Following Lopez, Congress reenacted the GFSZA, which now reads that "[i]t shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce, at a place the individual knows or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." Jeremy is charged with violating the statute by bringing a gun to school to sell to another student. At trial, the U.S. Attorney presents evidence that the gun Jeremy possessed was manufactured out of state and crossed state lines before being purchased by Jeremy's father, from whom Jeremy had stolen it. Jeremy is convicted. He appeals his conviction, arguing that under Lopez, Congress lacks authority to criminalize mere possession. Would a reviewing court likely reverse his conviction? Group of answer choices No, because his possession substantially affects interstate commerce. Yes, because possession is not economic activity. No, because Congress may regulate things that move in interstate commerce. Yes, because permitting Congress to regulate things simply because they travel in interstate commerce would mean no practical limit on its commerce power