While I like your "interpretation" of Scalia, and wish mightily that it is shared by SCOTUS in all future cases, my worry is specifically the quote:
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...[cites omitted]. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues...
I can just visualize future lower courts quoting this part specifically to uphold "reasonable" restrictions as the gun grabbers/socialists/liberals play the salami game by taking away little tiny pieces at a time. First a "reasonable" restriction here, then one there. Finally, no RKBA, due to all the petty laws that were upheld based on "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Sorry, maybe I'm just pessimistic today. It's just that some of those phrases just jumped out at me, after 60 pages of "historical" BS 'splaining the simple meaning of plain words that any 3rd grader understands perfectly.
;^)
“I can just visualize future lower courts quoting this part specifically to uphold “reasonable” restrictions as the gun grabbers/socialists/liberals play the salami game by taking away little tiny pieces at a time. First a “reasonable” restriction here, then one there.”
So can I. But keep in mind that the legislature has to agree to the restriction in the first place. We have managed to retain and expand our gun rights over the last 30 years in the political sphere without having a court opinion that helps us. We now have that.