Ooooh, so close.
The Bill of Rights was intended to restrict the federal government, not the state governments. The concern was primarily connected with incidents like the attempt by the British government to seize militia arms at Concord (which sparked the first real battle of the Revolutionary War). The Bill of Rights did not in any way restrict the individual states, until after the 14th Amendment incorporated those rights to the states and the courts recognized this. For the 2nd Amendment, that did not happen until 2010.
In other words, the 2nd Amendment was not intended to provide a blanket protection for gun rights. The intention was to prevent the federal government from interfering with the ability of the official state militias to do its job. The right to bear arms was explicitly protected in connection with the militias, as noted in rulings like Cruikshank and Presser. For centuries the 2nd Amendment was not seen as protecting any individual rights to bear arms, and that claim is basically an ahistorical fabrication of the pro-gun movement, foisted on the nation (with little practical effect, fortunately) by Scalia.
When you know this, you should realize that it is legally unacceptable to ignore the first half of the 2nd Amendment, which is exactly what Coyuga did. Not that it matters, because again, the right to bear arms is not unlimited, and even when you do ignore half the language of the amendment, the government is legitimately empowered to regulate weapons other than firearms.
