You'd better go back and re-read the Debates. Also, pay a little more attention to Amend 9. You can't use one part of the FedCon's Art 1 Sect 8 power to overwrite other parts of the Constitution. It negates the whole document.
There's nothing arbitrary about having a list of prohibited persons and keeping them from engaging in any market.
Yes there is. Who gets to define who is "sane"? Dems get in control and you could easily have VPC writing the statute. Just wanting to own a gun in the first place could be a "mental health disqualification".
Think it through instead of just sitting there spouting crap.
The debates are not part of the Constitution. The 9th is irrelevant. The Commerce Clause is as I said, general, with general applicability. In the absence of a specific complaint, you have no standing.
"Who gets to define who is "sane"?"
Docs with licenses issued per state legislative acts and judges, per state constitutions and legislative statutes and rules.
"Dems get in control and you could easily have VPC writing the statute."
Irrelevant. The imaginative possibilities presented in fiction do not apply to actual law. Actual law must be judged on it's merits.
"Just wanting to own a gun in the first place could be a "mental health disqualification"."
No. It's really that simple. Mental illness is defined by noting evidence of faulty reasoning abilities, and emotional instabilities. Logical reasoning, the logic and right of self defense, and the use of effective defensive tools is not, and can never be evidence of mental illness. Illogical reasoning, the denial of the right of self defense, and failure to defend oneself can be evidence of mental illness.
"Think it through instead of just sitting there spouting crap."
Yeah, try to do that and quit advocating that mental cases have access to the legitimate firearms market.
I corrected your post. I know you know better than to put that qualifier in there.