Mendez

MEMORANDUM ***

Marcus Mendez appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1). We affirm.

Mendez argues that the government failed to satisfy the jurisdictional element of § 922(g)(1). He asserts that the firearm’s movement in interstate commerce eight years prior to Mendez’s possession of it is an insufficient connection to interstate commerce to confer jurisdiction. However, the plain text of § 922(g)(1) does not require, and we have never held, that a firearm must have recently moved in or recently affected interstate commerce in order to meet the jurisdictional element of § 922(g)(1). See United States v. Rousseau, 257 F.3d 925, 933 (9th Cir.2001) (noting the movement of firearms across state lines prior to a felon’s possession of them without reference to dates). Our holding that “a past connection to interstate commerce is sufficient” does not require a recently past connection. Id.

Mendez also argues that the possession of a firearm is not economic activity, and therefore, under the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 , 115 S.Ct. 1624 , 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995); United States v.…