Not only that, there's a fairly clear hint on page 4 that, given a suitable case, the court might have been willing to find against ATF regulations on the manufacture of prohibited firearms or accessories as well.
All of the state laws are in the clear.
I don't actually know if the Federal drug laws are justified under the commerce clause.
Or, for that matter: where in the Constitution does it say that Congress has the power to regulate the manufacture and use of nuclear weapons?
(To be clear: I think this is an absurd line of reasoning.)
Wickard v Filburn was "your transaction intrastate led you to buy less interstate so we can regulate you"; that is a ridiculous ruling. That doesn't mean there should be no narrower rulings to justify specific classes of regulation.