United States v. Hemani · ¶59
I agree with the Court that § 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent Ali Hemani, and I join its opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to another issue: As a matter of both original meaning and this Court's precedents, § 922(g)(3) appears to exceed Congress's enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce. The statute makes it a federal crime for unlawful drug users to possess any frearm or ammunition “in or affecting commerce.” 18 U. S. C. § 922(g)(3). Under the prevailing interpretation of § 922(g)(3), the Government can secure a conviction for unlawful frearm possession “if the frearm possessed” by the drug user “had previously traveled in interstate commerce.” United States v. Rawls, 85 F. 3d 240, 242 (CA5 1996) (per curiam). The Commerce Clause does not authorize Congress to “regulate or ban possession of any item that has ever been…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.