Can the government establish the interstate commerce element in a § 922(g) prosecution under the minimal nexus standard by only providing evidence that the firearm traveled across state lines at some point prior to the actual possession of the firearm, or has Lopez effectively overruled Scarborough requiring a substantial nexus standard?

question presented is: Can the government establish the interstate commerce element in a § 922(g) prosecution under the minimal nexus standard by only providing evidence that the firearm traveled across state lines at some point prior to the actual possession of the firearm, or has Lopez effectively overruled Scarborough requiring a substantial nexus standard? IL. A stipulation may be used to provide factual support for the interstate commerce jurisdictional element under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The questions presented are: Can the government establish the interstate commerce jurisdictional element in a § 922(g) prosecution using a stipulation signed by the defendant who later objected to that stipulation on the basis that he had been coerced into signing it? Is it proper for the government or the district court to tell the jury that an element has been met based on the stipulation to a fact in support of the element, or does that invade the province of the jury? i