In his dissent in United States V Rybar Alito argues, in his dissent, that the federal government oversteps it's bounds by using the commerce clause to ban possession of machine guns intrastate.
TO wit:
"Was United States v. Lopez a constitutional freak? Or did it signify that the Commerce Clause still imposes some meaningful limits on congressional power?"
"The activity that the Lopez Court found was not "economic" or "connected with a commercial transaction" was a type of intrastate firearm possession, i.e., the possession of a firearm (including a machine gun) within a school zone. At issue here is another type of purely intrastate firearm possession, i.e., the purely intrastate possession of a machine gun. If the former must be regarded as noneconomic and non-commercial, why isn't the same true of the latter?"
Forewarned is forearmed, the left will be having babies over this one, Roe and Casey notwithstanding.
"In his dissent in United States V Rybar Alito argues, in his dissent, that the federal government oversteps it's bounds by using the commerce clause to ban possession of machine guns intrastate."
Excellent info! I find it very encouraging that he understands the limits of the Commerce Clause!