United States v. Hemani · ¶70

I also doubt that § 922(g) can fall within the third and broadest category for regulations of “activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.” Id., at 559. The mere possession of a frearm that long ago crossed state lines is not “economic activity” in any sense, and the Court has never upheld regulation of intrastate activity that is not “economic in nature” under this category. United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598, 613 (2000). Moreover, our precedents suggest that merely possessing a gun does not have a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce. Section 922(g) targets classes of people that the Government thinks “threaten the safety of the community” if they have weapons. Brief for United States 10. But, the Court has emphatically rejected “the argument that Congress may regulate noneconomic, violent criminal conduct based solely on that conduct's aggregate effect on…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.