Clarence Thomas' constitutional argument against federal gun law gets first major court test

A convicted heroin trafficker's appeal could upend one of the federal government's most-used gun laws after a federal appeals court agreed to reconsider its constitutional foundation, weeks after Justice Clarence Thomas urged lower courts to take a fresh look at whether Congress had the authority to enact it.The full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals voted Monday to rehear United States v. Squire, a case that could determine whether Congress exceeded its constitutional authority when it enacted the federal law making it a crime for convicted felons to possess firearms.

The case stems from an appeal by convicted felon Curtis Squire, who was charged after police found a handgun in his New Orleans home while executing a search warrant. While his appeal began as a Second Amendment challenge, the case has evolved into a broader question: whether Congress had the constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause to criminalize firearm possession by convicted felons at all.SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY LIMITS USE OF GUN LAW USED TO PROSECUTE HUNTER BIDENThe appeals court's decision marks a significant shift in the case and the first major appellate response to Thomas' recent concurrence in United States v.

Hemani, in which he urged courts to reconsider the constitutional foundation of federal law.For decades, courts have upheld the law because Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, even if the only connection is that the gun crossed state lines before the defendant possessed it.But Thomas argued that goes too far, writing in Hemani that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress only "to regulate the buying and selling of goods and services trafficked across state lines," not "activities wholly separated from business, such as gun possession."

MAJOR APPEALS COURT DECLARES NEW JERSEY AR-15 BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN LANDMARK SECOND AMENDMENT RULINGHe also rejected the long-standing theory that Congress may regulate firearm possession simply because the firearm once moved