[robertpaulsen]

"Then by your interpretation of the Constitution, you don’t see anything there that would prevent Congress from outlawing the ownership of any firearm, and still be within their legitimately granted powers under the Commerce Clause."

I don't see anything whatsoever in the Commerce Clause that lists any exceptions to what Congress is allowed to regulate.

Now, at some point they would be encroaching on the states' ability to form a militia which would violate the second amendment and Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Or the health and safety of individual citizens. Or simply the sensibilities of the majority of Americans who won't tolerate it and who will vote them out of office.

[tacticalogic]

I don't see anything whatsoever in the Commerce Clause that lists any exceptions to what Congress is allowed to regulate.

That's the problem in a nutshell. You don't see it there, and are single mindedly uninterested in looking for it, or admitting it's existence when presented with it from anywhere else.

[ctdonath2]

I don't see anything whatsoever in the Commerce Clause that lists any exceptions to what Congress is allowed to regulate.

That's because it's not in the Commerce Clause. It's in the 2nd Amendment. You know, that little "shall not be infringed" thing. It was tacked on as a "we didn't give you the power to infringe on this, but if you somehow think you did, we're making it perfectly clear you don't" clarification.

[El Gato]

I don't see anything whatsoever in the Commerce Clause that lists any exceptions to what Congress is allowed to regulate.

Because the restrictions are not in the Commerce Clause. They are in Section 9 of Article I, and in several of the Bill of Rights and later amendments. Those, being amendments, override any power granted Congress in the main body of the Constitution, when their is a conflict.

Thus Congress can't regulate interstate commerce in such a manner so as to abridge "the freedom of speech, or of the press", or to infringe on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

[publiusF27]

Or just better technology and amendments to the Constitution.

Living constitution? Didn't you just say this:

I don't see anything whatsoever in the Commerce Clause that lists any exceptions to what Congress is allowed to regulate.

The Congress shall have the power...To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Madison said the powers of the federal government were "few and defined" and he said the interstate commerce clause "was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government."

Today we have a federal law on the books which says carrying a gun near a school is illegal because it affects interstate commerce, and you don't see that we have a problem?