Is possession in the home possession under 18 USC 922?

[bushmaster1313]

18 USC 922 prohibits certain people to

possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition

Does this include possesion in the home?

There should be some examples of this

 

[NavyLCDR]

Yes. See WICKARD v. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111 (1942):

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=317&invol=111

The Federal government will find a way to determine that anything and everything affects interstate commerce to establish their "authority" to regulate anything they want to, anywhere they want to.

For example:
A felon is in possession of a firearm. The Federal government would say that by that felon keeping the firearm in their home, rather than disposing of the firearm to an FFL, they are keeping that firearm "illegally" off the free market, thereby reducing the supply of firearms to the free market, thereby affecting interstate commerce, and they will use WICKARD v. FILBURN as a citation.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Here is a district court case that addressed the issue:

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/01D0561P.pdf

Operative holding is as follows:

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.

Looks like the felon in possession statute has been held constitutional, at least before Heller and McDonald.

However, it seems wrong and I wonder if it will be directly addressed.

The magic incantation of "in interstate commerce" should not turn a facially unconstitutional statute into one that passes muster.