Not according to this Motion to Dismiss, for this reason:
"
They primarily assert a Second Amendment claim. But the UHA has nothing to do with the possession of a handgun for self-defense in the home, which is the core of the Second Amendment right recognized last year in the landmark decision of District of Columbia v. Heller".
I especially love this part:
"Contrary to plaintiffs' apparent assertion, there is
no constitutional right to purchase any handgun of one's choice."
Basically, they are concluding that the state has the right to protect its citizens against unsafe products. (Any sort of unsafe products, from washing machines to household chemicals.)
Building on that, it is asserted that the state has the right to define what constitutes a "safe" as opposed to an "unsafe" handgun, and stipulate that it's citizens select from a state-approved list of "safe" handguns.
And this part is also noteworthy:
"The Act also allows DOJ to collect an annual fee from manufacturers or sellers to cover the costs of maintaining the roster and other costs necessary to implement the Act."
So a what amounts to a tax burden will be created to support the state's interest in protecting your safety.
The list of things wrong with this is too long to enumerate here, but ask yourself what other similar protections does the State (as opposed to the federal government) offer you against, for example, microwave ovens, lead-based paint, or Tylenol?
Don't worry. Be happy.