The question of whether a part is integral to a gun or not is an interesting question. Is any feature of a gun allowed because it’s an accessory to a gun? Now, this is not an attempt at a Gotcha, but I’d be genuinely interested in your thoughts on the following, admittedly hypothetical scenarios.
In your opinion, would it be a violation of the 2nd Amendment to ban guns painted a certain color? I’m guessing, not directly, although the courts may argue that such color restrictions, if arbitrary, might be intended to have a chilling effect on gun sales and ownership.
How about this scenario. What if guns were being designed to look like toys, or water pistols, because some idiot decided it was a nice look. The increased danger from kids using them accidentally could be a problem. Would the government have the right to restrict such weapons, or is it anything goes, as long as it’s an accessory or feature of a weapon?
Whether something is integral or necessary to an arms operation should be based on the individual purpose of that arm, not the potential or appearance of the parts.
So, my vote is yes, but that’s just what I consider ideal.
Your hypotheticals present an interestingly similar problem.
How a weapon appears.
But first, consider how a ban on a color or other appearance could be abused.
If the orange found on toy guns was banned from application on their more dangerous counterparts, could that reasoning not be applied to anything dangerous? Particularly tools and areas traditionally marked with the same color to indicate a hazard? Or perhaps the inverse, everything remotely dangerous must be orange. No more special cases for your phone or fancy paint jobs for your neighbors hot rod.
I would argue that they are indeed violations in that banning something based on its color or appearance is an attempt at sidestepping the constitutional issues by naming an ancillary purportedly within their purview. I am neither lawyer nor legal scholar, but this would appear to be a 2nd, and 10th amendment violation at the least.
The second specifically prohibits the federal government from hindering the keeping and bearing of a great undefined “arms” by citizens, as they are the militia that must necessarily be kept regular (regulated) to ensure the security of the freedoms they enjoy.
The tenth could potentially limit the choice of colors to the states respectively, or to the people.
But appearance to different people appeal in different ways. Would anyone want their state arbitrarily deciding the legal colors for all vehicles must include or be limited to hot pink and vomit with orange flecks OR ELSE?
Not to mention the slippery slope and the utterly predictable failure to meet articulated goals that inevitably result.