United States v. Roger Eugene Gresham

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an indictment under § 922(g)(1) was not required to allege a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce; an indictment which tracked the statutory language was sufficient
• finding that the “jurisdictional nexus of § 922(g)(1) may be satisfied by proof that the component part of the firearm traveled in interstate commerce, rather than the firearm itself’
• rejecting constitutionality of § 922(g) in view of Morrison and Jones. argument that movement of component parts of pipe bomb in While Morrison and Jones in their own way each reinforced interstate commerce was insufficient to sustain § 922(g)(1
• ATF agents \may base[] their testimony on . . . their personal experience in law enforcement.\
• appellate review of rulings admitting ATF expert testimony on interstate nexus are \highly deferential\
• listing essential elements of § 922(g)(1)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).