The problem here, as your Presser cite highlights, is that instead of looking at these things with an open mind, you have a slant already. Presser shows states indeed can make laws but this particular case references the fact that militia and arms inextricably are linked. It took until the 20th century for you gun lovers to get your way.
It was the NRA-funding that did it.
Anyhow, MC, we both know the SCOTUS decides things on personal opinion, hardly on any constitutional scholarship. If that were the case, the "originalists" would have returned us to second-hand citizenship for slaves and women.
You wouldn't like that, right?
You may also ask yourself why the original paragraph in the 2nd Amendment speaks both to guns and militia. A curious coincidence, no? One could conjecture that were it to state something critically important, it would do so much more clearly. Deduction: personal gun ownership wasn't a pressing concern. There was no "right" spelled out. So, regulation is possible.