Barrett stated that while the government has a legitimate interest in denying gun possession to felons convicted of violent crimes, there is no evidence that denying guns to nonviolent felons promotes this interest, and that denying such rights is a violation of the Second Amendment.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/amy-coney-barrett-ginsburg-scotus-future.html
Similarly, there is no doubt that Barrett would dramatically expand the Second Amendment, invalidating gun control measures around the country.
History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons. Nor have the parties introduced any evidence that founding-era legislatures imposed virtue-based restrictions on the right; such restrictions applied to civic rights like voting and jury service, not to individual rights like the right to possess a gun. In 1791—and for well more than a century afterward— legislatures disqualified categories of people from the right to bear arms only when they judged that doing so was necessary to protect the public safety. ...
Best Regards,
USC
Speaks volumes to me and backs up the claims that she is an originalist.