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?

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 traditional State responsibility 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 Amendment?

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 Enhancement-provisions?

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?