1 / 10

U. S. v LOPEZ

U. S. v LOPEZ. Argument Date: Nov. 8, 1994 Offense Date: March 10, 1992 Actual Offense Place: Edison High School in San Antonio, TX. DATE/PLACE. CENTRAL QUESTION?.

kara
Download Presentation

U. S. v LOPEZ

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. U. S. v LOPEZ

  2. Argument Date: Nov. 8, 1994 Offense Date: March 10, 1992 Actual Offense Place: Edison High School in San Antonio, TX DATE/PLACE

  3. CENTRAL QUESTION? Does the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, prohibiting persons from carrying a gun at a public, private, or parochial (church) school unconstitutional because it exceeds the authority of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause? Yes. The possession of a firearm in school zone is not an economic activity that might, through numerous repetition elsewhere, have an effect on interstate commerce.

  4. Background Information Respondent: Alfonso Lopez Jr. A 12th Grade Student from Edison High School in San Antonio, TX Carried a concealed .38 Caliber handgun & 5 Bullets Rumors grabbed the school authorities attention & confronted him. He admitted of obtaining a gun so was arrested and charged for the Gun-Free Zone Act of 1990-Federal Offense for any person that possesses a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reason to believe it is a “school zone.”

  5. Additional information Why was this a case the Supreme Court wanted to hear? The main argument was that the Act is valid because possession of a firearm in a local school zone or within 1000 feet does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce. The possession of a firearm in a school zone may result in violent crime and that violent crime can be expected to affect the functioning of the national economy in two ways.

  6. Well, 1st the costs of violent crime are substantial, and, through the mechanism of insurance, those costs are spread throughout the population. 2nd, violent crime reduces the willingness of individuals to travel to areas within the country that are perceived to be unsafe. Also the presence of guns in schools poses a substantial threat to the educational process by threatening the learning environment. Basically, the government is looking out for the best interest of the good people; safety, and whether they are comfortable in their educational setting. A gun in a school zone is a big deal, and should be taken seriously because it does affect all of us.

  7. CONCLUSION: The decision of the court on April 16, 1995 was a 5 to 4; Rehnquist delivered the ruling to the court. He said that Lopez didn't have to serve time because the Gun Free School Zones Act was unconstitutional. Since this case, their hasn't been other cases that have made it to the Supreme Court.

  8. It overthrew the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 which made it a federal offense for anyone who possess a firearm at a place of a school zone. This changed things a little, but only for those who decide to bring a firearm to a school zone. The court decided that it didn't say anything concerning interstate commerce, so the act shouldn't apply.

  9. REFLECTION: In my point of view the Gun Free Zone Act should have not reached the Supreme Court or let them decide on it because it combined 2 different things into one. It actually overthrew the Act itself by dismissing it just made it more seemingly that any individual can carry a handgun. The law is the law and I say he just got away with murder. Now what if he had done damages in school would that have changed the Courts decision?

  10. reflection I just think that at times something really bad has to happened for the law to pay attention to its surroundings. The safety should have been a great factor to this case and wasn’t even considered. Its just shows you how the law works in mysterious ways.

More Related