The Supreme Court has repeatedly talked about the Second Amendment in terms of an individual right over the past 70 years. Even Kennedy and Souter concurred in Verdugo-Urquidez, which talked about the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments all in the same sentence.
The terms "shall not be infringed" and "the people" are subject to much less ambiguity than "public use," and their clear and unambiguous meaning is meticulously documented in David Young's most excellent book, extensively cited in the Fifth Circuit decision.
I don't think my hope is illusory. The Fifth and the Second Circuits agree with me already, and a few stalwart justices in the Ninth Circuit do too. If I'm proven wrong by the US Supreme Court, and they fail to meet my expectations, then so be it, but I think the absurdity and circularity of the DC gun banners' logic when it comes to the Second Amendment is too much even for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to swallow, let alone a majority of the Supreme Court.
I thought we pretty much figured that out when the Felon in Chief responded, "it depend on what your definition of "is" is..."
Don't forget, the Sinkmeister was ultimately impeached and disbarred regardless of the gyrations he went through along the way.
Saying that Pennsylvania's right to arms provision is not an individual right, or that only two states made such a right part of their Constitutions, is the same kind of desperate absurdity as careful parsing of the word "is" and will serve them no better than it did the Sinkmeister.
And yet none of his EO's regarding firearms were rescinded by King George II.