[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by JohnKsa

Again, the salient point in Wickard was the change in the overall supply caused by production. The farmer was growing a crop, which, although he was only using it himself, intrastate, was still changing the overall national supply and, therefore, according the Court's logic, affecting interstate commerce.

Private intrastate used gun sales do not change supply. Even the crazy logic in Wickard can't be used to extend federal jurisdiction to them. I'm not saying it's totally impossible for the Feds to figure out a way to extend their jurisdiction to intrastate used gun sales--just pointing out that they will have to come up with another argument instead of just using Wickard.

While the facts of Wickard involved production, the rationale wasn't limited to production.

Originally Posted by Jackson at 128

It is well established by decisions of this Court that the power to regulate commerce includes the power to regulate the prices at which commodities in that commerce are dealt in and practices affecting such prices. [Footnote 28] One of the primary purposes of the Act in question was to increase the market price of wheat, and, to that end, to limit the volume thereof that could affect the market.

Emphasis added. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...pinion-1937493

The extraordinary breadth of that reasoning shows up in the MJ version of Wickard, Gonzalez v. Raich. There the majority noted,

Our case law firmly establishes Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic “class of activities” that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. See, e.g., Perez, 402 U. S., at 151; Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111, 128–129 (1942).

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/1/

In this perversion, a man who grows his own marijuana within his own state for his own use, never sells it, and has a spectacularly small impact on interstate commerce in that good has nevertheless fallen within the power of Congress to regulate commerce amongst the states because the class of his activity has a "substantial" effect.

Your analysis of the transaction is more coherent. If I sell a pistol to you, my neighbor in the same state, regulation of that transaction by Congress isn't authorized by the words "To regulate Commerce ... among the several States". I'd like to see that standard restored, but its effect would be so profound I have doubts we will ever see it.