S.Ct., at 523, that [subsection 1202(a) ], directed to a receipt of any firearm “in commerce or affecting commerce,” requires only a showing that the firearm received previously traveled in interstate commerce, but that [subsection 922(h) ], relating to a receipt of any firearm “which has been shipped or transported in interstate ... commerce,” is limited to the receipt of the firearm as part of an interstate movement, would be inconsistent construc tion of sections of the same Act and, indeed, would be downgrading the stronger language and upgrading the weaker. We conclude that § 922(h) covers the intrastate receipt, such as petitioner’s purchase here, of a firearm that previously had moved in interstate commerce. Id. at 224-25, 96 S.Ct. at 504—05; see also Lopez, 2 F.3d at 1347 n. 8 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Legrand (unpublished
recognizing scarborough holding that commerce nexus satisfied upon showing that possessed firearm had traveled at some time in interstate commerce recognizing that  the interstate nexus requirement is satisfied by proof of a probable or potential impact on interstate commerce holding  922g is not unconstitutional as applied to a defendant who possessed a firearm only intrastate when the government demonstrated that the firearm moved in interstate commerce recognizing barrett holding that nexus requirement for receipt violation under subsection 922h satisfied so long as the firearm has previously moved in interstate commerce holding that conviction for possession of ammunition by a convicted felon in violation of 18 usc  922g is valid under the commerce clause as long as the ammunition had previously moved in interstate commerce even though the possession did not have a substantial affect on same