AND · 18usc922:commerce-possession
Exact element source
possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunitionSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec922; Unicode character offsets [17966:18025] (end exclusive); SHA-256 69d6082896652ca704d8da56c0a01daa1d10b51846206764bf1140610c756b65.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| affecting-commerce/unrecovered-firearm-no-proof-of-out-of-state-manufacture | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/697/0592-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2012 — comparator/merits | |
| categorical-match/state-offense-lacks-jurisdictional-element | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/592/0681-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2009 — comparator/merits | |
| prior-interstate-movement/crossed-state-line-before-possession | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/481/0882-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007 — rule-announced/merits | |
| prior-interstate-travel/uncontested-on-appeal | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/57/0516-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995 — satisfied | |
| Unspecified variant | No variant assigned in the database. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 3 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/41/0025-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1994 — applied/merits; /f3d/422/0207-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2005 — applied/merits; /f4th/142/308 — Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2025 — applied/procedural |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/41/0025-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1994 | Possession in or affecting commerce | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (g)(1) Not mentioned anywhere in the opinion. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/422/0207-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2005 | Possession in or affecting commerce | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (g)(1) An interstate-nexus expert testified that 14 of the 15 recovered guns affected interstate commerce; not contested or discussed on appeal. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/481/0882-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007 | Possession in or affecting commerce | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (g)(1) Jury-instruction review only (abuse of discretion): the requested "affected commerce" / substantial-effect instruction was properly refused. The opinion states no evidence about where the gun was made or travelled and does not review sufficiency on this element. | prior-interstate-movement/crossed-state-line-before-possession | The district court instructed the jury that the government must prove that the firearm in question had traveled in interstate commerce prior to Nance’s possession of it and that this fact could be proven by showing that prior to the date of the crime the firearm had crossed a state line.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_481.jsonl#/f3d/481/0882-01; Unicode character offsets [3871:4159] (end exclusive); SHA-256 03ea3428cc10720ce0c1777ddb67462d58fc71540e14a484244981dc79beed2f.The jury was not required to find that the firearm had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_481.jsonl#/f3d/481/0882-01; Unicode character offsets [4388:4487] (end exclusive); SHA-256 03ea3428cc10720ce0c1777ddb67462d58fc71540e14a484244981dc79beed2f.Rather, the instruction given was sufficient to establish an interstate nexus.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_481.jsonl#/f3d/481/0882-01; Unicode character offsets [4553:4631] (end exclusive); SHA-256 03ea3428cc10720ce0c1777ddb67462d58fc71540e14a484244981dc79beed2f. |
| /f3d/57/0516-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995 | Possession in or affecting commerce | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (g)(1) "Third element", expressly not contested (see the held line under status.g1); no facts given. CAVEAT: rests on that single uncontested sentence; the opinion says nothing about the firearms' origin or movement - thin as authority on what satisfies the commerce nexus. | prior-interstate-travel/uncontested-on-appeal | (3) that the firearm had traveled in or affected interstate commerce.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_57.jsonl#/f3d/57/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [6721:6790] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a7a3d46a84cc2303b7c7dbcb7479d9ff89a79dde3020c53fd81a6149a8c41cb5. |
| /f3d/592/0681-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2009 | Possession in or affecting commerce | not_reached Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits claim: (g)(1); count: Texas offense of conviction, Tex. Penal Code 46.04(a); theory: categorical comparison of the state offense to 922(g)(1): the jurisdictional element is disregarded; subject: count=Texas offense of conviction, Tex. Penal Code 46.04(a); theory=categorical comparison of the state offense to 922(g)(1): the jurisdictional element is disregarded REAL RULING: a construction of the INA phrase "described in" (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii)) - the 922(g)(1) commerce element is merely jurisdictional and is disregarded in the comparison, so a state offense need not have it. That the Texas offense has no commerce element was undisputed (the fact line), but the court does not hold the commerce element unsatisfied or failed; it holds the mismatch irrelevant, and the Government prevailed. Nothing is decided about any firearm's movement in commerce; hence not-reached. | categorical-match/state-offense-lacks-jurisdictional-element | Specifically, he argued that his conviction under TPC § 46.04(a) was not an aggravated felony as “described in” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) because TPC § 46.04(a) did not contain an interstate commerce element, whereas § 922(g)(1) did.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_592.jsonl#/f3d/592/0681-01; Unicode character offsets [2193:2422] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43af4e91a7ab3d7b0cad29056b92bb9e454fbd4cf5c3cd0f3ae4ce572c98f62f.Because § 922(g)(l)’s interstate commerce element is simply an element that ensures federal jurisdiction, finding that such an element is necessary for a state offense to be one that is “described in” § 922(g)(1) would undermine Congress’s evident intent that jurisdiction be disregarded in applying this definition of “aggravated felony.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_592.jsonl#/f3d/592/0681-01; Unicode character offsets [6755:7094] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43af4e91a7ab3d7b0cad29056b92bb9e454fbd4cf5c3cd0f3ae4ce572c98f62f.We hold that state felon-in-possession offenses, such as TPC § 46.04(a), need not have an interstate commerce element in order for the offense to be an offense “described in” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_592.jsonl#/f3d/592/0681-01; Unicode character offsets [3279:3476] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43af4e91a7ab3d7b0cad29056b92bb9e454fbd4cf5c3cd0f3ae4ce572c98f62f. |
| /f3d/697/0592-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2012 | Possession in or affecting commerce | not_reached Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits claim: (g); theory: contrast between the commerce effect of producing a fake driver's licence (1028(c)(3)(A)) and of possessing a firearm (922(g), Groves); subject: theory=contrast between the commerce effect of producing a fake driver's licence (1028(c)(3)(A)) and of possessing a firearm (922(g), Groves) The court describes its own earlier 922(g) decision (Groves: gun never recovered, so no manufacture/travel proof; a chain of downstream social effects of the possession is too tenuous to show the commerce element) only to say that the fake-licence production here is different. Nothing about this defendant is a 922(g) fact. The third rule line (quoted from Sarraj, "in another context") states that a commerce nexus needs no knowledge; it is applied here to 1028, not to 922(g). | affecting-commerce/unrecovered-firearm-no-proof-of-out-of-state-manufacture | The firearm in question was never recovered, so the government could not prove that it was manufactured outside the state and therefore had previously traveled in interstate commerce.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_697.jsonl#/f3d/697/0592-01; Unicode character offsets [29456:29639] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ae413cd04796506aa44ba7632be5a6ba3a7c81931e7aad16254f606d50ea5593.When it comes to evaluating the effect on interstate commerce, however, producing a fraudulent driver’s license is not analogous to possessing a firearm, the offense at issue in Groves.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_697.jsonl#/f3d/697/0592-01; Unicode character offsets [30561:30746] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ae413cd04796506aa44ba7632be5a6ba3a7c81931e7aad16254f606d50ea5593.interstate nexus requirement is a factual predicate, not a mens rea element of the crime that would require proof of defendant’s knowledge of facts supporting the nexus.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_697.jsonl#/f3d/697/0592-01; Unicode character offsets [25857:26026] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ae413cd04796506aa44ba7632be5a6ba3a7c81931e7aad16254f606d50ea5593. |
| /f4th/142/308 — Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2025 | Possession in or affecting commerce | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural claim: (g)(1) Footnote 2 only: a Commerce Clause challenge to (g)(1) (and the facial Second Amendment challenge) is acknowledged by the defendant to be foreclosed by circuit precedent. A constitutional attack on the statute, not a ruling on the nexus element; no evidence about the gun's origin is stated. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
We have also rejected as-applied challenges to § 922(g), holding that the government demonstrates the required “minimal nexus” to interstate commerce when it proves that the firearms were manufactured outside the state where the offense took place and, thus, necessarily traveled in interstate commerce.
We have also rejected as-applied challenges to § 922(g), holding that the government demonstrates the required “minimal nexus” to interstate commerce when it proves that the firearms were manufactured outside the state where the offense took place and, thus, necessarily traveled in interstate commerce.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/1270; Unicode character offsets [42908:43211] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b8b80de26c39b50ccedb80ca27826928865da03a12ce33eb0778a95b6a7d60ea.not-required
Knowledge of the interstate-commerce nexus; Rehaif distinguishes this jurisdictional element from conduct and status (official opinion, pp. 4-5; NOTES).
No source quotation recorded.