United States v. Hemani · ¶78

Nothing in Lopez or Morrison suggests anything to the contrary. Lopez considered a jurisdictional hook helpful only if it “would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the frearm possession in question affects interstate commerce.” 514 U. S., at 561. But, as explained, § 922(g)'s bare requirement that the frearm previously traveled across state lines does not ensure that the frearm possession in question affects interstate commerce: Mere possession of a frearm does not necessarily affect commerce at all. Mor rison also said that a jurisdictional hook could help show that the statute “is in pursuance of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce.” 529 U. S., at 613. But, the fact that § 922(g) purports to be an exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause powers does not mean that it falls within the legitimate scope of those powers.

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