United States v. Lopez - Essay Example

United s v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) Introduction Today when society is embedded with violence it is seen that homicides are a major cause ofdeaths, and firearms are causes of most deaths. Moreover, there has been an increase in juvenile getting involved in murders with firearms as murder weapon. There are many reasons attributed to students who carry handguns in school. Since individual risk factors play a big role, therefore many students carry handguns for self-protection. Racism and gender also are contributing factors, as it has been seen that black students are more likely to carry weapons in schools than white students, and boys are more inclined to possess firearms compared to girls.

Since, presence of guns in school can be lead to violence and crime, therefore the federal government has established Gun-Free School Zones Act in 1990. According to this Act, guns are prohibited “within a school, on school property, or within a set distance of school property” (Federal Law on Guns in Schools, 2012). United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) Background In March 1992, a Texan Alfonso Lopez Jr. who was only eighteen years of age was caught by school authorities when he was bearing a 38-cal.

handgun within his school premises. His excuse was that the gun was given to him by a classmate and he was supposed to deliver it to someone else. However, he soon got entangled in the web of law. He lacked the funds to hire a competent lawyer nor did he have enough money to grant himself bail (Fedarko, 2001). The reason that he was apprehended was that he had violated the Gun-Free School Zones Act passed by the Congress in 1990 which claimed that it was against the law for any person who deliberately possesses a firearm at a place that he is fully aware or has a valid reason to believe is a school.

Any kind of violation of this Act could lead an individual to a six month prison sentence (United States v. Lopez – Case Brief Summary, 2013). Evidence Initially, Alfonso’s case was weak, and since he was financially inept to hire a competent lawyer, he was provided a state appointed defense attorney, Jack Carter. The argument that was set forward by the government was that possession of firearms in schools can result in violent criminal activities, and this can affect the nation’s economy.

This is because violent crimes will increase the number of trial cases thus adding to the national cost, since such costs are not borne locally. Secondly, possession of guns in schools can instill fear in the minds of young students and this can divert their attention from studies. This will lead to poor development of creative citizens, and this can cripple the future economy of the country (Prestel, n.d.). In the last moment when the verdict of the case was about to be announced, Carter claimed that his client had indeed violated the federal law that prohibited possession of any kinds of firearms within school premises.

However, Carter argued that the law in essence was wrong (Fedorko, 2001). Initial decision The clause of the Gun-Free School Zones Act that prohibited possession of firearms within school premises or within 1,000 ft. of a school falls under section 922(q). Alphonso’s appeal to dismiss the case was rejected by the District Court on the grounds that s 922(q) is a “constitutional exercise of Congress’ power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce” (United States v. Lopez, 2013).

Going against this decision of the court, it was held by the Court of Appeals that there was not enough “congressional findings and legislative history” (United States v. Lopez, 2013) to indict the defendant. The appellant court held that s 922(q) is invalid in Alfonso’s case since according to this section, Congress has limited power under the Commerce clause. It was upheld that that Act goes beyond that parameters set by the Congress’ Commerce Clause Authority (United States v. Lopez, 2013).

Under the Commerce Clause, the Congress has the authority “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes” (Commerce Clause, 2013). Supreme Court decision In the case of United States v. Lopez, the Supreme Court ruled that “Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause when it passed a law prohibiting gun possession in local school zones” (McBride, 2006). The government’s claim that possession of guns in school can have negative impact on the general economy of a nation has been rejected by the Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

According to Rehnquist, if Congress is allowed to regulate such cases that practically have no economic issues, then there will be no rational limits to Congressional regulatory authority (Prestel, n.d.). According to Rehnquist, Congress’s regulatory authority was limited to three avenues: any elements of commerce, channels of commerce, and activities that have any major impact on interstate commerce. As such, possession of guns in school has no economic connection since by repetition of such action elsewhere will not “affect any sort of interstate commerce” (McBride, 2006).

Therefore, as per Supreme Court’s judgement, the Gun-Free School Zones Act did not fall under the norms of the constitution and as such it liberated Alphonso from criminal conviction. The New Deal In the years before the implementation of New Deal, the Supreme Court accepted the literal version of the Commerce Clause, which means Congress’ authority is limited only to regulation of purchase and sales of good among states, and also transportation of goods from one state to the other. The clause did not include manufacture of goods even if such manufacturing activities are directly related to interstate commerce.

However, since the late 1930s, the Supreme Court brought manufacture of goods under the Commerce Clause that brought under its jurisdiction any products that had any major impact on interstate commerce (McBride, 2006). It is because of this rule of Supreme Court, the government indicted Alfonso on the grounds that handguns can cripple the future economy of the country. Conclusion This case highlighted the responsibility of the Court in implementing legal protections against federal infringement on state rule.

The verdict in this case plays major role in cases where federal government is setting parameters to private activities. Arguments are still on about its potential effects on the other existing federal laws associated with the Commerce Clause. Following the Lopez case, the Gun-Free School Zones Act has been rewritten, and this revised version is currently valid in the U.S. References Commerce Clause (2013), Cornell, retrieved on November 24, 2013 from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause Fedarko, K. (2001), A Gun Ban is Shot Down, Time Magazine, retrieved on November 24, 2013 from: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,134119,00.

html Federal Law on Guns in Schools (2012), smartgunlaws, retrieved on November 24, 2013 from: http://smartgunlaws.org/federal-law-on-guns-in-schools/ McBride, A. (2006), Landmark Cases: United States v. Lopez, retrieved on November 24, 2013 from: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/landmark_us.html Prestel, C. (n.d.), United States v. Lopez – Summary, retrieved on November 24, 2013 from: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/archived_content/events/vaw/readings/lopezsummary.html United States v.

Lopez (2013), Cornell, retrieved on November 24, 2013 from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0514_0549_ZS.html United States v. Lopez – Case Brief Summary (2013), lawnix, retrieved on November 24, 2013 from: http://www.lawnix.com/cases/united-states-lopez.html