United States v. Hemani · ¶76
Other courts have upheld § 922(g)'s constitutionality solely on the ground that it has a “jurisdictional hook” purporting to connect the offense to interstate commerce. E. g., United States v. McAllister, 77 F. 3d 387, 389–390 (CA11 1996); United States v. Dorris, 236 F. 3d 582, 585–586 (CA10 2000); United States v. Lemons, 302 F. 3d 769, 772 (CA7 2002); United States v. Smith, 101 F. 3d 202, 215 (CA1 1996); United States v. Hanna, 55 F. 3d 1456, 1462, n. 2 (CA9 1995); United States v. Singletary, 268 F. 3d 196, 204 (CA3 2001). Under Scarborough, § 922(g) requires that the frearm at some point traveled across state lines. This jurisdictional element, these courts say, itself shows a sufficient “nexus with interstate commerce.” United States v. Bell, 70 F. 3d 495, 498 (CA7 1995); accord, e. g., Rawls, 85 F. 3d, at 242–243; United States v. Bolton, 68 F. 3d 396, 400 (CA10 1995). And, on…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.