What about Scalia? From what little I know about him, he has a strong opinion in favor of states rights.
Can he be counted on to side in favor of incorporation?
Personally... I would be shocked if he sided with the 4 dissenters in the Heller case this time around.
Some of these same justices are justices who have ruled in favor of some of the largest increases in federal government jurisdiction and power ever.
For that reason, I highly expect they would rule to bring most things under the jurisdiction of the federal government unless it clearly is an extremely large stretch, and even then only if they don't want to.
A portion of the Bill of Rights under federal jurisdiction is not a large stretch at all, and considering most of it is already incorporated, doing so with the 2nd seems like an almost assured result.
Scalia in particular for example lead the ruling in Gonzales vs Raich, which puts almost anything and everything under federal authority even if it is not involved in Interstate Commerce whatsoever, just by alluding it in some way several times removed and indirectly could effect it and is therefor "necessary and proper". No longer does anyone even need to show jurisdiction is valid under the commerce clause.
Even just the fact that it could change how people feel might "effect the economy" and is "necessary and proper" under that ruling.
All they need to say is any law is felt to be "necessary and proper" since the day of that ruling, and anything is under federal authority. So state's rights practically ceased to exist at the moment of that ruling. (And it is in fact that very ruling that now means most federal gun laws will be upheld, even for firearms never intended to be involved in commerce, cross state lines or otherwise fall directly under the commerce clause.)
So I certainly wouldn't call him a "state's rights" person.