Arnett Jackson Bonner has multiple felony convictions. This means he cannot possess a firearm. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), convicted felons may not "possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce." Because almost all firearms have been shipped or transported across state lines, this operates as a ban on firearm possession. Is this prohibition constitutional?
Current Supreme Court precedent provides that the federal government is one of limited and enumerated powers, and that the federal government's most expansive powers--to regulate commerce among the several states--is not a plenary power to regulate anything and everything, even when supplemented with the Necessary and Proper Clause. On this basis, in United States v. Lopez, the Court held that a prohibition on possessing guns in schools exceeded Congress' power to regulate commerce (even though the defendant in that case was facilitating a commercial transaction).
Statutes such as § 922(g)(1) seek to satisfy Lopez by including a jurisdictional element--in this case a requirement that the possession be "in or affecting commerce" or that the gun received crossed state lines--so as not to exceed the scope of the commerce power. But is it that easy? Jurisdictional elements written so broadly would seem to make a mockery of the idea that Congress' powers are limited and enumerated.
