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?
You asked if Congress can ban weapons under the Commerce Clause. I said yes. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said yes. The USSC let it stand, "without comment". WTF don't you understand?
Now you bring up the second amendment. What does that have to do with the above? Why don't you just go ahead and bring up the fifth? The ninth? The tenth, while you're at it?
They can, and did, ban weapons under the Commerce Clause. That doesn't mean they could have constitutionally done it under the second amendment (or any other amendment), which was tacticalogic's question.
You're mixing apples and oranges, here. I'm done.
This has been going on for a couple of days now, with no resolution in sight. At some point you have to consider the possibility that it might be a case of making contradictory statements purely for the purpose of stirring you up and getting you to waste your time trying to get an explaination.