Quote:
|
In other words, unlike controlled substances, Congress has not generally prohibited selling body armor.
|
Ah, the "comprehensive regulatory scheme" argument. We'll uphold regulations against the dangerous use of drugs because they're part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme, but gun regulation is not comprehensive.
It's not? OK, I don't buy it, but let's accept that. The comprehensive regulation argument wasn't enough in US v Oregon, and as usual,
Justice Thomas' dissent showed the inconsistency in what the court was doing. Look for Congress' efforts to control interstate commerce in guns to be seen as "comprehensive enough" as needed by the Court.