both.
The coming decision will either be very, very bad for pro-gunners or very, very bad for anti-gunners.
To use the local vernacular, this is, indeed, both hugh and series.
Waiting for a modern court to rule on the plain meaning of words in the Constitution. Joy.
This is a group of people who don’t know what a “person” is.
They argue over what is an acceptable way to butcher a child in the womb.
They don’t say a word when the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and America’s most foundational principles, are trashed by the court-ordered dehydration death of a disabled citizen.
They don’t understand what free political speech is, and outlaw it, but consider burning our national banner and the production of the worst sort of porn to be protected as such.
And we expect them to correctly interpret the meaning of phrases like “well-regulated,” when the word “regulated” meant one thing, “trained,” in the eighteenth century, and something VERY different now??
THe SCOTUS could very well decide that only members of “state militias” (the national guard today) have the RKBA. This would be a disaster, and light the fuse for CW2. Especially if a 5-4 majority cites foreign laws.