[robertpaulsen]

"In your opinion, based on how you understand the meaning of the actual words of the Commerce Clause, does Congress have the constitutional authority to ban assault weapons under the Commerce Clause."

Under the Commerce Clause? Yes. And that was also the opinion of a federal trial judge and the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. And the USSC let that opinion stand "without comment".

Do you see something in the Commerce Clause that I don't? Some exception? Does it say, "Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce ... among the several States with the exception of guns, drugs, pornography, and whatever we feel they shouldn't?

[tpaine]

Ken H wrote:
"In your opinion, based on how you understand the meaning of the actual words of the Commerce Clause, does Congress have the constitutional authority to ban assault weapons under the Commerce Clause."

Under the Commerce Clause?
Yes.
And that was also the opinion of a federal trial judge and the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. And the USSC let that opinion stand "without comment". Do you see something in the Commerce Clause that I don't? Some exception? Does it say, "Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce ... among the several States with the exception of guns, drugs, pornography, and whatever we feel they shouldn't?

How does a ban on owning an 'assault weapon' serve to regulate commerce "among the several states" , paulsen?

[Ken H]

In your opinion, based on how you understand the meaning of the actual words of the Commerce Clause, does Congress have the constitutional authority to ban assault weapons under the Commerce Clause.

Under the Commerce Clause? Yes.

Now you're saying that under the Commerce Clause, the Federal government can ban assault weapons. But, in the the following exchange you say different:

tacticalogic wrote: I'll be happy to withdraw the question if you can explain why Commerce Clause legislation must comply with the Fifth Amendment, but not the Second.

robertpaulsen responded: No, it has to comply with the second.

I ask again, how can you say the Constitution does not allow the Federal government to infringe the RKBA, but at the same time, the Constitution allows the Federal government to infringe the RKBA?

Do you see something in the Commerce Clause that I don't? Some exception?

It is robertpaulsen who sees in the Commerce Clause the authority to infringe the RKBA.

robertpaulsen also says the Second Amendment means the RKBA shall not be infringed by the Federal government.

Which is it?