He said "prior to the 70s or so." You're citing a case from 2008.
This article says:
Before 1959, there were only a handful of articles on the Second Amendment in law reviews, the main forum for legal scholarship. The theory that the amendment was merely about protecting state militias from being disarmed by the federal government was widely accepted. None of the articles argued that it protected an individual right to own guns for personal self-defense.
There was sound reason for this reading of the Second Amendment, as there were two state constitutions at the time which explicitly protected an individual right to firearms for self-defense – Pennsylvania and Vermont – with well-known language that was not copied in the federal document. Additionally, the Pennsylvania Anti-Federalists proposed language specifically protecting self-defense and hunting uses of firearms, which was rejected by James Madison and the First Congress as they revised and then ratified the Bill of Rights.
In the 1960s, at the time the NRA’s American Rifleman magazine began featuring the Second Amendment prominently, legal scholars started to give the individual rights view a bit more attention – but only a bit. Three law review articles supporting the individual right to bear arms were published that decade, still a distinct minority compared with an additional eleven written in support of the militia theory.
Yet a flood of individual-rights scholarship soon followed. Between 1980 and 1999, there appeared 125 law review articles on the Second Amendment, the vast majority of which argued that the amendment was about individual rights. It was this body of scholarship that libertarian attorney Alan Gura would draw upon in his case in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals against the DC Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975.
The shift was so dramatic that individual-rights scholars started calling theirs the “standard model” of the Second Amendment, though some of the most distinguished historians in the nation still maintained that the Second Amendment was only about protecting state militias from being disarmed by the federal government.
The rise of the new scholarly “consensus” dates back to 1965 when the winning essay in an annual American Bar Association competition on constitutional issues was written by Robert Sprecher, a Chicago lawyer who not long afterward was nominated to the federal bench by Richard Nixon. The Founding Fathers, he claimed, sought to secure “the right to arm a state militia and also the right of the individual to keep and bear arms” for personal protection.