That's probably true in states which honor the RKBA section of their own constitutions. But in some states such as CA, NY, NJ, MA, IL, etc, etc, the state courts don't enforce their own state Constitutions' prohibition of state and local laws that ban certain class's of guns and/or put severe restrictions on gun possession and use in general. In those states either the SCOTUS' proper interpretation of the 2nd Amendment protects the people's RKBA or it isn't protected at all, which is currently the case in IL as was demonstrated by the 7th circuit yesterday. If there are 5 Justices on the court who are still willing to acknowledge the author's true intent for the 2nd Amendment, hopefully the 7th circuit will be reversed and the state and local laws of IL and every other state which now denies it's citizens their right to arms will be nullified.
If the SCOTUS grants certiorari to the NRA appeal it will all come down to whether or not Kennedy will stand by his vote on Heller. I believe he only gave his tepid support to the four originalists opinion in exchange for them watering down the wording to allow more infringement on the RKBA than they would otherwise have allowed. God help us as long as our ability to exercise our rights and liberties depends on the grudging agreement of a capricious weasel like Kennedy to vote for an interpretation of the Constitution that he knows is what it's authors intended it to mean instead of what he wants it to mean. If Bush could have gotten one more opportunity to appoint a Justice we might be able to breathe easier. But thanks to the tenacity of a slowly dying cancer patient and the deliberate hold out by Souter until Bush left office he didn't get that opportunity, and our RKBA is once again at Kennedy's mercy if the SCOTUS accepts the NRA appeal.
The Constitution anticipates the quaint notion of "self help." As far as the founders of the federal government were concerned, no state would even dream of disarming its citizens. But the fierce independent spirit of the day was that if a state DID try that, and the people resisted to their arms being stripped from them, the people's resistance would be justified, "constitutional" if you will, the exercise of a power the people rightly hold against those who might disarm them.
Now it is the year 2009, and you (and you are not alone, I'm not singling you out, except you clearly expressed what many people feel) are admitting that the only rights you will dare to exercise will be the ones that Kennedy concedes.
At any rate, the RKBA is as protected as the people assert it must be protected. Which isn't much protection.