In other words, he got it right.
I believe he did in the end. His inalienable argument is very strong though some will object because it is based on English law. What Heller does not do is prevent government from banning certain types of firearms. Scalia speaks directly to this issue in his majority opinion.
Until, or unless, it is overturned or set aside in some way, Heller is the prevailing law re the Second Amendment. All gun rights advocates should read it so they can argue with the law behind them and not irrationally, as so many do.
Banning semi-automatic assault rifles and large ammo clips, for example, according to Heller, would not violate our Second amendment rights. This is a key point that many, should I go as far as to say the "majority', of gun rights advocates obviously do not understand. The reason these types of semi-automatic firearms are not off the self is political and not because a ban would violate anyone's second amendment rights. Heller is very clear on this.
See...
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
emphasis mine...
2. . Like most rights,
the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire-arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Miller’ s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.Pp. 54–56.
...
We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this
country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the
many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that
problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibi-tion of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
...
We also recognize another important limitation on the
right to keep and carry arms.
Miller
said, as we have explained,
that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.
We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
