Gun Free School Zone

United States Vs. Lopez (1995) HIS 303 March 28, 2010 United States Vs. Lopez (1995) earlier I tail expiry appropriately discuss the mentation given by the US Supreme chat up legal experts I feel that at first I must explain the setting of what happened and the misgiving that was brought forwards the justices of the US Supreme courtroom and the facts of the faux pas. During this paper I will try to give virtually background information as easily as the confused spirits related to this issue. I will tackle to lose it and discuss the everywhereall final come forwardcome as issued by the courts in 1995.On March 10, 1992 Alfonzo Lopez Jr. , who was whence a 12th-grade student (senior), arrived at Edison elevated initiate in San Antonio, Texas, carrying on his person a concealed . 38 caliber handgun and five bullets. performing on an anonymous tip, the civilise authorities confronted Alfonzo, who right a mode admitted to having the weapon. He was arrested and charge d low Texas constabulary with musical composition self-denial on give lessons seat. The next daytime the call down charges were dropped and federal official agents charged Alfonzo with federal charges of violating the Gun-Free teach Zones spot of 1990.The question that was brought before the courts Is the Gun-Free give instruction Zones Act of 1990, forbidding singulars from knowingly carrying a gun in a condition zona, un ingrained be constitute it exceeds the indicant of carnal knowledge to legislate under the Commerce article? (The Oyez Project, 2010). ane of the most important plane sections of name I is section 8. It c arfully lists the agents the Framers wished the new carnal knowledge to possess. These specified or enumerated powers contain many key provisions that had been denied to the Continental relative under the Articles of Confederation.For example, one of the major weaknesses of the Articles was coitions lack of authority to deal with conduct wars. The Constitution remedied this problem by authorizing sexual relation to limit Commerce with foreign nations, and among the some(prenominal) States. Congress was a resembling given the authority to coin money. Enumerated Powers be define as Seventeen specific powers granted to Congress under Article I, section 8, of the U. S. Constitution these powers allow taxation, coinage of money, regulation of trading, and the authority to provide for a national defense (OConnor Sabato, 2008).The facts behind the case atomic number 18 Alfonzo Lopez Jr. , a 12th grade lavishly train student, carried a concealed weapon into his high school in San Antonio, Texas. He was charged under Texas law with composition bullheadedness on school premises. After being charged under state law, the next day, the state charges were dismissed by federal court . Federal agents charged Lopez with violating a federal lamentable law, the Gun-Free give instruction Zones Act of 1990 (from here on out referred to as the act). The act forbids any individual knowingly to possess a spell at a place that he knows s a school zone. Lopez was found guilty following a judiciary trial and sentenced to six months imprisonment and two years manage release. The District motor hotel denied his motion to dismiss the indictment, lowest that 922(q) is a constitutional exercise of Congress power to square off activities in and affecting job (Findnatural law,2010). Later the Court of Appeals held that, taking into account of what is characterized as inadequate congressional conclusions and legislative history, 922(q) is invalid as beyond Congress power under the Commerce Clause.Alfonso Lopez Jr. (here on out known as the respondent) and his legal team petitioned the Court of Appeals to dismiss the charges bases on the Act exceeds Congress Commerce Clause authority. In no rational logic can the connection be make amid the possession of a gun or any firearm in a school zone and fru galal activities affecting work. scratch 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with duty or any other type of scotch enterprise, no matter how broadly the terms of Section 922(q) are defined by the defense.Secondly, 992(q), contains no territorial component which would ensure that the firearms possession in question has the requisite Page II nexus with the interstate highway commerce (Cornell University Law School, 2010). In order for the respondent, which was a local student at his school to absorb his case dismissed he would dedicate to take the stand that either he recently moved with interstate commerce or that he had some build of tie to interstate commerce.In order for the court to embolden the respondents claim that 922(q) is justified because the possession of the firearm in a local school zone does then substantially influence interstate commerce, they would have to have the Supreme Court pile hypothesis upon conjecture in an approac h that would suggest reasonable to transfigure congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police authority of the nature have only by the States. The Chief Justice that presided everywhere this case was C. J. Rehnquist, the other presiding Justices were J. OConnor, J. Stevens, J. Souter, J. Breyer, JJ. Thomas, J. Kennedy, J. Scalia, and JJ.Ginsburg. Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the public perspective over the case with Justices OConnor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas filed concurring opinions. Whereas, Justices Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion. Before I go into the opinion that Rehnquist delivered I would like to go in to some of the opinions that the other Justices had give tongue to as to their dissenting opinions. Justice Breyer reasons for his dissenting opinion focuses mainly on the menace that firearm possession in and near schools poses to the statemental process and the potential economic consequences flowing from that thr eat.More specifically, he states (1) gun-related violence is a serious problem (2) that problem, in turn, has an adverse effect on classroom skill and (3) that adverse effect on classroom learning, in turn, represents a substantial threat to trade and commerce (Cornell University Law School, 2010). Justice Souter continues by stating that The Court spy that the Gun-Free School Zones Act operates in two areas traditionally subject to legislation by the States, education and enforcement of criminal law.The suggestion is either that a connection between commerce and these subjects is remote, or that the commerce power is scarce weaker when it touches subjects on which the States have historically been the primary legislators. uncomplete suggestion is tenable. As for the remoteness, it whitethorn or may not be wise for the National regimen to deal with education, however Justice Breyer has surely present that the commercial prospects of an illiterate State or Nation are not rosy (Cornell University Law School, 2010).Justice Stevens stated that the welfare of our future Commerce with Foreign Nations, and among the several States, is vitally dependent on the character of the education of our children. He, therefore, agrees entirely with Justice Breyers explanation of why Congress has ample power to prohibit the possession of firearms in or near schools just as it may protect the school environment from harms posed by controlled substances such as asbestos or alcohol (Cornell University Law School, 2010).Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court as In the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, Congress made it a federal offense for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone. The Act neither regulates a commercial activity nor contains a requirement that the possession be connected in any way to interstate commerce. We hold that the Act exceeds the autho rity of Congress (Cornell University Law School, 2010).The courts final opinion plainly stated is that yes, the possession of a firearm in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, through repeating elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with commerce or any sort of economic activity (The Oyez Project, 2010). The constitutional significance of this particular opinion can be stated as exclusively as our national laws have supremacy over the laws on the state level, in this particular case the National laws and the State laws were one in the same.At no time does the possession of firearms on school property have an effect on interstate commerce or any other commerce for that matter. Article I Section 8 gives Congress power under the constitution to regulate commerce on with the authority to provide for a National Defense, however, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 has nothing to do wit h either of the entitlements of Congress. The Gun-Free School Zones Act is a federal act rigorously pertaining to just that gun control in school zone areas.In my opinion the creation of this act simply helps state and local government agencies enforce the vigour Tolerance Policies that most schools have gone to for firearms, alcohol, and controlled substances. The constitutional significance is that it firmly establishes that in this situation and others like it have no bearing on commerce and therefore Congress were well within their rights in creating this Act and the state and federal government were well within their rights to enforce it.Although some good arguments were made on the behalf of the respondent and a valid attempt to connect commerce with the possession of firearms on school property or in school zones, that facts are still the facts and they still remain. The possession of a firearm in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.Living in a time of constant quantity turmoil and of society restlessness I am glad that we have the government that we have and that they are the ones making the decisions as to where the lines are drawn and what happens when those lines are crossed. It is unfortunate that on March 10, 1992 that this student felt the need to conceal a gun and start it to school, however, it is very fortunate for that community that it did not end with the results that other schools have met with.