That is for the Supreme Court to decide... if you want to examine precedent, you can consult Google.
I'm not here to hold your hand through this.
Do your own research.
I know what SCOTUS has said in Miller, Heller, McDonald and Caetano, I just want to know your opinion.
"The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010)" Caetano v Massachusetts.
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."
"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon", implying that firearms having "any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" are protected the Second Amendment.
Given this, what is the federal government and the states empowered to restrict?