United States v. Hemani · ¶71
For these reasons, lower court judges have for decades concluded that under this Court's precedents, § 922(g) exceeds Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. See, e. g., United States v. Chesney, 86 F. 3d 564, 574–575 (CA6 1996) (Batchelder, J., concurring); United States v. Kuban, 94 F. 3d 971, 977 (CA5 1996) (DeMoss, J., dissenting in part); United States v. Storey, 571 F. Supp. 3d 1296, 1298 (MD Fla. 2021) (Mizelle, J.); United States v. Seekins, 52 F. 4th 988, 991 (CA5 2022) (Ho, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc); United States v. Bonner, 159 F. 4th 338, 343 (CA5 2025) (Willett, J., concurring); see also United States v. Pat ton, 451 F. 3d 615, 634 (CA10 2006) (McConnell, J.) (regarding an analogous restriction on possessing body armor); United States v. Alderman, 565 F. 3d 641, 648 (CA9 2009) (Paez, J., dissenting) (same); United States v. Alderman, 593 F.…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.