Referring to the bolded part, I don't believe this is quite correct. In McDonald, the majority opinion states (with some citations omitted for clarity:srothstein wrote:I think many people have missed an important part of this decision, including ELB who actually mentioned it. SCOTUS made it clear that the 2A protects a FUNDAMENTAL right. While this is not as good as a p&I ruling would have been, it is much better than the Heller ruling. Heller said that this was an individual right, but did not mention fundamental.
"...we must decide whether the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty, ...
...Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day,15 and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right."
So I think the SCOTUS is saying they found in Heller that the 2A protects a "fundamental" right, even if they didn't use the word "fundamental" at that time. (They did note that a right to arms was a "fundamental" right of English subjects, at one point in history, if not today.... )
But yes I think this drives upward the level of scrutiny required to decide if a law is constitutional or not, from "rational basis" to at least "intermediate scrutiny," if not "strict scrutiny."