Yes, he envisioned the states using the Commerce Clause to resolve their differences in federal courts, rather than Congress passing a law correcting every single dispute - the "dormant commerce clause", if you will. And that's exactly how the Commerce Clause was initially used.
Of course, it was never limited to that. That's not what you're arguing, is it?
"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?"
I thought it was correctly decided the first time.
Again, I don't see anything whatsoever in the Commerce Clause that lists any exceptions to what Congress is allowed to regulate. Any exceptions are decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"First. It is unnecessary to repeat what has frequently been said by this court with respect to the complete and paramount character of the power confided to Congress to regulate commerce among the several states. It is of the essence of this power that, where it exists, it dominates. Interstate trade was not left to be destroyed or impeded by the rivalries of local government. The purpose was to make impossible the recurrence of the evils which had overwhelmed the Confederation, and to provide the necessary basis of national unity by insuring 'uniformity of regulation against conflicting and discriminating state legislation."
-- The Shreveport Rate Cases, 1914
But, back on topic. Second amendment. The Founding Fathers never said or even implied that the second amendment protected "All ... who have an operational trigger finger". A living constitution, however, would allow for that.