Today in Supreme Court History: April 26, 1995

4/26/1995: U.S. v. Lopez decided.

Comments

[apedad]

A win for the folks who think the feds overstep the Commerce Clause.

Facts of the case
Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th grade high school student, carried a concealed weapon into his San Antonio, Texas high school. He was charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating a federal criminal statute, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The act forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows...is a school zone." Lopez was found guilty following a bench trial and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and two years' supervised release.

Question
Is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, forbidding individuals from knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone, unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause?

Conclusion

5 - 4. Yes. The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, through repetition 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.

(oyez)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Overruled, sub silencio, Katzenback v. McClung, 379 U.S. 264 (1964). Where do you think the guns came from?

[defaultdotxbe]

Not really, as the original act did not require the guns had moved in interstate commerce. Following this case the law amended with the appropriate hook and has stood ever since.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Another potential roar that turned into a whimper. Heller and McDonald might go down in the same bucket depending on what the court does with the New York case (even then should not have taken 15 years to hear such an obvious follow up).

Leftists who complain about "right wing" court decisions ought to be happy they don't actually get more of the same. A solid originalist decision does nothing but collect dust in the Federal Reporter, its impact limited to law review articles and perhaps people involved directly in that case.