Only District of Columbia v. Heller decided that the right to bear arms was independent of an official militia. No doubt such ruling could eventually be overturned by SCOTUS if they so choose.

No.

Here it is in its entirety:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Please point out the part of that amendment that references the right of people to have concealed carry for the purposes of self defense. Because it seems to me that they tried to be as obtuse and textualist as can possibly be with regards to Roe, but apparently the second amendment grants all sorts of rights that don't actually exist in the Constitution.