argue that this .court in United States v. Medjuck, 48 F.3d 1107, 1110 (9th Cir.1995), held that the nexus requirement is an element of the offense. This argument misconstrues Medjuck. In Medjuck we held that the government has the burden of proving nexus and that a defendant should have an opportunity to rebut the government’s proof. Id. at 1111. We did not require that the jury decide nexus. Our use of terms may have created confusion, however, because we labelled the jurisdiction requirement “statutory” jurisdiction and the nexus requirement “constitutional” jurisdiction. Id. at 1110. In an unrelated case, this led us to incorrectly conflate these two requirements and opine, in dicta, that the jury must determine nexus. United States v. Amparo, 68 F.3d 1222, 1226 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1164, 116 S.Ct. 1055,
holding that possession of a weapon is not in an of itself a crime holding possession of an unregistered firearm is presumptive evidence of unlawful violent intentions and therefore involves the substantial risk of violence necessary to label the possession a crime of violence holding that theft from the person is not a crime of violence holding that possession of a sawed off shotgun is a crime of violence holding that for purposes of  4b12 possession of a sawedoff shotgun in violation of  5861d is a crime of violence because by its very nature a sawedoff shotgun always creates a serious risk of physical injury to another