Because you, like too many others in the United States, like to hide behind the skirt of the Commerce Clause. Liberals and Conservatives frequently run to hide behind 'states rights' and the 'commerce clause' when it suits them and emerge to rail against it when it doesn't.
In any case, read United States vs. Lopez where the USSC held that mere possession of a gun near a school is not an economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
Chief Justice Rehnquist dismissed the government's argument, reasoning that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so.
That is perfectly germane to today's particular discussion that you brought up about the Commerce Clause, which ought to have nothing to do with the DC handgun ban reversal.
So knock it off about the Commerce Clause. It's all you ever talk about.
Thanks.
I responded to the poster who initially brought it up. I suggest you go talk him about how it's not germane and get out of my face.
Oh, Lopez had nothing to do with interstate commerce. It dealt with a federal statute concerning local activity that could have an effect on interstate commerce. Similar to Morrison. And similarly rejected. And rightly so.