In other words, the last is first. A similar interpretation of later superseding earlier can be found in the Koran. As Mohammed got older and crazier, and became a much more successful conqueror, his utterings grew more violent and uncompromising. So, the later sayings ("kill the infidel") supersede the earlier, more moderate ones.
I'm just noting the coincidence, although I agree that the commerce clause has little to do with, and certainly shouldn't be twisted to dominate, Second Amendment concerns.
The Bill of Rights was enacted to specifically limit all of the enumerated powers of Congress in the body of the Constitution. So the Commerce clause cannot be used to in any way abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
LIBs claim that under the Commerce clause, they can pass anything. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! It is impossible for one clause to override an entire document.
Amendments are additions to the Constitution,so in a sense the last is first. Comparing the US Constitution to the Koran is like comparing a diamond to a piece of glass or gold to mica. Equivocation is best left to LIBs, the better for us to attack them.
On the subject of a federal judge ruling against the states, what should we expect? They have ruled consistently against the Constitution, sometimes overturned by the Supreme Court. States would be better off ignoring federal law.
According to the Constitution itself, amendments modify prior language. There is no vagary or middle ground, there is only choosing to correctly read the Constitution or not.