The court did not say that the "federal government" guaranteed your right to own a firearm. It said the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution does and cannot be abridged by the federal government. That is the exact opposite of judicial activism. The fact that the court had not had to rule on it before does not mean it is a newly invented right. All states allow gun ownership- with varying restrictions- and in addition all/most states have 2nd amendment rights in their state constitutions.
The DC Heller case is important but it also a bit of an oddball because DC is a federal enclave where there is no state and therefore no states rights. In any event, the court went on to rule in the Chicago case a couple years later that the 2nd Amendment did pass through to all states via the 14th Amendment- period- even if states did or did not want it as a state right. You are arguing that the framers would have considered the right of citizens to own arms to be activism beyond their intent. The court rejected that by reviewing the intent of the framers and not accepting the "militia only" argument. Again, looking directly at the framers intent rather than what people want today is the exact opposite of judicial activism.
Last edited: