hugh
Hugh, the US has the exact same jurisdiction over steel, as over firearms. You're being evasive. Just answer the question. In the English sentence I italicized above, do you read it as meaning that the only right is for rifle steel, and other applications are not covered?High quality barrels being necessary for the construction of miltia riflles, the right of the people to make and use steel shall not be infringed.
Do you interpret that to mean the government could outlaw steel for ALL other uses but militia rifles, without infringing the stated right?
If it was an amendment in the USBOR, then I think it would be a declaration that the US has no power to deprive the nation of steel used to make rifle barrels. Regardless of the amendment, I do not believe that the US is delegated jurisdiction over steel, so I do not believe they could ban it for other uses either (not because of the amendment but regardless of it).
I don't know what history or purpose you envision for your amendment, but I can't imagine that people would just up and declare at random the right to work steel, and then list the right to make gun barrels as an example. If there was such an amendment about rifle barrels and steel, I assume that it would have originated in response to the King trying to disarm the Colonies by confiscating steel used to make rifle barrels, and I assume that is what the amendment would regard.