Not necessarily. What Scalia wrote in Heller was a caution, viz. Heller must not be interpreted as ruling out any regulation or limitation on the types of firearms we are allowed to own and use. In Heller the Court ruled, in essence that the D.C. Regulations went too far because, in effect, by banning operative guns, they banned all firearms when kept in the home for self defense. In other words, an inoperative firearm was not a firearm for self defense purposes. The case on its surface had to do with handguns, but the DC law made it illegal to keep an operative firearm for self defense in the home, regardless of what type. Heller makes it clear that at least some types of operating firearms must be allowed and leaves it up to future Courts to go into exactly what types. But as gwbtrading logically pointed out, we have a long history of regulating or ruling out certain types. Canadian law would be a good fit with Heller, as it starts by categorizing in clear unambiguous language which types are unrestricted, which are restricted, and which are prohibited. That, as I interpret Heller, and I have thoroughly studied Heller, would be entirely compatible with Heller and the Second Amendment.
Heller resulted in other challenges to local gun bans. One of those suits was McDonald v. Chicago which was brought on equal protection grounds. To no one's surprise, this suit resulted in a reaffirmation of the supremacy of Federal and Constitutional law over State and Local law.
