Gun Free School Zone Case Analysis

However, Lopez’s trouble did not stop here. Soon after, the Federal government petitioned for the Supreme Court to review the case, and they accepted. Attorneys for the United States contended that the law was an appropriate use of power under the interstate Commerce Clause. The government was obligated to show that Section 922 was a valid exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause, and that this section regulated a matter that affected interstate commerce. The government’s case was made up from one principle argument. They argued that the possession of a firearm in an educational environment would most likely lead to violent crimes, which, in turn, would affect the general economic condition in one of two ways: First, because violent crime causes damagers and creates expenses, it would raise insurance costs. These insurance costs would be spread

President George H.W. Bush signed the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 into law on November 29, 1990, making it a federal offense for “any individual to knowingly possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.” Subsequently, in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), the Supreme Court held that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was unconstitutional as it violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. In reaching this 5-4 Supreme Court decision, Chief Justice Rehnquist, in concurrence with Justices O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas wrote the majority opinion, correctly determining that Congress lacked authority to pass this law as, even if replicated throughout schools across the United States, the carrying of a gun to school was not a sufficient economic activity that would substantially affect interstate commerce. Contrarily, Justices Breyer, Stevens, Souter and Ginsberg dissented, opining that the Act’s prohibition against firearms in schools had a sufficient connection with interstate commerce and thus, Congress’ application of the Commerce Clause was appropriate. In finding a substantial connection between gun-related school violence and interstate commerce the minority dissenting opinion relied on evidence that gun-related violence near schools is a commercial problem that interferes with the quality of education and thus relates to economic viability, giving Congress

In order for the respondent, which was a local student at his school; to get his case dismissed he would have to prove that either he recently moved with interstate commerce or that he had some sort of tie to interstate commerce. In order for the court to uphold the respondents claim that 922(q) is justified because the possession of the firearm in a local school zone does indeed substantially influence interstate commerce, they would have to have the Supreme Court pile conjecture upon conjecture in an approach that would suggest reasonable to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police authority of the nature possessed only by the States.

Furthermore the case was updated to to the supreme court where the last decision of the fifth circuit was taken into consideration stating that the congress went beyond it powers and violated its limit under the areas of the school district. Therefore did not apply to the areas of Alfonso's Case. supreme court also claimed that gun violence in schools is dangerous and could lead to other violences and other unsafe incidents.therefore the commerce clause should be practiced as stated by the supreme court. 1995 it was it came to the decision of Alfonso's

Imagine your child was nearing high school graduation with their whole life ahead of them. Next year, they will be going to college and you will see them bloom into the wonderful person you know they are. Now imagine the horror of hearing that your child had been shot and killed while they were at school. It is difficult to fathom the enormous amount of grief and anger that would flood the body of a person in a situation like this. No one should have to endure such pain. Now imagine how much this pain would be intensified if there was a possibility that the whole incident could have been prevented.

Schools were first turned into gun-free zones in 1990 by the Gun-Free School Zones Act. However, the Supreme Court ruled this act as unconstitutional, because the U.S. Congress over used its power in enacting it. (“United States v. Lopez.") Even though, this act was not terminated

Lopez, the justices had to decide if the Gun-Free School Zones Act has an effect on interstate trade and, according to congress, intrastate commerce too. The US Government’s stand was that the absence of gun violence in schools would indirectly lead to economic growth because a greater education results in a better economy. However, it could be argued that poor economy leads to less money proportioned to schools, slowing education which results to increase in crime and gun violence. The decision of this case upholds that firearms possession does not influence education and the national economy and also still limits Congress from police powers thru the Commerce

The prohibition of concealed gun carrying in gun-free zones, such as in schools as specified in the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA, 1990), will greatly help in the prevention of crimes especially in the schools all over the U.S. According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in its November 1, 2013 report “Guns in Schools Policy Summary,” gun violence has greatly been reduced in the gun-free schools due to the presence of federal and state laws, which have resulted in fewer students carrying guns. The same report states that, on the other hand, allowing guns on gun-free school zones would likely cause more campus homicides as well as suicides, citing that studies have revealed that between 9-11% of college students have seriously considered suicide, and about 1,100 actually commit suicide every year – statistics that become more alarming when guns are allowed in campuses considering that 85% of suicide attempts using gun are fatal.

They argued that having a gun in school property affected commerce in two ways. The first was that if the gun was actually used and hurt someone it would cost money. It would not only be the hospital bills and recovery, but insurance costs would raise. These final costs would be spread throughout our economy. The second reason being that if a gun is taking to this school people would see this are as dangerous and would no longer visit it willingly. Not only this,but they also argued that bringing a gun to school also disrupted the other students as they thought of the danger this would bring and in turn they would become distracted themselves. If the students were distracted they couldn't learn and this would harm our economy because the basis

Middle Schools gets shot up by young male, former Seal shot and killed, 5 men shot and killed. It over flows the news and different people withholding different thoughts are reacting to the scenarios in different ways. If you look into the eyes of all the people that have shot up a school or are convicted of a murder, you can clearly examine the insanity lying within them. People riot the streets of the biggest cities blurting out, “Disarm all citizens” or “Ban all Guns” and these people don’t realize that the guns aren’t the reason these people are dying. The real reason behind all these killings is that there are people out there with serious health condition

It is 10 years from now and you friend are living in a nice house with a family. They are home cleaning while their husband is at work and their kids are at school. They hear someone break in and they need to protect themselves, but they do not have a gun because the government banned them. How are they going to protect themselves? The person breaking into their house will not stop and think: “Oh crap, it is against the law to break into someone’s house and hold them at gunpoint, I need to leave now”. Criminals do not follow laws. There has been a debate going on for years about whether or not we need more gun-free zones or more background checks when someone wants to buy a gun. There are people in the United States that want to amend the second amendment and there are people who want to get rid of gun-free zones. Getting rid of gun-free zones will help reduce crime in the United States and help create a safer home.

School Shootings: The Deadly Result of Teasing and Ostracism? by Georgie Ann Weatherby, Sara Strachila, and Bridget McMahon

In my post I discussed how I thought guns should not be allowed. I still liked your opinions on why you believe guns should be permitted to carry on campus. When writing my post I thought of the same exact ideas as you but I also thought that students and staff carrying around guns for protection would make some people feel uncomfortable to go to school. I also have the same opinion as you, concerning the single law to control the nation.

The second reason is, to enforce safety classes on guns instead. There are people in the world that have huge safety classes worldwide. Heidi Cifelli, Manager at the American Rifle Association says that there is a program called Eddie Eagle that promotes gun safety classes. The Eddie Eagle program has been nationwide since 1988. Over the years, there has been more than 13 million kids that have learned the Eddie Eagle Way. Cifelli also said that the best way to saves lives is to promote gun education. Not everyone has the chance to know about safety. According to Dr. Stephen Hargarten, chairmen of the Emergency Medicine at the Medical College in Wisconsin, he says that gun education is a less controversial and more direct way to teach about

December 15, 1791 Second amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of the people to bear arms. As for many people this I’ve been known for years but it was brought to my attention that I was asked today “ should guns be allowed in public places?”; such as schools, parks and malls. As I was being questioned, it took me a minute answer, I agree gun should be allowed in places but here’s my reasons why. Growing up I always seen my father protect, defend, and honored his family at any cost. So I 'm big on protection. Guns in schools should be allowed but only in the right hands, Parks are dangerous and even though your child maybe having fun and your keeping a close eye, you never know who 's watching from a far, and last but not least malls, Around a certain time there are some people who watches your closer than you know. People are dangerous in the world. I believe guns should be allowed but only in The right hands. Policemen and anyone who takes the class and passes all test should be able to their weapon wherever they please.