Your suggestion makes it very clear that you did NOT read Lopez. The Lopez court, in great detail, explained why Wickard did not apply.OriginallyPosted 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.
I suggest you read Wickard v. Filburn, et seq., and save your irreverence.
So, I request you explain how Wickard, contrary to theLopez decision, negates Lopez.