Vote counting on the Supremes
I'd agree with previous comments:
Thomas and Scalia are clearly in favor of an individual right;
Roberts and Alito are probably (maybe very probably) in favor of it.
The remainder are unknown.
But I'd add -- don't count on the "liberal wing" as all against an individual right. I know LOTS of folks who are liberal, in the civil libertarian sense, who support an individual rights view. Among my friends -- Don Kates and Mark Benenson (former head of Amnesty International's US branch) helped to start the movement toward recognizing an individual right. Professors William van Alstyne, Akhil Amar, and Sanford Levinson are all very liberal. I could easily see one or more of the liberal wing coming over (even if they might give problems later when it got down to what are reasonable regulations of the right).
Conversely, I doubt there is much risk of a conservative wing justice going to the other side. That was a big risk in former years (Warren Burger and Harry Blackmun, appointed by Nixon as conservatives, turned out to be strongly anti-second amendment, consistent with their "law and order" conservative views). But I don't see the present conservative wing as having those tendencies.
Update in light of comments: the Ginsburg dissent came in United States v. Muscarello, 524 U.S. 125 (1998):
"Surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ("keep and bear Arms") (emphasis added) and Black's Law Dictionary, at 214, indicate: "wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.""
Not definitive, but the association of "bear arms" with "carry a firearm on your person" does suggest that she's open to (if not already subscribed to) an individual rights view. One of the collective rights arguments is, after all, that while "keep" may be a person right, "bear" has a military orientation).