The US Code's definition of a word won't affect most judges' perspective on an amendment since the US Code was published about 140 years after the Second Amendment was ratified. It's an interesting footnote but not much more.

> If you're deferring to Supreme Court, you know the modern interpretation is that it is the individual right of the people

See this op-ed from 6 attorneys general in '92:

> For more than 200 years, the federal courts have unanimously determined that the Second Amendment concerns only the arming of the people in service to an organized state militia; it does not guarantee immediate access to guns for private purposes

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1992/10/03/i...

Really, what you're espousing as factual is utterly the crux of the entire Second Amendment debate, and it wasn't until Emerson in 2001, and the Supreme Court's subsequent ruling in 2008 in Heller, that your view even really had precedent. Before 2001, all federal circuit courts that ruled on the issue had adopted the collective right approach. 21 years is not a lot of time compared to 200 years.

That's not to say you're wrong – these are interpretations – but rather that yours is but one interpretation, and case law could change on a dime depending on future court makeups.

There's a further interpretation between ours that finds that while individuals do have a right to bear arms, they are permitted to only do so "if needed for military purposes," i.e. as part of a militia. This was one that even Breyer, who just retired, held.