Handguns A-O-K, says SCOTUS

[Xiahou]

Hmmm, I don't know if it's as cut-and-dried as all that, Xiahou. There's always that pesky first clause of the 2nd Amendment to muddy things up. What is the relationship of a "well-regulated militia" to your right to concealed carry? Or are you going to slide to the right of Scalia?

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting...

No, it's pretty cut and dried vis-a-vis blanket bans such as the one in DC. the SCOTUS has affirmed that the second amendment is an individual right not dependent on the militia clause. What we know to be true of the first amendment and what we see here is that rights, despite their literal wording in the Constitution, are not so absolute as they appear. "Congress shall make no law.... bridging the freedom of speech, ...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble" doesn't really mean that- they can make laws limiting disruptive assemblies or dangerous speech (ie "fire!" in a crowded theater). It's probably reasonable to assume that the framers didn't intend these rights to extend to their most absurd extremes where people can shout down their legislatures when in session or drive around fully armed tanks. However, a complete ban such as was in DC, clearly crosses the line.

Imagine if Kennedy had voted the other way- the Second Amendment would've been effectively dismantled.