ÿWPCI0 T5FÀzº’=Õ¶1–Õ¦ {Mï ²+>50Ó=œ"A/µ³"Ž208ž"ËÁ¼Ä:¡43ÎÕ  ÜLHt=ä jÀðÉ6VqŸ«ËKŽ(RöOÁ¡Oähh]Z|bqhô%Q%-ž¸L¥z›¯âÏ î;Žpµ%-[wg âð 5VwªrÜeðN$oÊÍNã¾3ãÞVgEŸ¢ˆ°HuI ¸ù ¨TœcáRÏK=§Æ°Ö Æ—œ1´Z6?‡iùãÉ% ¶Ujj÷¾O5jïj“O ¤W?=KÚüÙÑ+µ4´A£ÔøŸ,N&-ÊZºê¯S«b#ÔÔ‡XÀÜXXX$ÔÓÓà  àA.à0 ` àòòThe€Supreme€Court€has€significantly€limited€Congressððs€power€to€legislate€underÐ ° Ðthe€Commerce€Clauseóó.òòРð` (#` (# ÐÌÓ*?Óà  àóóThe€analysis€of€this€issue€properly€begins€with€the€Supreme€Courtððs€seminal€decision€inÐ €Ð ÐòòUnited€States€v.€Lopezóó,€514€U.S.€549€(1995).€€The€Court€in€òòLopezóó€brought€to€an€end€a€nearlyÐ `° Ðsixty€year€streak€of€upholding€federal€legislation€based€on€the€Commerce€Clause.€€The€legislationÐ @ Ðat€issue€in€òòLopezóó€was€18€U.S.C.€ðð€922(q)€which€made€it€a€federal€offense€to€knowingly€possess€aÐ  p Ðfirearm€within€a€school€zone.€€In€finding€that€this€statutory€provision€exceeded€Congressððs€powerÐ P Ðunder€the€Commerce€Clause,€the€Court€initially€observed€that€there€are€only€three€categories€ofÐ à 0 Ðactivity€that€Congress€may€regulate€under€the€Commerce€Clause:€€(1)€ð ðthe€use€of€the€channels€ofÐ ° Ðinterstate€commerceðð;€(2)€the€ð ðinstrumentalities€of€interstate€commerce€or€persons€or€things€inÐ à Ðinterstate€commerceðð;€and€(3)€ð ðactivities€that€substantially€affect€interstate€commerce.ðð€€òòLopezóó,Ð pÀ Ð514€U.S.€at€558„59.€€The€Court€found€that€ðð€922(q)€plainly€does€not€fit€within€the€first€two€ofÐ P   Ðthese€categories.€€It€is€not€a€ð ðregulation€of€the€use€of€the€channels€of€interstate€commerce,€.€.€.€norÐ 0 € Ðcan€[it]€be€justified€as€a€regulation€by€which€Congress€has€sought€to€protect€an€instrumentality€ofÐ `  Ðinterstate€commerce€or€a€thing€in€interstate€commerce.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€559.€€Ð ð@  Ðà  àThe€same€is€true€for€the€provision€at€issue€here,€18€U.S.C.€ðð€922(g)(1),€which€makes€itÐ Ð  Ðunlawful€for€a€prior€convicted€felon€to€be€in€possession€of€a€gun.׃×Ý ƒ+ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€statute€is€not€a€regulationÐ ° Ðof€the€channels€of€interstate€commerce€and€thus€does€not€fit€into€the€first€òòLopezóó€category.€Ð à ÐMoreover,€the€second€òòLopezóó€category€clearly€contemplates€that€a€ð ðthing€in€commerceðð€beÐ pÀ Ðòòcurrentlyóó€in€interstate€commerce.€€òòSeeóó€òòPerez€v.€United€Statesóó,€402€U.S.€146,€150€(1971)€(exampleÐ P  Ðof€things€in€commerce€that€need€protection€includes€interstate€shipments€subject€to€theft).€€As€theÐ 0€ ÐThird€Circuit€observed€in€òòUnited€States€v.€Rodiaóó,€194€F.3d€465€(3d€Cir.€1999),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€120Ð ` ÐS.€Ct.€2008€(2000),€ð ððð[c]ourts€have,€to€date,€appropriately€limited€[category€twoððs]€application€toÐ ð@ Ðcongressional€regulation€of€instrumentalities€actually€engaged€in€interstate€commerce,€or€objectsÐ Ð  Ðsuch€as€railcars€.€.€.€,€which€are€integrally€related€to€an€interstate€commerce€network.ðððð€€òòId.óó€at€474Ð °"  Ðn.3Ô#†X$XXXÀÜ ?#ÔÔ‡XÀÜXXX$Ô€(ellipses€and€brackets€in€original)Ô#†X$XXXÀÜK#ÔÔ‡XÀÜXXX$Ô€(quoting€òòUnited€States€v.€Bishopóó,€66€F.3d€569,€597€(3d€Cir.Ð ° Ð1995)€(Becker,€J.,€dissenting).€€òòBut€seeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Dorrisóó,€236€F.3d€582,€586€(10òòthóó€Cir.Ð à Ð2000)€(guns€covered€by€ðð€922(g)€fall€within€second€òòLopezóó€category),€òòpetition€for€cert.€filedóóÐ pÀ Ð(March€13,€2001)€(No.€00„8937);€òòUnited€States€v.€Jonesóó,€231€F.3d€508,€514€(9òòthóó€Cir.€2000)€(gunsÐ P   Ðcovered€by€ðð€922(g)€fall€within€both€second€and€third€òòLopezóó€categories).€€Plainly,€the€mere€factÐ 0 € Ðthat€a€gun€was€once€shipped€across€state€lines€does€not€make€it,€for€all€time,€ð ða€thing€in€interstateÐ `  Ðcommerce.ðð€€Accordingly,€ðð€922(g)(1)€does€not€fit€into€the€second€òòLopezóó€category.€€Thus,€likeÐ ð@  Ðsubsection€(q),€subsection€(g)(1)€can€only€be€properly€evaluated€in€terms€of€the€third€category€ð!ðÐ Ð  Ðas€a€regulation€of€an€activity€that€substantially€affects€interstate€commerce.Ð ° Ðà  àIn€concluding€that€ðð€922(q)€does€not€regulate€an€activity€that€substantially€affectsÐ à Ðinterstate€commerce,€the€Supreme€Court€considered€four€factors.€€First€and€foremost,€the€CourtÐ pÀ Ðobserved€that€ð ð[s]ection€922(q)€is€a€criminal€statute€that€by€its€terms€has€nothing€to€do€withÐ P  Ðððcommerceðð€or€any€sort€of€economic€enterprise,€however€broadly€one€might€define€those€terms.ðð€Ð 0€ ÐòòId.óó€at€561.€€Accordingly,€the€Court€held€that€the€statute€cannot€ð ðbe€sustained€under€our€casesÐ ` Ðupholding€regulations€of€activities€that€arise€out€of€or€are€connected€with€a€commercialÐ ð@ Ðtransaction,€which€viewed€in€the€aggregate,€substantially€affects€interstate€commerce.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ Ð  Ðà  àSecond,€the€Court€noted€that€the€statute€contained€ð ðno€express€jurisdictional€elementÐ °"  Ðwhich€òòmightóó€limit€its€reach€to€a€discrete€set€of€firearm€possessions€that€additionally€have€anÐ $à" Ðexplicit€connection€with€or€effect€on€interstate€commerce.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€562€(emphasis€added).€€ð ðSuch€aÐ p&À!$ Ðjurisdictional€element€òòmayóó€establish€that€the€enactment€is€in€pursuance€of€Congressðð€regulation€ofÐ P( #& Ðinterstate€commerce.ðð€€òòMorrisonóó,€120€S.€Ct.€at€1751€(emphasis€added).€Ð 0*€%( Ðà  àThird,€the€Court€noted€that€neither€ðð€922(q)€ð ðððnor€its€legislative€history€contain[s]€expressÐ ,`'* Ðcongressional€findings€regarding€the€effects€upon€interstate€commerce€of€gun€possession€in€aÐ ° Ðschool€zone.ðððð€€òòLopezóó,€514€U.S.€at€562€(citation€omitted)€(alteration€in€original).€€WhileÐ à Ðð ðððCongress€normally€is€not€required€to€make€formal€findings€as€to€the€substantial€burdens€that€anÐ pÀ Ðactivity€has€on€interstate€commerce,ðð€[citations€omitted]€the€existence€of€such€findings€mayÐ P   Ðððenable€[courts]€to€evaluate€the€legislative€judgment€that€the€activity€in€question€substantiallyÐ 0 € Ðaffect[s]€interstate€commerce,€even€though€no€substantial€effect€[is]€visible€to€the€naked€eye.ððððÐ `  ÐòòMorrisonóó,€120€S.€Ct.€at€1751€(quoting€òòLopezóó,€514€U.S.€at€562„63).Ð ð@  Ðà  àFinally,€the€Court€rejected€the€governmentððs€argument€that€unlawful€gun€possessionÐ Ð  Ðresults€in€substantial€costs€to€society€in€terms€of€insurance€and€decreased€productivity€and€travel.€Ð ° ÐAs€the€Court€recognized€ð ðacceptance€of€the€governmentððs€rationales€would€.€.€.€authorize€aÐ à Ðgeneral€federal€police€power.ðð€€òòLopezóó,€514€U.S.€at€564.€€Congress€ð ðcould€regulate€not€only€allÐ pÀ Ðviolent€crime,€but€all€activities€that€might€lead€to€violent€crime,€regardless€of€how€tenuously€theyÐ P  Ðrelate€to€interstate€commerce.ðð€€òòId.óó€Ð 0€ Ðà  àThis€past€term€the€Supreme€Court€clearly€demonstrated€that€its€analysis€in€òòLopezóó€was€noÐ ` Ðaberration.€€In€òòMorrisonóó,€120€S.€Ct.€1740,€the€Court€struck€down€42€U.S.C.€ðð€13981,€whichÐ ð@ Ðprovided€a€federal€civil€remedy€for€the€victims€of€gender„motivated€violence.€€Like€sectionsÐ Ð  Ð922(q)€and€922(g)(1),€section€13981€plainly€did€not€fall€within€either€of€the€first€two€categoriesÐ °"  Ðof€activity€that€Congress€may€regulate€under€its€commerce€power.€€òòMorrisonóó,€120€S.€Ct.€at€1749.€Ð $à" ÐAccordingly,€the€Court€considered€whether€the€provision€could€be€considered€a€regulation€ofÐ p&À!$ Ðactivity€that€substantially€affects€interstate€commerce.€€Applying€the€same€four€factors€that€it€hadÐ P( #& Ðin€òòLopezóó,€the€Court€found€that€it€could€not.€€€Ð 0*€%( Ðà  àStressing€the€ð ðcentralðð€importance€of€€òòLopezóóððs€first€factor,€the€Court€recognized€thatÐ ,`'* Ðð ð[g]ender€motivated€crimes€of€violence€are€not,€in€any€sense€of€the€phrase,€economic€activity.ðð€Ð ° ÐòòId.óó€at€1750,€1751.€€As€the€Court€observed€ð ðthus€far€in€our€Nationððs€history€our€cases€have€upheldÐ à ÐCommerce€Clause€regulation€of€intrastate€activity€only€where€that€activity€is€economic€inÐ pÀ Ðnature.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€1751.Ð P   Ðà  àUnlike€the€provision€at€issue€in€òòLopezóó,€ðð€13981€did€have€voluminous€legislative€findingsÐ 0 € Ðregarding€the€impact€of€gender„motivated€violence€on€victims€and€their€families.€€The€Court,Ð `  Ðhowever,€found€that€those€findings€were€based€on€a€principle€of€aggregation€that€had€beenÐ ð@  Ðrejected€in€òòLopezóó:Ð Ð  ÐÓÓà8  àIf€accepted,€petitionersðð€reasoning€would€allow€Congress€to€regulate€any€crime€asÐ ° Ðlong€as€the€nationwide,€aggregated€impact€of€that€crime€has€substantial€effects€onÐ  ð Ðemployment,€production,€transit€or€consumption.€€Indeed,€if€Congress€mayÐ à Ðregulate€gender„motivated€violence,€it€would€also€be€able€to€regulate€murder€orÐ €Ð Ðany€other€type€of€violence€since€gender„motivated€violence,€as€a€subset€of€allÐ pÀ Ðviolent€crime,€is€certain€to€have€lesser€economic€impacts€than€the€larger€class€ofÐ `° Ðwhich€it€is€a€part.ÓwcÓÐP Ð Ð  ÐòòId.óó€at€1752„53.Ð 0€ Ðà  àThe€Court€thus€explicitly€ð ðreject[ed]€the€argument€that€Congress€may€regulateÐ ` Ðnoneconomic,€violent€criminal€conduct€based€solely€on€that€conductððs€aggregate€effect€onÐ ð@ Ðinterstate€commerce.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€1754.€€The€Court€stated€that€it€was€preserving€ð ðone€of€the€fewÐ Ð  Ðprinciples€that€has€been€consistent€since€the€[Commerce]€Clause€was€adopted[:]€€The€regulationÐ °"  Ðand€punishment€of€intrastate€violence€that€is€not€directed€at€the€instrumentalities,€channels,€orÐ $à" Ðgoods€involved€in€interstate€commerce€has€always€been€the€province€of€the€States.ðð€€òòId.óó€(citationsÐ p&À!$ Ðomitted).Ð P( #& ÐÌòòóóà  àMost€recently,€the€Supreme€Court€applied€the€principles€of€òòLopezóó€in€òòJonesóó,€120€S.€Ct.Ð ,`'* Ð1904.€€In€òòJonesóó,€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€setting€fire€to€an€owner„occupied€residence,€inÐ ° Ðviolation€of€18€U.S.C.€ðð€844(i).€€The€defendant€challenged€his€conviction,€arguing€that,€at€least€asÐ à Ðapplied€to€the€arson€of€an€owner„occupied€residence,€ðð€844(i)€exceeded€Congressððs€authorityÐ pÀ Ðunder€the€Commerce€Clause.€€òòJonesóó,€120€S.€Ct.€at€1908.€€The€Supreme€Court€agreed.Ð P   Ðà  àUnlike€the€statutes€in€òòLopezóó€and€òòMorrisonóó,€ðð€844(i)€includes€an€express€jurisdictionalÐ 0 € Ðelement:€€Section€844(i)€applies€only€to€the€arson€of€a€ð ðbuilding,€vehicle,€or€other€real€or€personalÐ `  Ðproperty€used€in€interstate€or€foreign€commerce€or€in€any€activity€affecting€interstate€or€foreignÐ ð@  Ðcommerce.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€1909€(quoting€18€U.S.C.€ðð€844(i)).€€The€government€in€òòJonesóó€argued€that€thisÐ Ð  Ðelement€was€satisfied€because€the€residence€at€issue€in€the€case€was€ð ðusedðð€to€secure€a€mortgageÐ ° Ðfrom€an€out„of„state€lender,€to€obtain€a€casualty€insurance€policy€from€an€out„of„state€insurer,€andÐ à Ðbecause€the€residence€received€natural€gas€from€an€out„of„state€source.€€The€Supreme€CourtÐ pÀ Ðrejected€this€argument€finding€that€such€an€interpretation€of€the€statute€would€ð ðraise€grave€andÐ P  Ðdoubtful€constitutional€questionsðð€relating€to€Congressððs€power€to€legislate€under€the€CommerceÐ 0€ ÐClause.€€òòId.óó€at€1911.€€As€the€Court€recognized,€if€the€governmentððs€argument€was€adopted,Ð ` Ðð ðhardly€a€building€in€the€land€would€fall€outside€the€federal€statuteððs€domain.ðð€€òòId.óó€€This€wouldÐ ð@ Ðð ðððsignificantly€change[]€the€federal„state€balanceðð€in€the€prosecution€of€crimes€.€.€.€for€arson€is€aÐ Ð  Ðparadigmatic€common„law€state€crime.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€1912€(quoting€òòUnited€States€v.€Bassóó,€404€U.S.Ð °"  Ð336,€349€(1971)).€€Therefore,€the€Court€concluded€that€ð ð[g]iven€the€concerns€brought€to€the€foreÐ $à" Ðin€òòLopezóó,€it€is€appropriate€to€avoid€the€constitutional€question€that€would€arise€were€we€to€read€ððÐ p&À!$ Ð844(i)€to€render€the€ððtraditionally€local€criminal€conductðð€in€which€petitioner€Jones€engaged€ððaÐ P( #& Ðmatter€for€federal€enforcement.ðððð€€òòId.óó€at€1912€(quoting€òò€Bassóó,€404€U.S.€at€350).Ð 0*€%( ÐÓÓà  àB.à0 ` àòòApplying€the€Supreme€Courtððs€Commerce€Clause€jurisprudence€to€ðð€922(g)(1)Ð ,`'* Ðdemonstrates€that€the€statute€does€not€pass€constitutional€muster€because€it€hasÐ ° Ðnothing€to€do€with€commerce,€no€legislative€findings€support€an€interstate€impact,Ð  ð Ðand€any€sort€of€ð ðcosts€of€crimeðð€or€ð ðnational€productivityðð€argument€wouldÐ à Ðauthorize€a€forbidden€general€federal€police€poweróó.òòÓésÓЀÐ` (#` (# Ðóóà  àApplying€the€teachings€of€òòLopezóó,€òòMorrisonóó€and€òòJonesóó,€it€is€clear€that€in€ðð€922(g)(1),Ð ` ° ÐCongress€has€again€exceeded€its€power€under€the€Commerce€Clause.€€Of€the€four€òòLopezóófactors,Ð @  Ðthe€first,€third,€and€fourth,€are€easily€disposed€of.€€First,€like€the€provisions€at€issue€in€òòLopezóó,Ð  p  ÐòòMorrisonóó,€and€òòJonesóó,€òòóóð ððð€922(g)(1)€.€.€.€is€a€criminal€statute€that€by€its€terms€has€nothing€to€doÐ P  Ðwith€commerce€or€any€sort€of€economic€enterprise.ðð€€òòUnited€States€v.€Brownóó,€893€F.€Supp.€11,€12Ð à0  Ð(M.D.N.C.€1995).€€€Accordingly,€the€statute€cannot€be€sustained€under€the€Supreme€Courtððs€lineÐ À Ðof€cases€which€have€upheld€ð ðregulations€of€activities€that€arise€out€of€or€are€connected€with€aÐ  ð Ðcommercial€transaction,€which€viewed€in€the€aggregate,€substantially€affects€interstateÐ €Ð Ðcommerce.ðð€€òòLopezóó,€514€U.S.€at€561.€€Indeed,€as€the€Supreme€Court€pointed€out€in€òòMorrisonóó,€inÐ `° Ðthe€Courtððs€long€history€of€Commerce€Clause€jurisprudence,€it€has€never€before€upheld€aÐ @ Ðstatutory€provision€which€regulates,€as€ðð€922(g)(1)€does,€intrastate€activity€that€is€not€economicÐ  p Ðin€nature.€€òòMorrisonóó,€120€S.€Ct.€at€1751.Ð P Ðà  àRegarding€the€third€òòLopezóó€factor,€Congress€has€made€no€legislative€findings€as€to€how€theÐ à0 Ðintrastate€possession€of€a€firearm€by€a€prior€convicted€felon€impacts€upon€interstate€commerce.€Ð À! ÐAs€the€Supreme€Court€has€previously€recognized,€the€ð ðmeagerðð€legislative€history€that€underliesÐ  #ð! Ðthe€felon„in„possession€statute€ð ðððhardly€speaks€with€that€clarity€of€purpose€which€CongressÐ €%Ð # Ðâ âsupposedly€furnishes€courts€in€order€to€enable€them€to€enforce€its€true€will.ðððð€€òòBassóó,€404€U.S.€atÐ `'°"% Ð346€(quoting€òòUniversal€Camera€Corp.€v.€NLRBóó,€340€U.S.€474,€483€(1951)).׃$×Ý ƒ+ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€What€is€containedÐ ° Ðâ âin€the€legislative€history€ð ðsupports€the€view€that€Congress€sought€to€rule€broadly€to€keep€guns€outÐ à Ðof€the€hands€of€[certain€classes€of€people€without]€any€concern€with€either€the€movement€of€theÐ pÀ Ðgun€or€the€possessor€or€with€the€time€of€the€acquisition.ðð€€òòScarborough€v.€United€Statesóó,€431€U.S.Ð P   Ð563,€571(1977);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Bishopóó,€66€F.3d€569,€587€n.27€(3d€Cir.)€(ð ð[Appellant]Ð 0 € ÐStokes€has€no€authority€for€the€proposition€that€Congress,€in€prohibiting€possession€of€guns€byÐ `  Ðfelons,€was€aiming€at€the€movement€of€guns€òòtowardsóó€felons€rather€than€the€possession€of€guns€òòbyóóÐ ð@  Ðfelons.€€As€stated€in€the€text,€òòScarboroughóó€stated€quite€the€opposite.ðð)€(emphasis€in€original),€òòcert.óóÐ Ð  Ðòòdeniedóó,€516€U.S.€1032€(1995).€€€Ð ° Ðà  àRegarding€the€fourth€òòLopezóó€factor,€as€with€the€statutes€at€issue€in€òòLopezóó,€òòMorrisonóó€andÐ à ÐòòJonesóó,€ðð€922(g)(1)€cannot€be€saved€by€any€sort€of€ð ðcosts€of€crimeðð€or€ð ðnational€productivityððÐ pÀ Ðargument.€€òòMorrisonóó,€120€S.€Ct.€at€1751€(quoting€òòLopezóó,€514€U.S.€at€564).€€The€acceptance€ofÐ P  Ðsuch€an€argument€would€ð ðauthorize€a€general€federal€police€power.ðð€€òòLopezóó,€514€U.S.€at€564.€Ð 0€ ÐThe€Supreme€Court€has€ð ðððalways€€.€.€.€rejected€readings€of€the€Commerce€Clause€and€the€scope€ofÐ ` Ðfederal€power€that€would€permit€Congress€to€exercise€a€police€power.ðððð€€òòMorrisonóó,€120€S.€Ct.€atÐ ð@ Ð1754€(quoting€òòLopezóó,€514€U.S.€at€584„85€(Thomas,€J.,€concurring)).€€Regulation€of€gunÐ Ð  Ðpossession,€moreover,€has€ð ðtraditionally€been€a€state€issue,ðð€and€many€states€have€made€differentÐ °"  Ðpolicy€choices€than€the€United€States€Congress.€€òòSeeóó€David€B.€Kopel€&€Glenn€H.€Reynolds,Ð $à" ÐòòTaking€Federalism€Seriously:€Lopez€and€the€Partial„Birth€Abortion€Ban€Actóó,€30€Conn.€L.€Rev.Ð p&À!$ Ð59,€81€(Fall€1997)€(hereinafter€ð ðòòTaking€Federalism€Seriouslyóóðð).€€ð ð[M]any€state€laws€againstÐ ° Ðpossession€of€guns€by€ex„criminals€apply€only€to€violent€felonies,€or€apply€only€for€a€period€ofÐ à Ðyears€following€the€conviction,€or€apply€only€to€handguns.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Section€922(g)(1),€by€contrast,Ð pÀ Ðð ðapplies€to€all€felony€convictions€(including€non„violent€convictions€in€the€distant€past),€and€allÐ P   Ðguns.ðð€€òòId.óó€€As€commentators€have€recognized,€ð ð[i]f€Colorado€decides€to€allow€a€person€who€wasÐ 0 € Ðconvicted€of€tax€evasion€thirty„five€years€ago€to€possess€a€.22€rifle€for€squirrel€hunting,€whyÐ `  Ðshould€the€federal€government€override€that€decision?ðð€€òòId.óóÐ ð@  Ðà  àHaving€thus€examined€three€of€the€four€considerations€identified€by€the€Supreme€Court€inÐ Ð  ÐòòLopezóó,€the€unconstitutionality€of€ðð€922(g)(1)€seems€readily€apparent.€€The€one€issue€left€toÐ ° Ðaddress€is€the€second€òòLopezóó€factor€ð!ð€the€statuteððs€jurisdictional€element€ð!ð€which€brings€us€at€lastÐ à Ðto€the€Third€Circuitððs€decision€in€òòUnited€States€v.€Gatewardóó,€84€F.3d€670€(3d.€Cir.),€òòcert.óóòòdeniedóó,Ð pÀ Ð519€U.S.€907€(1996).Ð P  ÐòòÓÓà  àóóC.à0 ` àòòNotwithstanding€United€States€v.€Gateward,€the€jurisdictional€element€in€ððÐ 0€ Ð922(g)(1)€does€not€make€the€statute€constitutional€under€the€second€Lopez€factoróó.ÓóŒÓÐ p` (#` (# Ðà  àIn€May€of€1996,€approximately€one€year€after€the€Supreme€Courtððs€decision€in€òòLopezóó,Ð P Ðthis€Court€issued€its€decision€in€òòGatewardóó,€òòóórejecting€the€appellantððs€constitutional€attack€upon€ððÐ à0 Ð922(g)(1).€€At€the€time€that€òòGatewardóó€was€decided,€the€majority€view€in€this€Circuit€appeared€toÐ À! Ðbe€that€òòLopezóó€was€a€ð ðlimited€holding,ðð€òòBishopóó,€66€F.3d€at€590,€and€that€ð ðchallenges€based€onÐ  #ð! ÐòòLopezóó€ðð[a]lmost€invariablyðð€fail,ðð€òòUnited€States€v.€Rybaróó,€103€F.3d€273,€285€(3d€Cir.€1996),€òòcert.óóÐ €%Ð # Ðòòdeniedóó,€522€U.S.€807€(1997)€(quoting€òòUnited€States€v.€Bellóó,€70€F.3d€495,€497€(7òòthóó€Cir.€1995)),Ð `'°"% Ðòòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€522€U.S.€807€(1997).€€This€assessment,€however,€has€now€been€proven€wrong€byÐ @)$' ÐòòMorrisonóó€and€òòJonesóó.Ð  +p&) Ðà  àThe€Court€based€its€decision€in€òòGatewardóó€solely€on€the€fact€that€ðð€922(g)€contains€aÐ ° Ðjurisdictional€element,€an€element€which€has€been€interpreted€to€require€evidence€that€the€firearmÐ à Ðmoved€across€state€lines€at€some€point€in€time€during€its€existence.€€òòGatewardóó,€84€F.3d€at€672.׃%×Ý ƒ+ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РpÀ ÐBut,€as€the€Court€has€recognized€in€other€cases,€the€ð ðððmere€presence€of€a€jurisdictional€elementÐ P   Ðdoes€not€in€and€of€itself€insulate€a€statute€from€judicial€scrutiny€under€the€Commerce€Clause€orÐ 0 € Ðrender€it€per€se€constitutional.ðððð€€òòUnited€States€v.€Rodiaóó,€194€F.3d€465,€472€(3d€Cir.€1999),€òòcert.óóÐ `  Ðòòdeniedóó,€120€S.€Ct.€2008€(2000)€(quoting€òòBishopóó,€66€F.3d€at€585).€€To€the€contrary,€courts€mustÐ ð@  Ðinquire€further€to€determine€whether€the€jurisdictional€element€ð ðwould€ensure,€through€case„by„Ð Ð  Ðcase€inquiry,€that€the€[regulated€conduct]€affects€interstate€commerce.ðð€€òòLopezóó,€514€U.S.€at€561.€Ð ° ÐNo€such€inquiry€was€ever€made€in€òòGatewardóó.€€Instead,€the€Court€simply€cited€to€the€SupremeÐ à ÐCourtððs€prior€decisions€in€òòBassóó€and€òòScarboroughóó€as€support€for€the€proposition€that€theÐ pÀ Ðjurisdictional€element€in€ðð€922(g)(1)€is€sufficient€for€purposes€of€the€Commerce€Clause.€Ð P  ÐòòGatewardóó,€84€F.3d€at€671„72.Ð 0€ Ðà  àòòBassóó€and€òòScarboroughóó,€however,€were€decisions€of€statutory€construction,€not€of€theÐ ° ÐCommerce€Clause,€a€fact€that€the€Third€Circuit€explicitly€recognized€in€òòUnited€States€v.€Bishopóó.€Ð à Ð66€F.3d€at€586.€€Given€this€fact,€ð ðthe€relevance€of€[these€decisions]€to€Commerce€ClauseÐ pÀ Ðjurisprudence€is€dubious.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€595€(Becker,€J.,€dissenting);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€Seth€J.€Safra,€Note,€òòTheÐ P   ÐAmended€Gun„Free€School€Zones€Act:€Doubt€as€to€its€Constitutionality€Remainsóó,€50€Duke€L.J.Ð 0 € Ð637,€648„49€(Nov.€2000)€(hereinafter€ð ðòòThe€Amended€Gun„Free€School€Zones€Actóóðð)€(ð ðBecauseÐ `  Ðthe€parties€never€raised€the€question€of€constitutionality,€the€Court€had€no€reason€to€consider€theÐ ð@  Ðissue[;]€.€.€.€treatment€of€òòScarboroughóó€as€constitutional€precedent€should€be€questioned.ðð);€òòTakingÐ Ð  ÐFederalism€Seriouslyóó,€30€Conn.€L.€Rev.€at€80.€€Given€that€òòBassóó€and€òòScarboroughóó€were€so€criticalÐ ° Ðto€this€Courtððs€analysis€in€òòGatewardóó,€a€close€examination€of€these€two€decisions€is€warranted.Ð à Ðà  àBoth€cases€concerned€18€U.S.C.€ðð€1202(a),€the€predecessor€statute€to€ðð€922(g)(1).€Ð pÀ ÐSection€1202(a),€much€like€ðð€922(g)(1),€provided€that€any€convicted€felon€ð ðwho€receives,Ð P  Ðpossesses€or€transports€in€commerce€or€affecting€commerce€€€.€.€.€any€firearm€shall€be€fined€noÐ 0€ Ðmore€than€$10,000€or€imprisoned€for€not€more€than€two€years€or€both.ðð€€In€òòBassóó,€the€governmentòòóóÐ ` Ðð ðproceeded€on€the€assumption€that€ðð€1201(a)(1)€banned€all€possessions€and€receipts€of€firearmsÐ ð@ Ðby€convicted€felons,€and€that€no€connection€with€interstate€commerce€had€to€be€demonstrated€inÐ Ð  Ðindividual€cases.ðð€òòóó€404€U.S.€at€338.€€The€Supreme€Court€rejected€the€governmentððs€interpretationÐ °"  Ðof€the€statute,€refusing€to€adopt€the€governmentððs€ð ðbroad€reading€in€the€absence€of€a€clearerÐ $à" Ðdirection€from€Congress.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€339.€€The€Court€reasoned€that€ð ð[a]bsent€proof€of€some€interstateÐ p&À!$ Ðcommerce€nexus€in€each€case,€ðð€1202(a)€dramatically€intrudes€upon€traditional€state€criminalÐ P( #& Ðjurisdiction.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€350.€Because€the€government€had€not€demonstrated€any€nexus€with€interstateÐ 0*€%( Ðcommerce€whatsoever,€the€Court€overturned€the€conviction,€and€thus€ð ð[d]id€not€reach€theÐ ,`'* Ðquestion€whether,€upon€appropriate€findings,€Congress€can€constitutionally€punish€the€ððmereÐ ° Ðpossessionðð€of€firearms.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€339€n.4.Ð à Ðà  àIn€òòScarboroughóó,€the€Court€took€up€the€issue€of€what€Congress€actually€meant€by€theÐ pÀ Ðphrase€ð ðin€commerce€or€affecting€commerce.ðð€€Analyzing€ðð€1202(a)'s€legislative€history,€theÐ P   ÐCourt€concluded€that€in€order€to€be€convicted€under€the€statute,€the€government€need€only€proveÐ 0 € Ðthat€the€ð ðfirearm€possessed€by€the€convicted€felon€traveled€at€some€time€in€interstate€commerce.ðð€Ð `  ÐòòScarboroughóó,€431€U.S.€at€568.€€That€decision,€though,€was€ð ðexclusively€one€of€statutoryÐ ð@  Ðconstruction,€explicating€the€intent€of€Congress€in€enacting€ðð€1202(a).ðð€€òòBishopóó,€66€F.3d€at€595Ð Ð  Ð(Becker,€J.,€dissenting);€òòThe€Amended€Gun€Free€School€Zones€Actóó,€50€Duke€L.Rev.€at€647€(ð ðTheÐ ° ÐòòScarboroughóó€holding€was€based€on€legislative€history,€not€upon€constitutional€law.ðð);€òòTakingÐ à ÐFederalism€Seriouslyóó,€30€Conn.€L.€Rev.€at€81€(ð ðòòScarboroughóó€was€purely€a€statutory€constructionÐ pÀ Ðcase,€and€the€defendant€apparently€never€raised€the€issue€of€whether€the€governmentððsÐ P  Ðinterpretation€of€the€[statute]€would€mean€that€[it]€exceeded€congressional€powers€over€interstateÐ 0€ Ðcommerce.ðð)€€Accordingly,€ð ðabsent€from€the€[òòScarboroughóó]€opinion€.€.€.€is€any€analysis€ofÐ ` Ðwhether€the€activity€regulated€by€the€statute€constitutes€a€constitutional€exercise€of€congressionalÐ ð@ Ðpower€under€the€Commerce€Clause.ðð€€òòBishopóó,€66€F.3d€at€595€(Becker,€J.,€dissenting).€€As€such,Ð Ð  Ðthe€Third€Circuit€in€òòGatewardóó€was€mistaken€in€concluding€that€òòBassóó€and€òòScarboroughóó€hadÐ °"  Ðalready€resolved€the€constitutional€sufficiency€of€ðð€922(g)(1)'s€jurisdictional€element.€€òòId.óó;€òòseeóóÐ $à" Ðòòalsoóó€òòCommerce€Clause€in€the€Cross„Hairsóó,€48€Stanford€L.€Rev.€at€1456„57€(ð ðGiven€the€non„Ð p&À!$ Ðconstitutional€basis€of€òòBassóó€and€òòScarboroughóó,€their€authority€as€Commerce€Clause€precedent€isÐ P( #& Ðdubious[;]€.€.€.€[t]he€lower€courtsðð€unquestioning€reliance€on€òòScarboroughóó,€a€decision€devoid€ofÐ 0*€%( Ðany€commerce€clause€analysis,€seems€inapposite€in€a€case€concerning€the€constitutionality€ofÐ ,`'* ÐCongressðð€power€to€criminalize€felon€gun€possession.ðð)€Ð ° Ðà  àHaving€thus€disposed€of€òòBassóó€and€òòScarboroughóó,€the€question€that€finally€must€beÐ à Ðaddressed€is€whether€the€jurisdictional€element€of€ðð€922(g)(1)€actually€ensures€that€the€conductÐ pÀ Ðregulated€by€the€statute€ð ðsubstantially€affects€interstate€commerce.ðð€€òòLopezóó,€514€U.S.€at€559.€€TheÐ P   Ðanswer€to€that€question€is€plainly€no.€€Whether€or€not€a€particular€firearm€ever€moved€across€stateÐ 0 € Ðlines€at€some€point€in€time€during€its€existence,€the€intrastate€possession€of€that€firearm€by€a€priorÐ `  Ðconvicted€felon€is€not€a€commercial€activity€and€it€does€not€have€a€substantial€impact€uponÐ ð@  Ðinterstate€commerce.€€òòSeeóó€òòThe€Amended€Gun„Free€School€Zones€Actóó,€50€Duke€L.J.€at€644Ð Ð  Ð(ð ð[P]revious€movement€in€interstate€commerce€has€nothing€to€do€with€whether€a€particular€act€ofÐ ° Ðpossession€affects€interstate€commerce;€the€itemððs€history,€therefore,€should€not€affect€theÐ à Ðstatuteððs€constitutionality.ðð);€€òòCommerce€Clause€in€the€Cross„Hairsóó,€48€Stanford€L.€Rev.€at€1456Ð pÀ Ðn.145€(ð ðIt€is€difficult,€if€not€impossible,€to€argue€that€gun€possession€relates€to€commerce.€€.€.€.Ð P  ÐHow€does€the€inclusion€of€a€jurisdictional€element€enhance€the€connection€between€mere€gunÐ 0€ Ðpossession€and€commercial€enterprise?ðð)Ð ` Ðà  àMoreover,€ð ð[t]o€infer€federal€jurisdiction€over€any€item€which€at€one€time€has€traveledÐ ð@ Ðthrough€interstate€commerce€is€to€invite€federal€regulation€of€almost€all€state€activities€.€.€.€[since]Ð Ð  Ðvirtually€all€products€of€modern€commerce€have€at€one€time€or€another€seen€the€borders€of€aÐ °"  Ðforeign€state.ðð€€Carlo€DððAngelo,€Note,€òòThe€Impact€of€United€States€v.€Lopez€Upon€SelectedÐ $à" ÐFirearms€Provisions€of€Title€18€U.S.C.€ðð€922óó,€8€St.€Thomas€L.€Rev.€571,€584€(Spring€1996).€€AsÐ p&À!$ ÐChief€Judge€Becker€explained€in€his€dissenting€opinion€in€òòBishopóó,€if€a€ð ðmeaningless€interstateÐ P( #& Ðcommerce€provisionðð€is€sufficient€for€purposes€of€the€Commerce€Clause,€then€Congress€mayÐ 0*€%( Ðpass€a€ð ðfederal€law€outlawing€the€theft€of€a€Hershey€kiss€from€a€corner€store€in€Youngstown,Ð ,`'* ÐOhio€.€.€.€on€the€basis€that€the€candy€once€traveled€in€interstate€commerce€to€the€store€fromÐ ° ÐHershey,€Pennsylvania.ðð€€òòBishopóó,€66€F.3d€at€596€(Becker,€J.,€dissenting).€€Similarly,€CongressÐ à Ðcould€ð ðenact€a€federal€law€requiring€students€in€private€schools€to€read€their€homeworkÐ pÀ Ðassignments,€so€long€as€the€government€establishes€that€the€textbooks€were€published€in€anotherÐ P   Ðstate.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Thus,€to€uphold€a€statute€on€the€basis€of€a€jurisdictional€element,€such€as€the€one€atÐ 0 € Ðissue€here,€is€to€ð ðconvert€congressional€authority€under€the€Commerce€Clause€to€a€general€policeÐ `  Ðpower€of€the€sort€retained€by€the€Statesðð€and€to€destroy€the€ð ðdistinction€between€what€is€trulyÐ ð@  Ðnational€and€what€is€truly€local,ðð€€òòLopezóó,€514€U.S.€at€567„68.Ð Ð  Ðà  àUnited€States€District€Court€Judge€Stewart€Dalzell€recently€came€to€a€similar€conclusionÐ ° Ðin€òòUnited€States€v.€Alfonzo€Cowardóó,€Crim.€No.€00„88€(E.D.€Pa,€April€10,€2001)€(Dalzell,€J.)Ð à Ð(copy€of€memorandum€attached).€€There,€Judge€Dalzell€correctly€concluded€that€the€ð ðlegalÐ pÀ Ðfictionðð€in€òòScarboroughóó,€that€once€a€gun€crosses€state€lines€it€is€forever€ð ðinðð€interstate€commerce,Ð P  Ðdoes€not€survive€the€Supreme€Courtððs€decisions€in€òòLopezóó,€òòMorrisonóó,€and€òòJonesóó.€òòId.óó€at€12„22.€€Ô#†X$XXXÀÜöK#ÔÔ‡XÀÜXXX$ÔÐ 0€ Ðà  àIn€sum,€ðð€922(g)(1)ððs€jurisdictional€element€does€not€ensure€that€the€activity€regulated€ð!ðÐ ` Ðthe€intrastate€possession€of€firearms€ð!ð€has€a€substantial€affect€upon€interstate€commerce.€Ð ð@ ÐAccordingly,€that€element€cannot€insulate€the€statute€from€a€constitutional€challenge.€€SectionÐ Ð  Ð922(g)(1)€is€not€a€proper€exercise€of€Congressððs€power€under€the€Commerce€Clause€and,Ð °"  Ðaccordingly,€the€ðð€922(g)€charge€should€be€dismissed€on€the€ground€that€this€unconstitutionalÐ $à" Ðstatute€does€not€confer€federal€jurisdiction€over€this€case.Ð p&À!$ ÐÐ  P( #& Ðò òòòà@HH&ìàPOINT€IIó óóóÔ‡¼F »XXÀÜԈР° ÐÔ#†¼«ÿ» »¼F½#ÔÔ‡¼«ÿ»»¼«ÿÔòòóóÓÓà8  àò òÔ#†X$X»¼«ÿ"À#ÔThe€governmentððs€evidence€is€insufficient€to€prove€that€Mr.€[Defendant]ððsÐ à Ðpossession€of€the€gun€had€a€substantial€effect€on€interstate€commerce,€in€viewÐ |Ì Ðof€the€complete€lack€of€any€evidence€that€Mr.€[Defendant]€ever€carried€theÐ h¸ Ðgun€across€state€lines€or€that€he€possessed€the€gun€in€relation€to€anyÐ T ¤ Ðcommercial€purpose€or€activity;€the€ðð€922(g)€charge€should€therefore€beÐ @  Ðdismissed€under€Fed.€R.€Crim.€Proc.€29€at€the€close€of€the€governmentððsÐ , | Ðevidence€at€trial.Ô‡îyõîXX$Ôó óÐ hÐ Ð  ÐÌÓŸÀÓÔ#†X$Xîîyõ4Ã#Ôà@55%ìàòòDiscussionóóˆÐ *z  Ðà  àAs€the€Supreme€Court€has€stated,€ð ðconstitutionally€doubtful€constructions€should€beÐ R  Ðavoided€where€possible.ðð€òòJonesóó,€120€S.€Ct.€at€1908.€€Following€this€principle,€instead€of€declaringÐ Ú*  Ððð€922(g)€unconstitutional€on€the€grounds€advanced€in€Point€I,€the€Court€could€interpret€sectionÐ ² Ð922(g)ððs€requirement€that€the€gun€be€ð ðpossess[ed]€in€or€affecting€commerceðð€as€requiring€proofÐ ŠÚ Ðthat€the€defendantððs€possession€of€the€gun€ð ðsubstantially€affectedðð€interstate€commerce,€or€at€leastÐ b² Ðthat€defendantððs€current€possession€of€the€gun€was€ð ðin€or€affectingðð€interstate€commerce.€€€UnderÐ :Š Ðthis€interpretation,€the€evidence€here€is€insufficient€because€there€is€no€evidence€that€Mr.Ð b Ð[Defendant]ððs€possession€of€the€gun€substantially€affected€interstate€commerce,€or€indeed€that€itÐ ê: Ðhad€any€effect€whatsoever€on€commerce,€whether€interstate€or€intrastate.€€The€only€evidenceÐ Â Ðregarding€the€interstate€nexus€is€that€the€gun€was€manufactured€in€[insert€where€gun€made],Ð š ê Ðreceived€by€a€[insert€history€of€gun€sale].׃×Ý ƒ+ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€There€is€no€evidence€that€the€gun€was€in€interstateÐ r"  Ðcommerce€or€affecting€commerce€in€any€way€at€the€time€Mr.€[Defendant]€had€possession€of€it€onÐ ° Ð[insert€date].€Ô#†X$XXX$zÀ#Ô€Accordingly,€under€a€constitutional€reading€of€ðð€922(g),€which€would€have€toÐ ˆØ Ðrequire€proof€that€Mr.€[Defendant]ððs€possession€of€the€gun€was€in€or€affecting€interstateÐ `° Ðcommerce,€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€sustain€the€conviction.€€The€ðð€922(g)€charge€shouldÐ 8 ˆ Ðtherefore€be€dismissed€under€Rule€29€of€the€Federal€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.Ð  ` Ðà  àThis€case€is€very€closely€analogous€to,€and€controlled€by,€the€Supreme€Courtððs€unanimousÐ è 8  Ðdecision€last€year€in€òòJonesóó.€€As€discussed€above€in€Point€I,€the€Court€in€òòJonesóó€interpreted€theÐ À  Ðfederal€arson€statute,€18€U.S.C.€ðð€844(i),€which€has€an€interstate€nexus€requirement€that€is€almostÐ ˜è  Ðidentical€to€the€requirement€in€ðð€922(g).€€€The€arson€statute€makes€it€a€federal€crime€to€damage€orÐ pÀ Ðdestroy,€ð ðby€means€of€fire€or€an€explosive,€any€...€property€used€in€interstate€or€foreign€commerceÐ H˜ Ðor€in€any€activity€affecting€interstate€or€foreign€commerce.ðð€€18€U.S.C.€ðð€844(i).€€Likewise,€theÐ  p Ðfelon„in„possession€statute€makes€it€a€crime€for€a€convicted€felon€to€ð ðpossess€in€or€affectingÐ øH Ðcommerce,€any€firearm€or€ammunition;...ðð€18€U.S.C.€ðð€922(g)(1).׃×Ý ƒ+ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€Court€in€òòJonesóó€held€thatÐ Ð  Ðthe€federal€arson€statute€could€not€apply€to€an€owner„occupied€private€residence€that€was€notÐ ¨ø Ðbeing€currently€used€for€any€commercial€purpose.€€120€S.€Ct.€at€1912.€€The€reasoning€of€òòJonesóóÐ €Ð Ðcompels€the€conclusion€that€the€ð ðpossessionðð€of€a€gun€under€ðð€922(g)(1)€must€likewise€beÐ X ¨ Ðpossession€that€currently€has€some€relationship€to€commerce.Ð 0"€  ÐÐ $X" Ðà  àThe€government€in€òòJonesóó,€like€the€government€here,€relied€ð ðon€the€breadth€of€the€statutoryÐ ° Ðterm€ððaffecting€...€commerce.ðððð€òòId.óó€at€1909.€€But€the€Court€in€òòJonesóó€noted€that€the€qualifyingÐ ˆØ Ðwords€ð ðused€inðð€commerce€affecting€activity€require€ð ðthat€the€damaged€or€destroyed€propertyÐ `° Ðmust€itself€have€been€used€in€commerce€or€in€an€activity€affecting€commerce.ðð€òòId.óó€at€1909„10Ð 8 ˆ Ð(citation€and€interior€quotations€omitted).€€Accordingly,€the€ð ðproper€inquiry€...€is€into€the€functionÐ  ` Ðof€the€building€itself,€and€then€a€determination€of€whether€that€function€affects€interstateÐ è 8  Ðcommerce.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€1910€(citation€and€interior€quotations€omitted).€€Applying€this€analysis€to€theÐ À  Ðprivate€residence€at€issue€in€òòJonesóó,€the€Court€ruled€that€it€was€insufficient€that€the€dwelling€wasÐ ˜è  Ðused€as€collateral€for€a€mortgage€from€an€out„of„state€company,€or€to€obtain€a€casualty€insuranceÐ pÀ Ðpolicy€from€an€out„of„state€insurer,€or€that€the€dwelling€received€natural€gas€from€out€of€state.€òòId.óó€òòóóÐ H˜ Ðà  àThe€felon„in„possession€statute€employs€the€word€ð ðpossessðð€instead€of€ð ðused,ðð€however€aÐ  p Ðsimilar€analysis€is€required€in€order€for€this€statute,€like€the€statute€in€òòJonesóó,€to€be€given€aÐ øH Ðconstitutional€interpretation.€€The€proper€inquiry€thus€is€whether€òòMr.€[Defendant]ððsóó€possession€ofÐ Ð  Ðthe€gun€affected€interstate€commerce€or€was€for€some€commercial€purpose.€€Unlike€òòJonesóó,€hereÐ ¨ø Ðthere€was€not€even€minimal€evidence€of€an€effect€on€commerce.€€There€was€no€evidence€that€Mr.Ð €Ð Ð[Defendant]€possessed€the€gun€as€he€crossed€state€lines,€or€that€he€possessed€it€in€connection€withÐ X ¨ Ðany€commercial€activity,€whether€interstate€or€intrastate.€€Nor€was€there€any€evidence€that€heÐ 0"€  Ðpossessed€it€while€stealing€any€goods€in€commerce,€or€that€the€gun€itself€was€an€item€inÐ $X" Ðcommerce€at€the€time€of€his€possession.Ð à%0!$ Ðà  àThe€government,€of€course,€relies€on€the€fact€that€at€some€undetermined€time€in€the€past,Ð ¸'#& Ðthe€gun€in€this€case€was€manufactured€in€[insert€where€manufactured€and€when€brought€intoÐ )à$( Ðstate].€€In€òòóóòòJonesóó,€however,€the€Supreme€Court€rejected€as€constitutionally€insufficient€the€fact€thatÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€property€had€some€ð ðpast€connection€to€commerceðð€òòid.óó,€and€the€Court€thus€interpreted€theÐ ° Ðarson€statute€there€as€covering€ð ðonly€property€òòcurrentlyóó€used€in€commerce€or€in€an€activityÐ ˆØ Ðaffecting€commerce.ðð€òòId.óó€at€1912€(emphasis€added).€òòSee€alsoóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Ryanóó,€227€F.3dÐ `° Ð1058,€1063„64€(8òòthóó€Cir.€2000)€(following€òòJonesóó€and€holding€that€although€building€defendantÐ 8 ˆ Ðburned€down€had€formerly€been€used€as€fitness€center,€and€was€about€to€be€placed€on€market€forÐ  ` Ðsale€at€time€of€fire,€building€was€not€ð ðcurrently€used€in€commerce€or€in€an€activity€affectingÐ è 8  Ðcommerceðð€at€the€time€of€the€arson,€and€therefore€was€not€covered€by€ðð€844(i));€òòUnited€States€v.Ð À  ÐGaydosóó,€108€F.3d€505€(3d€Cir.€1997)€(holding,€pre„òòJonesóó,€that€vacant,€uninhabitable€house€thatÐ ˜è  Ðwas€formerly€rented€was€not€covered€by€arson€statute).€The€plain€language€of€the€felon„in„Ð pÀ Ðpossession€statute€suggests€the€same€result,€since€it€requires€that€the€defendant€ð ðpossess€in€orÐ H˜ Ðaffecting€commerce,€any€firearm....ðð€18€U.S.C.€ðð€922(g).€€Reading€ðð€922(g)€in€light€of€òòJonesóó,€it€isÐ  p Ðthe€òòdefendantððs€currentóó€possession€of€the€gun€that€must€be€ð ðin€or€affecting€commerce,ðð€notÐ øH Ðmerely€someone€elseððs€prior€possession€of€the€gun.€€The€fact€that€some€unknown€and€unidentifiedÐ Ð  Ðperson,€at€some€point€in€the€distant€past,€carried€the€gun€across€a€state€line€simply€does€not€meanÐ ¨ø Ðthat€Mr.€[Defendant]€himself€possessed€the€gun€in€a€manner€affecting€commerce.€€Only€thisÐ €Ð Ðreading€of€the€statute€can€save€it€from€the€constitutional€objections€outlined€in€Point€I.òòóóÐ X ¨ Ðà  àThe€Court€in€òòJonesóó€cautioned€against€adopting€an€ð ðexpansive€interpretationðð€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðcommerce€clause€element€in€a€criminal€statute:Ð $X" ÐÓÓà8  àWere€we€to€adopt€the€Government's€expansive€interpretation€of€ðð€844(i),€hardly€aÐ à%0!$ Ðbuilding€in€the€land€would€fall€outside€the€federal€statute's€domain.€PracticallyÐ Ì&"% Ðevery€building€in€our€cities,€towns,€and€rural€areas€is€constructed€with€suppliesÐ ¸'#& Ðthat€have€moved€in€interstate€commerce,€served€by€utilities€that€have€an€interstateÐ ¤(ô#' Ðconnection,€financed€or€insured€by€enterprises€that€do€business€across€state€lines,Ð )à$( Ðor€bears€some€other€trace€of€interstate€commerce...€[citation€omitted]€If€suchÐ |*Ì%) Ðconnections€sufficed€to€trigger€ðð€844(i),€the€statute's€limiting€language,€"used€in"Ð h+¸&* Ðany€commerce-affecting€activity,€would€have€no€office....€[citation€omitted]Ð ° Ð"Judges€should€hesitate€...€to€treat€statutory€terms€in€any€setting€[as€surplusage],Ð œì Ðand€resistance€should€be€heightened€when€the€words€describe€an€element€of€aÐ ˆØ Ðcriminal€offense."€òòRatzlaf€v.€United€Statesóó,€510€U.S.€135,€140-141€(1994);€òòaccordóó,Ð tÄ ÐòòBailey€[v.€United€States]óó,€516€U.S.€137,€at€145€(1995).Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌòòÓÓJonesóó,€120€S.€Ct.€at€1911.€€Likewise,€the€expansive€interpretation€of€the€commerce€clauseÐ 8 ˆ Ðelement€of€ðð€922(g)€adopted€by€the€district€court€would€effectively€render€superfluous€anyÐ  ` Ðlimiting€effect€this€language€has,€especially€in€Pennsylvania.€€Virtually€all€guns€in€this€state€haveÐ è 8  Ðnecessarily€traveled€across€state€lines€at€some€point€since€Pennsylvania€itself€has€no€major€gunÐ À  Ðmanufacturers€and€only€about€three€minor€gun€manufacturers.€€òòSeeóó€Ken€Warner,€ed.,€òòGun€DigestÐ ˜è  Ð2000óó€(1999)€521„540€(Manufacturers€Directory,€listing€approximately€3,000€firearmsÐ pÀ Ðmanufacturers€world„wide).€€ò òó óThus,€to€avoid€the€unconstitutional€result€of€making€a€federal€crimeÐ H˜ Ðout€of€non„commercial€conduct€that€is€traditionally€the€subject€of€state€criminal€laws,€theÐ  p Ðcommerce€clause€element€of€ðð€922(g)€must€be€interpreted€to€require€evidence€that€the€defendantððsÐ øH Ðpossession€of€the€gun€had€some€current€relationship€to€commerce.Ð Ð  Ðà  àThe€Ninth€Circuit€recently€rejected€a€Commerce€Clause€challenge€to€a€conviction€under€ððÐ ¨ø Ð922(g)€in€òòUnited€States€v.€Jonesóó,€231€F.3d€508€(9òòthóó€Cir.€2000).€€The€court€there€distinguished€theÐ €Ð ÐSupreme€Courtððs€òòJonesóó€decision€by€arguing€that€it€merely€held€that€the€arson€statute€does€notÐ X ¨ Ðapply€to€a€private€residence€not€currently€being€used€in€commerce.€€Guns€that€have€traveledÐ 0"€  Ðthrough€interstate€commerce,€however,€are€different,€and€in€the€courtððs€view,€distinguished€fromÐ $X" Ðthe€non„economic€activity€of€arson€of€a€private€residence.€òòId.óó€at€515.€€What€the€court€failed€toÐ à%0!$ Ðrecognize,€however,€is€that€just€as€a€building,€which€in€the€past€was€used€for€commercialÐ ¸'#& Ðpurposes,€might€not€be€used€for€such€purposes€in€the€present,€so€too,€a€gun,€which€in€the€pastÐ )à$( Ðonce€traveled€across€state€lines,€might€not€in€the€present€have€any€connection€with€interstateÐ h+¸&* Ðtravel,€nor€any€commercial€purpose.€€Accordingly,€just€as€the€current€use€of€the€building€in€anÐ ° Ðarson€case€must€be€examined€to€determine€whether€the€constitutionally€required€interstate€nexusÐ ˆØ Ðexists,€so€too€the€current€possession€of€the€gun€in€a€ðð€922(g)€case€must€be€examined€to€determineÐ `° Ðwhether€this€same€nexus€exists.€€The€constitutionally€required€analysis€in€both€cases€is€thus€veryÐ 8 ˆ Ðsimilar,€and€the€Ninth€Circuitððs€efforts€to€distinguish€the€Supreme€Courtððs€decision€in€òòJonesóóÐ  ` Ðfails.׃×Ý ƒ+ÿÿÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð è 8  Ðà  àAs€noted€in€Point€I€above,€Judge€Dalzell€has€ruled€that€the€teachings€of€òòLopezóó,€òòMorrisonóó,Ð À  Ðand€òòJonesóó€do€apply€to€the€interpretation€of€ðð€922(g).€Ô‡XÀÜXXX$Ô€òòUnited€States€v.€Alfonzo€Cowardóó,€Crim.Ð ˜è  ÐNo.€00„88€(E.D.€Pa,€April€10,€2001)€(Dalzell,€J.)€(copy€of€memorandum€attached).Ô#†X$XXXÀÜ…õ#Ôòòóó€In€languageÐ ˜è Ðequally€applicable€here,€Judge€Dalzell€ruled€as€follows:Ð ˜è ÐÓÓà8  àà ` àFor€precisely€the€same€reasons€òòJonesóó€enunciated,€ðð€922(g)(1)€should€noÐ pÀ Ðlonger€be€read€with€the€òòScarboroughóó€fiction.€€That€is€to€say,€the€Supreme€Court'sÐ \¬ Ðuse€in€òòJonesóó€of€ð ðcurrently€used€in€commerce€or€in€an€activity€affecting€commerceððÐ H˜ Ðnegates€a€fiction€that€allows€the€past€to€become€the€present.€€Such€a€statutoryÐ 4„ Ðreconstruction€also€avoids€òòLopezóó„òòMorrisonóó€implications€if€it€applies€only€to€gunsÐ  p Ðand€ammunition€ð ðcurrently€used€in€commerce€or€in€an€activity€affectingÐ  \ Ðcommerceðð.€€In€short,€abandoning€the€òòScarboroughóó€fiction€allows€the€present€to€beÐ øH Ðð ðcurrentðð,€unencumbered€by€the€past.€€Ðä4Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àWe€therefore€apply€ðð€922(g)(1)€to€a€possession€case€in€a€way€that€weÐ Ð  Ðbelieve€is€faithful€to€òòLopezóó€and€òòMorrisonóó€and€allows€òòJonesóó€to€inform€theÐ ¼  Ðpossessory€prong€of€the€three€crimes€ðð€922(g)(1)€creates.€€We€do€no€more€thanÐ ¨ ø Ðthis.€[Footnote€omitted].Д!äÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àOn€this€record,€Coward's€possession€of€the€gun€was€neither€ð ðused€inÐ €"Ð  Ðcommerceðð€nor€did€it€have€any€present€or€imminent€interstate€aspect.€€It€had€noÐ ° Ðcommercial€or€transactional€context.€€His€conviction€therefore€should€not€stand,€asÐ œì Ðhe€committed€no€federal€crime.ЈØÐ Ð  ÐÌÓÓòòId.óó€at€22„23.€€(Judge€Dalzell,€nonetheless,€denied€the€defendantððs€Rule€29€motion€to€dismiss€inÐ `° Ðthat€case€because€he€believed€the€district€court€to€be€bound€by€the€Supreme€Court€decision€inÐ 8 ˆ ÐòòScarboroughóó,€and€the€Third€Circuit€decisions€in€òòGatewardóó€and€òòRodiaóó.€òòId.óó,€at€24.Ô‡X$XXX$Ô)Ð  ` Ðà  àFollowing€òòJonesóó,€therefore,€the€only€construction€of€ðð€922(g)€which€avoids€theÐ è 8  Ðconstitutional€objections€discussed€in€Point€I€is€a€construction€that€requires€proof€that€theÐ À  Ðdefendantððs€possession€of€the€gun€had€a€substantial€relationship€to€interstate€commerce.€€SinceÐ ˜è  Ðsuch€proof€is€entirely€absent€here,€the€ðð€922(g)€charge€in€this€case€should€be€dismissed€at€theÐ pÀ Ðclose€of€the€governmentððs€trial€evidence€pursuant€to€Rule€29€of€the€Federal€Rules€of€CriminalÐ H˜ ÐProcedure.Ð  p Ðà@FF%ìàò òòòCONCLUSIONóóó óˆÐ øH ÐÔ#†X$XXX$þ#Ôà  àò òWHEREFOREó ó,€for€the€reasons€stated€above,€the€Indictment€should€be€dismissed,€eitherÐ Ð  Ðbefore€trial€because€of€the€unconstitutionality€of€18€U.S.C.€ðð€922(g),€or€after€trial€based€on€theÐ ° Ðinsufficiency€of€the€governmentððs€evidence.Ð ˆØ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àRespectfully€Submitted,Ð ` ° ÐÓÓÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ $#t! Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à[ATTORNEY]Ð $`" Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Federal€DefenderÐ ü$L # Ðò òó ó