If the current precedent case law for commerce jurisprudence, i.e, U.S. Lopez 514 US 549, conflicts with another currently-applied case decision, i.e, Scarborough v. U.S. 431 US 563, must not Scarborough be overruled as inconsistent with this court's most currently followed commerce jurisprudence from this court?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : . Ii September of 2018, petitioner was found in possession of two firearms in the State of Maryland, Prince Georges County, in the City of Capitol Heights, in the Town of Fairmont Heights, on a residential street, doprs from his family home; after being stopped hy the Prince Georges County local police, follow~ ing a domestic dispute known as road rage. Petitioner was : subsequently arrested and charged with several violations of State, County, and local laws and ordinances. In January of 2019, petitioner (hereinafter Faison), was detained by the U.S. Marshalls service on a federal warrant issued by Judge G.J. Hazel of the Greenbelt Maryland U.S. District Court. In February of 2019 Faison was indicted for violating 18 USC 922(g), . possession of a firearm as a prohibited person. In October of 2019, Faison was found by jury. In January of 2020, Faison was . sentenced to 77 months and remanded to the custody of the U.S Bureau of Prisons. THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARE: . If the current precedent case law for commerce jurisprudence, i.e, U.S. Lopez 514 US 549, conflicts with another currentlyapplied case decision, i.e, Scarborough v. U.S. 431 US 563, must not Scarborough be overruled as inconsistent with this court's most currently followed commerce jurisprudence from this court? . ii . Does the Constitution give Congress the power to regulate : ° and punish mere firearm possession within the States, when the ; possession is a crime denounced as criminal in the States; and is an area of of traditional State responsibilty guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and if the Constitution does not, is the regulation and punishment of simple firearm possession by the federal government exceed Congress’ power and contravine the Sovereign power reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendmént? . Is 18 USC 922(g) un-constitutional when applied to a person whose conduct does not involve economic or commercial activity, and does not substantially affect commerce as outlined in Lopez; ; if yes, should not this court restructure the substantial affects test inorder to bring it back within the original understanding of the commerce clause 's conferred power? : : Does the premise expressed in Apprendi v. New Jersey 530 US 466 and Alleyne v US 570 US 99, that facts that alter the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed, are elements of the crime that a defendant has the Fifth. Amendment and Sixth Amendment right to have a jury find beyond a reasonable doubt, apply to the federal sentencing enhancement provisions, as this court held applied to the States sentencing iii : ;