[Zon]

Run away so that you can ignore that you quoted City of New York v. Miln in your 153 post in support of your argument. Despite knowing that City of New York v. Miln was later reversed in Edwards v. California in 1941.

[raygun]

Run away?! He ain't running away, he's digging the books to counter-attack my arguments respecting the immaterialiality (albeit not entirely irrelevent) of the commerce clause to this specific issue since get-go.

I've been arguing that the commerce clause is out of bounce with respect to the Second Ammendment.

I've been trying to make an argument the issue should be the Second Ammendment, and the dearth of review of statutes infringing upon it, and it would seem your only interest is in making hash out some perceived misspeak.

Git a gryp!