Is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) constitutional and was Tenth Amendment jurisdiction maintained for firearms alleged in this case?

No question identified. : QUESTIONS Question History: Statute 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is unconstitutional pursuant to Bruen, and the government lacked jurisdiction by law of the U.S. Fifth and Tenth Amendments to prosecute firearms pursuant to Lopez. In trial, the Government failed to provide a video recorded statement and physical evidence impeaching its only criminal witness against the defendant. The witness testimony was not struck from the trial. Evidence linking the same witness to the crimes charged to the defendant and impeachment was not preserved by the Government before trial . The Government failed to provide prior conviction documentation available to it after defense requests, for the 21 U.S.C. Sec. 851 and USSG 4B1.1 enhancements relied upon by the court, in which one of the priors later turned out to be alleged in error and only two priors existed. 30 months spent litigating the 4B1.1 enhancement. Court and Government extensions were taken, and which were all credited to the defendant in a statutory and Constitutional Speedy trial assessment. The defendant was denied disclosure of CS-1, that was alleged in the warrant affidavit as having information to the defendant and co-defendant aiding and abetting each other by police affirmation, while the defendant was charged in counts 2 4 by aiding and abetting liability. Swinton was similarly situated as the witness, and on two later offenses with guns and drugs, the witness was not charged and known to the Government. The Government failed to prosecute the witness and stated that it had no agreement with the witness pertaining to these charges. The defendant is an African-American male, and the witness is a Caucasian female. QUESTIONS: 1. Is 18.U.S.C. § 922(g) constitutional and was Tenth Amendment jurisdiction maintained for firearms alleged in this case? 2. Was this a violation of Brady v. Maryland, and was the petitioner afforded Due Process of Law, Effective Counsel and a Speedy Trial? 1