Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Shall not be infringed.
No permitting process should be required. No bans on capacity or requiring CLEO sign off for purchasing a firearm. As I've stated before, the ONLY "regulation" that could be construed as Constitutional would be for those wishing to take part in active duty militia exercises. Then those individuals would need to procure the required equipment before showing up for duty.
Read Parker. Pay attention to the parts you don't like instead of just trying to justify the dissent.
Then how do you explain the opinion of Founding Father and U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall in the following 1833 case:
"These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government-not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in congress, and adopted by the states. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them."
-- BARRON v. CITY OF BALTIMORE, 32 U.S. 243