RPRNY
Member
The truth of the matter is that Justice Scalia did no such thing in writing the Heller majority opinion!
The Supreme Court held in part:
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause[emphasis added]. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. [emphasis added]Pp. 22–28.
In D.C. v. Heller Justice Antonin Scalia writes that “when able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.” Maj. Op. at 25
Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller revisits that "ideal of a citizens' militia" theme in reviewing efforts by George III's government to disarm American colonists (pg. 21). Discussing the ancient origins of the right, Scalia notes that "the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents" (pg. 19).
Additionally, Heller does not overturn Miller (1934), in which the Court affirmed that arms commonly in use by the military are arms protected by the Second Amendment, ie. Miller determines types of arms protected while point (1) above from Heller says that the arms need not be kept in any way associated with militia service. It seems that one should effectively argue that semi-auto rifles ergonomically similar to those used by the military and firing ammunition similar to that used by the military are in fact exactly the arms that Miller determined were indeed protected by the Second Amendment. I don't know that the argument has yet been made to the Court.