This kind of condescention is funny from a FR wannabe lawyer who thinks that finding "gun" and "Commerce Clause" on the same page means without question that the Supreme Court reasoned that since gun ownership is an enumerated right in the Bill of Rights it can't be regulated by the Commerce Clause.The case you cited was about commerce, not enumerated rights, as the Court further explains:
"Proyect attempts to distinguish this body of authority by arguing that, while growing marijuana for distribution has a significant impact on interstate commerce, growing marijuana only for personal consumption does not. Despite the fact that he was convicted of growing more than 100 marijuana plants, making it very unlikely that he personally intended to consume all of his crop, Proyect contends that no one may be convicted under a statute that fails to distinguish between the cultivation of marijuana for distribution and the cultivation of marijuana for personal consumption. This contention is without merit."
That court being the 2nd Circuit, not the the USSC. You're aware that they aren't the same court?
The decision, and the decisions it referenced, lay to rest the lunatic contention that guns are subject to being outlawed because illicit drugs are.
Your argument lies smoking on the ground.