Seems pretty far-fetched.

Is this a joke? The Supreme Court has never ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects fully automatic weapons. Per D.C. v. Hepler (2008), you have a right to own a handgun and that is it. States may freely ban other types of firearms including semi-automatics.

Nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled that a vendor *must* sell firearms that it doesn’t want to. Though it carries most things these days, Amazon has no obligation to offer consumers any specific product.

If you read the Tenth Amendment, anything outside of specifically following what the Constitution says is pretty much unconstitutional. "The right of the people .... shall not be infringed." doesn't mince any words. How is someone not being able to own something, NOT an infringement?

“Reserved to the states.“ Meaning: states still get to make laws about it.

You can take that argument right now to the Supreme Court of every state that maintains any gun laws on its books whatsoever (which I believe is all 50 of them). Or: even all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if you so choose.

It will not get far. The Tenth Amendment is much weaker than conservatives think it is. Even Clarence Thomas wouldn’t buy this argument.

The extreme reading of the Tenth Amendment you propose would work to block the passage of any laws not *specifically* permitted by the Constitution. That would be vanishingly few laws indeed. Our constitution is a brief document by design.

So the state's can make a law saying that the accused can not have a speedy trial if they desire to or not? Because that is how your rendition of the Tenth Amendment could be applied to the Sixth Amendment.

Neither the 2nd Amendment nor the 6th Amendment are absolute.

The right to a speedy trial doesn’t mean that you have the right to a trial tomorrow. And the 2nd Amendment doesn’t allow private ownership of tanks and attack helicopters.

I know someone who owns a retired fighter plane...

The word "shall" is used in both. That is a pretty definitive word. I don't believe the word shall leaves any grey zones like the words should or may.
And as Merriam-Webster puts it:
SHALL

\ shəl, ˈshal \

Definition of shall

3b—used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shall#synonyms

You’re certainly welcome to take that argument to the U.S. Supreme Court too.

Good luck — you have a 5 Justice Conservative majority to work with!

Heller*