Let me clarify the Second Amendment using an 1846 GA Supreme Court case—Nunn v GA, most recently cited in DC v Heller:

The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree

Scalia’s opinion (in Heller) of the Nunn decision:

In Nunn v. State, 1Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right

So, yes. In every sense of the word “infringe,” any law is an infringement.

and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia

This part. It quite literally says ‘we can’t ban arms of any type from anyone,’ and even includes children in the list, which many pro-gun advocates today would likely balk at. The current SCOTUS interpretation cites this as a perfect understanding.

Those laws are still infringements, any opinion issued contrary to this point by a court, is political and not based on what the laws actually say or mean.