Jury instruction requiring showing of effect on interstate commerce is inappropriate when jurisdictional element is interstate travel of firearm
United States v. Urbano,
No. 08-3147, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. Apr. 29, 2009)(Kansas).
Appeal of conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
HELD: Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) does not require an individual showing of an effect on interstate commerce. All that is necessary is proof the firearm has traveled across state lines in the past. Consequently, in felon-in-possession firearms cases brought under § 922(g)(1), when government’s only evidence on jurisdictional element is interstate travel of weapon, district courts should not give Tenth Circuit Pattern Criminal Jury Instruction 1.39, which requires a showing of some effect on interstate commerce.
Read the opinion here.