>>The other [dissenting opinion] is the power granted by modern interpretations of the Commerce Clause overrides the Bill of Rights.
Whoever that “judge” is, should be removed from the bench. That’s just criminally ignorant.
Here is part of the dissent from Judge Roth of the Third Circuit:
In Bruen, the Supreme Court considered whether a regulation issued by a state government was a facially constitutional exercise of its traditional police power. Range presents a distinguishable question: Whether a federal statute, which the Supreme Court has upheld as a valid exercise of Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause,2 is constitutional as applied to him. The parties and the Majority conflate these spheres of authority and fail to address binding precedents affirming Congress’s power to regulate the possession of firearms in interstate commerce. Because Range lacks standing under the applicable Commerce Clause jurisprudence, I respectfully dissent.