[SigPro2340]

"At an appropriate juncture, I think we must modify our Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Today, it is easy enough to say that the Clause certainly does not empower Congress to ban gun possession within 1,000 feet of a school."

I very much agree with this.

What does that have to do with drugs or anything else?

Clearly government should not limit gun ownership or carrying as regards to a simple 2nd amendment test.

I'm confused at how you can extrapolate the gun issue to illegal drugs or other gun laws that are not spoken of in this case.

[Ken H]

I'm confused at how you can extrapolate the gun issue to illegal drugs or other gun laws that are not spoken of in this case.

As I said before, Thomas was addressing the substantial effects test in all its applications. He was not limiting those comments to drugs or guns.

[Sandy]

I'm confused at how you can extrapolate the gun issue to illegal drugs or other gun laws that are not spoken of in this case.

You're confused because you don't understand that these cases aren't about guns *or* drugs. They're about federalism, the Constitution's Commerce Clause, and the extent of the power given to Congress by that clause.

Read the lower court's Raich decision for an explanation of what's going on: HERE.

This should help too.