OP - In theory, I agree.
I am not a Lawyer and don't profess to be anything but a guy who does his own research instead of listening to the media.
The Tenth Amendment’s simple language—“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” this emphasizes that the inclusion of a bill of rights does not change the fundamental character of the national government.
In other words, this means is that the Federal government "Should" have power limited only to it's enumerated powers, and, that the first question involving an exercise of federal power should not be whether it violates someone’s rights, but whether it exceeds the national government’s enumerated powers.
While the 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed", the Supreme Court (those that interpret the constitution) have ruled previously that infringed is not the same as having reasonable restrictions. i.e. 1st amendment and yelling Fire, 2nd and Felons cant buy a gun legally, etc.
So, we are back to, while the constitution does not specifically give power to the Fed to restrict rights, it does give power to the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution, and the SC has determined that Federal or State, can put reasonable restrictions on rights.
Now, The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, this is not found within the text of the Constitution itself, but from what I have read, was established in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).
The Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. In subsequent cases, the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.
Is there case law that gives the Federal government the power to force states to abide by a UBC legislation? Seems like a state and not a federal issue when it comes to whether two private individuals can sell, trade, or gift a firearm to one another.
So,
my response to your question is: Does the Federal Government have the enumerated power to make such a law, and, if the answer to that is no, then it should be left to the states. I hope any "law" passed by congress, will at some point go the Supreme Court, and be interpreted using this guideline.
Just my opinion, and again, not a lawyer, judge, etc. and your opinion may be different.
d