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.
Actually, you said:
ORLY? Not as far as you'd like to believe that they can. I've already shown you former Chief Justice Rehnquist's findings in US vs. Lopez where the court held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, it was not unlimited, and did not apply to something as far from commerce as carrying handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale.
Just so you know, a USSC justice that will be hearing any appeal to today's DC District Court reversal will be Samuel Alito who dissented in 'US vs. Rybar' that "in that the law under which Rybar had been convicted should be vacated, because Congress, in its lawmaking, had not made sufficient findings regarding the impact on interstate commerce clause to fully justify the court deferring to Congressional judgement that the law was authorized by the Commerce Clause". (Wikipedia -- US vs. Rybar)
Moreover, US vs. Rybar was a case where a man was convicted for possession of two unregistered machine guns. His conviction was upheld, but not by any judges currently sitting on the US Supreme Court like Alito does.
So much for the 'powers of Congress to regulate the interstate commerce of everything', huh? You get out of MY face.
Please refrain from ever using the Commerce Clause in any future FR discussion where the economy of the entire United States wouldn't be affected on a 'massive scale', please.