Yes, I'm familiar with the Kopel article. I said I'm not going to do this anymore, because you don't actually know what you're quoting, nor what it means.
Your Rehnquist quote is from US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 1990. The decision is about the Fourth Amendment, not the Second. When the other Justices voted on the case, they voted on the Fourth Amendment issue. They do not necessarily agree with every detail of discussion on the part of the Justice who writes the opinion of the Court; in this case, Rehnquist.
I don't disagree with the proposition that the Second confers an individual right, certainly one that is not to be denied by the federal government. But Kopel, as he often does, starts off with a modest proposition (that the Second has been mentioned many times in USSC cases), and winds up implying that these are "decisions," which the gun-bloggers pick up like fresh meat and run all over the neighborhood with it. In your case, for example, you conclude, as you said to Jim, "6 Renquist decisions...showed the 2nd was an individual right."
Nonsense. The decisions showed no such thing. And, frankly, you don't understand enough about it to argue with you over the issue.
Several of those cases went even further in drawing a connection with the Second, by way of second Justice Harlan's doctrine relating to the 14th Amendment. As I said, to claim that such a thing is a "decision" in favor of an individual right under the Second is like claiming that the 50 or more USSC cases that cite Dred Scott v. Sandford are decisions in favor of slavery.
You don't get it, Gunner. You just cut-and-paste things you don't understand. So, if you want to argue it, argue away. It means nothing.
-- Ed Huntress