The SC has never ruled on 922 (q). They ruled in Lopez on the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, and that decision was handed down in 1995. They did not consider the law as it is currently written.
Justice O'Connor, joined by Rhenquist and Thomas (who also wrote separately), said in her Raich dissent that the decision was inconsistent with Lopez and Morrison. She's gone, replaced by Alito, who once said that an automatic weapon is no more "interstate commerce" than a semi-auto. Rhenquist is gone, replaced by Roberts, who once said that an indigenous California toad is not interstate commerce.
Scalia wrote a concurring opinion in Raich, in which he said the Raich result did not, as the dissenters said, reduce Lopez to a drafting guide. He wrote that the national drug regulatory scheme is comprehensive, and must be taken as a whole, while the national gun regulatory scheme can be analyzed piecemeal. Or something like that.
Kennedy is still there, and wrote a long concurring opinion in Lopez, which analyzed the history of the balance of powers and the commerce clause. He said this:
The statute before us upsets the federal balance to a degree that renders it an unconstitutional assertion of the commerce power, and our intervention is required.
So, we don't really know what the Court currently says about 922 (q). Will Kennedy change his mind in light of Raich, or for some other reason? Will Alito and Roberts vote as their predecessors did? Will Scalia even vote as he previously did, given that the law has new language specifically designed to placate a Scalia? Who can say?
Edit to add: would Thomas be consistent, and rule that 922 (q) is legitimate, and say in his dissent two words: see Raich?
No, we are in that cloudy period between Court rulings on that issue, and the "whatever the Court says" dodge won't work. They haven't said anything, and we can't predict what they would say. So, what do YOU say? Is 922 (q) within the commerce power in YOUR opinion, or not?