Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). The fact pattern worth knowing in order to see how much it diverges from laws that criminalize certain arms possession, and prohibit it outright in others. Although, OTOH, the premise of centrally managed agriculture as a "constitutional power of the federal government" doesn't agree with me, it is much less offensive that making a felon out of a person who fails to buy a gun-tax stamp, owns a short barrel shotgun, etc.
The controversy in Wickard was over payment of a fee. Filburn could have paid the fee, or "stored the excess" in order to avoid the fee. There was no "crime" involved. I'd have to check commodity prices at the time, but I think 49 cents a bushel was a substantial amount, relative to the price of a bushel. But also note, Filburn was aware of and agreeable with a fee for planting excess acreage. The argument was over the government increasing the fee, with the increase coming after he planted the excess acreage.
I linked the case above, in case anybody wants to read enough details to understand the nature of the controversy. Excerpts follow:
In July of 1940, pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as then amended, there were established for the appellee's 1941 crop a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres and a normal yield of 20.1 bushels of wheat an acre. He was given notice of such allotment in July of 1940 before the Fall planting of his 1941 crop of wheat, and again in July of 1941, before it was harvested. He sowed, however, 23 acres, and harvested from his 11.9 acres of excess acreage 239 bushels, which under the terms of the Act as amended on May 26, 1941, constituted farm marketing excess, subject to a penalty of 49 cents a bushel, or $117.11 in all. The appellee has not paid the penalty and he has not postponed or avoided it by storing the excess under regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture, or by delivering it up to the Secretary. The Committee, therefore, refused him a marketing card, which was, under the terms of Regulations promulgated by the Secretary, necessary to protect a buyer from liability to the penalty and upon its protecting lien.The court below held, with one judge dissenting, that the speech of the Secretary invalidated the referendum; and that the amendment of May 26, 1941, 'in so far as it increased the penalty for the farm marketing excess over the fifteen cents per bushel prevailing at the time of planting and subjected the entire crop to a lien for the payment thereof,' should not be applied to the appellee because as so applied it was retroactive and in violation of [due process] the Fifth Amendment ...
Adding one point, the Wikipedia treatment of this case is abominable. It radically misrepresents the underlying facts.