Not only that, there's a fairly clear hint on page 4 that, given a suitable case, the court might have been willing to find against ATF regulations on the manufacture of prohibited firearms or accessories as well.
I don't see why not. Gonzales v. Raich held that drug laws were permissible under the Commerce Clause (even in the absence of any legal commerce in those drugs - go figure), but I wouldn't put it past the court to overturn that.
Or, for that matter: where in the Constitution does it say that Congress has the power to regulate the manufacture and use of nuclear weapons?
(To be clear: I think this is an absurd line of reasoning.)
> Or, for that matter: where in the Constitution does it say that Congress has the power to regulate the manufacture and use of nuclear weapons?
Wickard v Filburn was "your transaction intrastate led you to buy less interstate so we can regulate you"; that is a ridiculous ruling. That doesn't mean there should be no narrower rulings to justify specific classes of regulation.
When Morton Downey Jr. was a thing Mad Magazine did a spoof on this. In the cartoon one of the characters said, “I’m opposed to a waiting period for purchases of tanks, missles, and attack helicopters to private citizens but I do favor a 10 day waiting period on sales of nuclear weapons.” Morton then cracks him upside the head and calls him a “candy-ass liberal”.
