[Nathan Zachary]

This sounds all well and fine on the surface, but I wouldn't be too quick to celebrate.

Putting on the tin foil hat for a moment, what if this is a devious plan to force a (corrupt) supreme court to rule on Federal powers, and the Federal power to control firearms?

This could be a devastating blow to gun ownership in this country as well, if this is a scam to establish precedent in the top courts.

[ctdonath2]

Your tinfoil hat is on too tight.
This law is a Good Thing, even though it invites a big fight which might not be won.

[Ken H]

The precedent has already been established by Gonzales v Raich and Wickard, which Drug Warriors and Poverty Pimps (among many others) depend on for their agenda. Conservatives need to choose between supporting or opposing Wickard. Can't have it both ways:

Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.

-J. Scalia concurring, Gonzales v Raich

_____________________________________

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything, and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

J. Thomas dissenting, Gonzales v Raich