United States v. Hemani · ¶74

Several courts have upheld § 922(g) based on this Court's decision in Scarborough alone. They have understood Scar- borough's interpretation of the statutory “in” or “affecting commerce” requirement to establish, as a matter of Supreme Court precedent, that § 922(g) is a valid exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause powers in all its applications. Some have even suggested that they would otherwise find § 922(g) unconstitutional. See, e. g., Rawls, 85 F. 3d, at 243 (Garwood, J., concurring) (writing for the full panel and explaining that Scarborough “bind[s]” the court to uphold § 922(g)'s constitutionality even though “one might well wonder how it could rationally be concluded that mere possession of a frearm in any meaningful way concerns interstate commerce”); United States v. Gateward, 84 F. 3d 670, 671 (CA3 1996) (upholding the statute on the ground that Lopez did not abrogate…

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