I believe the conclusion that it can't happen in the U.S. is incorrect.
If you don't think that sort of thing could happen, you should recall that the Trans-Pacific treaty being pushed in the U.S. by the Obama administration included provisions allowing U.N bodies to inspect compliance and sue local governments for things like climate violations (wealth transfer) or even firearms possession and compliance (end-run around the 2nd amendment). That is, these treaties were seen as a way to sneak in enforcement from extra-national entities for rules explicitly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.
That particular treaty was dropped, in part, due to public outcry against it.
Liberty requires maintenance and defense. You cannot simply assume that once we enjoy some particular freedom there is no way to retreat or regress from it such that we lose it. Bureaucrats that cannot be fired by the head of the Executive branch are another example of this erosion by technicality.
So I don't find your conclusion obvious at all. I wish it were so simple.
This kind of rule-making follows the trick of getting the public to trade safety for liberty. The problem is that the same governments have created the lack of safety, provoking the unrest they know seek additional power to quash. We should say no.