It is a conditional right

[I]n several jurisdictions throughout the country, law-abiding citizens have been barred from exercising the fundamental right to bear arms because they cannot show that they have a “justifiable need” or “good reason” for doing so. One would think that such an onerous burden on a fundamental right would warrant this Court’s review.

The 'In order to ' clause appears in the Second, not in any other rights amendment.  It is Thomas who is misreading, the law was intended to be ambiguous.

It is the courts in the past who read the law wrong, Scalia mainly. The current law allows banning guns when they do not meet the 'In order to' conditional.

Thomas is a make shit up justice, just like Sotomayor. My view has won this battle, Tomas has lost. I will see you in court, Clarence, and I am the better lawyer.