> I think was this was meant to mean was: Any citizen has the right to join their local/state militia, and keep their service rifle and uniform with them at home.

Seems sensible. But the court is saying that if you look at what laws were passed / in force at the time, and what courts said about them around that time, you'll see that to contemporaries of ratification the second amendment meant a right to carry arms, not just to be in a militia, or whatever. That too seems sensible. Now what?