No. The Commerce Clause is general and applies to any regulation of any market. In particular, one of the motivations for holding the COnstitutional Convention was to break up and prevent monopolies, such as the shoe monopoly that ticked folks in a bunch of states off back then.
"Arbitrary restriction and violation of a protected Right was no part of the power given to the Feds."
There's nothing arbitrary about having a list of prohibited persons and keeping them from engaging in any market. That includes the firearms and explosives market. The disqualifiers aren't arbitrary either. Felons have lost their right through legislative action and so have mental cases that have been adjudicated a danger to self, or others.
You'd better go back and re-read the Debates. Also, pay a little more attention to Amend 9. You can't use one part of the FedCon's Art 1 Sect 8 power to overwrite other parts of the Constitution. It negates the whole document.
There's nothing arbitrary about having a list of prohibited persons and keeping them from engaging in any market.
Yes there is. Who gets to define who is "sane"? Dems get in control and you could easily have VPC writing the statute. Just wanting to own a gun in the first place could be a "mental health disqualification".
Think it through instead of just sitting there spouting crap.
What if Congress should decided misdemeanants, speeders, folks who spit on the sidewalk and jaywalkers should also lose their rights? That be OK under your all encompassing commerce clause.
Hint. The Bill of Rights was added the Constitution to prevent "misconstruction or abuse" of the powers granted to the government. IOW, the second amendment overrides the commerce clause, as do all the other amendments when there is a conflict. No matter what the actual extent of the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce might otherwise be.