[KChen986]

I think for the most part, prohibiting violent felons from possessing body armor is a good idea. The reason being, as a violent felon, one has already proved their criminal penchant. Thus, much like how violent felons cannot purchase guns, neither can they purchase body armor.

I certainly would not want a burglar coming in to my home with body armor. Would you?

I'm all for compact federalism. However, as most of us know, the Commerce Clause has been fully exploited to allow the Federal Gov't to do whatever it wants.

Under Lopez, the test was restricted to from "activity which substantially affects commerce (Wickard)" to "economic activity which substantially effects commerce." Thereby, Rehnquist (i think) scaled back the reach of the commerce power as established in Wickard v. Filburn (that anything aggregated enough times will 'substantially affect commerce' and thus is in commerce power) to a limited class of 'economic activities.' However, as the OP mentioned, Gonzalez v. Raich reintroduced the idea of aggregation and effectively re-broadened the rule that Rehnquist limited in Lopez.

Anyone think that we'll go back to the Formalist Era, where non-evil things were not regulated, but evil things (lottery tickets, booze) were within commerce clause powers?