The real pickle is that we don't know exactly what Scalia meant when he threw in that line about reasonable restrictions. It's possible Scalia meant merely that civilians could be denied the possession of rocket-launchers, mortars and mustard gas. It's also possible, though less likely, that he/the SCOTUS thinks the citizenry can be denied so-called "assault weapons".
However, the underlying premise of the Heller case was that you couldn't deny gun ownership (of some kind), and it certainly implied the reasons why you couldn't do that (self defence, constitutional right, heightened scrutiny, etc.). My personal WAG on this matter is that the SCOTUS will drop the hammer on the next case it takes where a government entity has reigned in the RKBA. Scalia hates it when his words and intent are misused for political purposes.
The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. -James Burgh