United States v. Reginald Irish, No. 06-4082 (8th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. Second Amendment does not bar laws prohibiting felons from possessing firearms; 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(g) is a constitutional exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause powers.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 06-4082 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Reginald Irish, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: July 30, 2008 Filed: July 31, 2008 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges ___________ PER CURIAM. Reginald Irish pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยงยง 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The district court1 sentenced Irish to 77 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, Irish s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Irish has filed three pro se briefs. For the following reasons, we reject the arguments that they have raised. 1 The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. First, the Second Amendment does not bar laws prohibiting felons from possessing firearms. See Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2816-17 (2008). Second, Congress did not exceed its authority or violate the Commerce Clause when it enacted section 922(g). See United States v. Hill, 386 F.3d 855, 859 (8th Cir. 2004); United States v. Shepherd, 284 F.3d 965, 969 (8th Cir. 2002). Third, general federal criminal laws like section 922(g) apply nationwide. See Lewis v. United States, 523 U.S. 155, 171 (1998). Last, the required nexus between a firearm and commerce is established by showing that the firearm at one time traveled in interstate commerce. See United States v. Leathers, 354 F.3d 955, 959 (8th Cir. 2004). After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues. We grant counsel s motion to withdraw, and deny Irish s motions for appointment of new counsel and for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum. The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
