« on: February 05, 2008, 11:50:49 AM »
Say a gun free school zone act similar to the one in 1994 (ruled unconstitutional in US V. Lopez) was passed and Mr. Brady had guns in his home (which is also a home school for his children). Mr. Brady also sells guns interstate for cash and contributes a small amount to interstate commerce. If the government says Mr. Brady is in violation of the gun free school zones act and even though the Lopez court said it was unconstitutional, this is valid because Mr. Brady is contributing to interstate commerce as well as having a gun in school. Mr. Brady says the government is wrong because his violation of the statue in the gun free school zone act (which according to him is unconstitutional US V. Lopez) is separate from him contribution to interstate commerce.