While there is some language in Morrison and Jones which can be read to lend support to defendant’s argument, this Court concludes that § 922(g)(1) is not unconstitutional on its face. It is clear that Congress has the authority to regulate that which is “ship[ped] or transport[ed] in interstate or foreign commerce.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Both Lopez and Morrison involved questions concerning the power of Congress to regulate activities substantially affecting interstate commerce. Dorris, 236 F. 3d at 586. Section 922(g)(1) regulates the possession of goods moved in interstate commerce. Further, the jurisdictional element – “in or affecting” – puts the felon-in-possession statute into a different category of analysis than the laws considered in Lopez and Morrison.