SCOTUS was.
In US v Cruikshank,1876, SCOTUS recognized that "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." The decision recognized the right of two former slaves to keep a bear arms, two men who were not in the militia, would not have been allowed to be in the militia, in a state where the militia had been disbanded.
Without the recognition of an individual right to keep and bear arms, Miller, whose entire appeal was based upon that right, would have no standing to have his case reviewed by SCOTUS.
There have been six major pieces of gun control legislation passed by Congress, all prior to Heller: NFA 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, Firearm Owners Protection Act (including the Hughes Amendment) of 1986, the Brady Act, the Assault Weapons Ban and the Lautenburg Amendment.
The word militia isn't mentioned a single time in any of them. The words "individual", "person" and "citizen" are repeated hundreds of times.
In 1982 the Senate published a bipartisan report entitled "the right to keep and bear arms report" that affirmed an individual rights viewpoint.
In 1990 in US v Verdugo-Urquidez SCOTUS affirmed: "...it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."
The same state legislatures who ratified the 2nd Amendment ratified state constitutions affirming an individual right. Why do you keep ignoring this?