"Infringed" can certainly be read as any process that gets in the way of gun purchasing.
[0] Except in cases where you have a CCW (which you go through a background check to get already), a purchase permit (many states require a check from the sherrif or similar office before buying a handgun) or some other similar stand in that does something significantly similar to the NICS checks.
It’s not a “maximalist” interpretation. With nearly any other federal right, we’d agree that maintaining a registry of people exercising that right would impermissibly create a chilling effect. You can be a member of a minority religion, but only if you place yourself on a registry! You can exercise freedom of speech or assembly, but only if you put yourself on a registry. It’s not maximalist, it’s giving an enumerated constitutional right a full and fair reading.[1]
I do agree that the existing precedent in the area has been impoverished. The Supreme Court has important work to do correcting that.
[1] The framers were gun nuts and would have been troubled by the decline of gun ownership. The idea that you have a civic duty to own firearms would be closer to the original intent than the idea that the government can limit gun ownership to formal militias.
> Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops. – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
