The key words here are "typically" and "lawful".
These words make it very easy for a later Scalia to find that so-called "assault weapons" ARE typically found in the home ( I own several ) and they have many lawful uses and would be the preferred weapon to perform Militia service.
I don't see any impediment here to a later ruling much to the advantage of pro-gunners. Both the dangers and the utility of "machineguns" are exaggerated by anti-gunners and pro-gunners alike. The distinction between "centerfire, magazine-fed, military pattern rifle" and "machinegun" is so slight that there is a man in prison today, I believe, whose firearm malfunctioned, supposedly transforming the former into the latter. Such an occurrence ought to convince a man of Scalia's intellect that there is no distinction between the two that would justify protecting one and not the other. Nor would such distinction justify imprisonment for accidently possessing such a rifle.
That conviction is going to stand. SCOTUS won't touch it.
ROTFL. Fat chance. The weapon at issue in Heller was a pedestrian sidearm. Had it been a short-barrel shotgun (prohibited, and therefore uncommon except to LEO and the military), Scalia would have found it outside of "typical" "lawful" possession.