Your suggestion makes it very clear that you did NOT read Lopez. The Lopez court, in great detail, explained why Wickard did not apply.OriginallyI suggest you read Wickard v. Filburn, et seq., and save your irreverence.Posted by color of law
I suggest you read United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)
The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic activity.
It is irreverent that the materials to make the gun traveled in interstate commerce.
So, I request you explain how Wickard, contrary to theLopez decision, negates Lopez.