L
Hope so too, L. To base congressional jurisdiction WRT to gun control issues on the "nexus" of firearms and commerce -- that is, any gun or ammunition that had once passed through any stage of interstate commerce is forever after subject to congressional regulation -- strikes me as being an astounding overreach of legislative power. Think about it. Unless you're Amish (maybe not even then), virtually everything you own or some component in it has passed through interstate commerce at some point or other. Does that mean that Congress legitimately can "regulate" ALL our stuff? Well, it appears that it thinks it has the authority to do that, for certainly that's what it's been doing.... To deprive a citizen of the constitutional right to possess a firearm simply because of the congressional construction that "possession in or affecting commerce" constitutionally establishes its jurisdiction, so that it may freely "infringe," is simply nutz. This is tantamount to saying that Congress is free to regulate any product or service that it "doesn't like" if it can establish that the product or service was once subject to an interstate commercial transaction. Talk about giving these ne'er-do-wells carte blanche!
Truly I think the Emerson case is about much, much more than 2A, notwithstanding the critical importance of RKBA in a free society. best, bb.