[meepmorp]

> ... the Constitution, which makes gun manufacturing subject to laws and regulations, but not bans in the US.

I don't know if this is actually true. The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the second amendment, but its a bit of a stretch to say that includes manufacturing of arms.

[hga]

So the government could ban the manufacture and importation of printers, printer parts, radio and TV transmitters, etc. etc., indirectly negating the rights of free speech and the press?

Nope, that's not how it works.

[declan]

Well put. If Right X is a fundamental constitutional right, as the Second Amendment is according to the U.S. Supreme Court, then laws designed to restrict your ability to acquire the materials required to exercise Right X should be subjected to heightened scrutiny.

I'm not aware of a 2A case on point regarding firearm manufacturing (others may know more), perhaps because the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act offered sufficient protection. I am aware of a case on point regarding selling firearms. Earlier this year, Chicago's ban on selling firearms was ruled unconstitutional: http://www.volokh.com/2014/01/06/firearm-may-sold-acquired-o...

This makes sense if you think about it. The First Amendment right to freedom of the press wouldn't mean much if the Feds can levy a 10,000% tax on newsprint. Which is why the Supreme Court has held that such taxes violate the First Amendment: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vo...

[hga]

Although back when the Supremes cared a lot less about the Constitution, or at least some rights, they allowed an ~ $3,500 tax in 2014 dollars for transfers of Machine Guns!!!, "Destructive Devices" and their ammo, etc. Handguns were also almost swept into this scheme, although maybe not at such a high, and inconveniently not inflation adjusted cost.