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.
So you are of the opinion that the Commerce Clause can mean anything they want it to mean? That's some pretty effed up thinking right there. And the Debates are relevant as they give us the Const Convention and 1St Congress' thoughts on what they meant.
Docs with licenses issued per state legislative acts and judges, per state constitutions and legislative statutes and rules.
Sounds like State powers, not Feds.
Irrelevant. The imaginative possibilities presented in fiction do not apply to actual law. Actual law must be judged on it's merits.
So you are ignorant of history as well. How nice...
Yeah, try to do that and quit advocating that mental cases have access to the legitimate firearms market.
Quit trying to give the FedGov power over what standard is used to disqualify people from exercizing a Right.
Doctors aren't judges, and can't, by the normal definition of the term, adjudicate anything. Of course they can advise judges, or juries.