U.S. v. Lopez
514 U.S. 549 (1995), Vote of 5 to 4, Rehnquist for the court.
Congress in 1990 enacted the Gun-Free School Zone Act, making it a federal offence to possess a firearm in a school zone. Congress relied on the authority of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to justify passage of legislation as a way of stemming the rising tide of gun related incidents in public schools.
In 1992 Alfonso Lopez, Jr. was a senior at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas. Acting on an anonymous tip, school authorities confronted Lopez and discovered that he was carrying a .38 caliber handgun and five bullets. A federal grand jury subsequently indicted Lopez, who then moved to have the indictment dismissed on grounds that the federal government had no authority to legislate control over the public schools. At a bench trial, the federal district court judge found Lopez guilty and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment and two years’ supervised release. Lopez then appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the conviction and held the Gun-Free School Zone Act unconstitutional as an invalid exercise dy congress of the commerce power.
The Lopez case posed the question of the extent to which Congress could exercise authority over street crime and, in so doing, intrude into constitutional space traditionally occupied by the states. Since the New Deal of the 1930’s, the Supreme Court had accepted that Congress had broad authority to regulate virtually every aspect of American life under the cover of the federal Commerce Clause. Moreover, the bombing of the federal office building in Okalahoma City, while it had occurred after the passage of the Gun-Free School Zone Act, created a political environment where the Clinton administration and the Republican congressional leaders believed that the federal government had to combat domestic terrorist groups and the weapons that they used.
The case drew considerable attention from diverse interest groups. The National Education Association, for example, joined with the Clinton administration and various antigun groups to argue that schools had experienced difficulty in handling gun related crimes. Soliciter General Drew S. Days argued that the law was different from other statutes dealing with firearms in that it targeted possession rather than sale. Yet Days also insisted that a close connection existed between violence in schools and the movement of guns in interstate commerce. The government insisted that guns were often used as part of the drug culture that was itself carried on through national commerce.
In “Stop Worrying About Guns in the Classroom. They’re Already here.” the author, Erik Gilbert, argues in favor of the law allowing the concealed carry of firearms in college campuses. Gilbert claims that it’s futile to be “worried by the prospect of having guns in [the] classroom” because he believes that even before the bill was passed, some students and faculty were already carrying firearms to campus (Gilbert). Furthermore, he insinuates that despite the presence of firearms, there were no incidents of student or faculty causing harm. To support his argument, the author provides incidents which have occurred over the last decade at his campus, such as accidental discharge of guns in dorms, firearms in student’s vehicles, and one faculty member who was discovered to be in possession of a gun in an on-campus facility. Considering these incidents and previous knowledge of “prevailing regional attitudes towards guns”, the author assumes that significant numbers of students, and possibly faculty, bring guns on campus regularly (Gilbert). As for those who are afraid due to the new law, he declares to them that firearm permit-holders are not dangerous by comparing the rate of their crimes to that of police officers. He also reasons that permit holders need to be at least 21 to qualify—claiming that the more mature students qualify—and have background checks performed.
Through using case laws, the First Amendment, and previous cases, Justice Abe Fortas explains the reasoning behind why the principal was not permissible. In the first two paragraphs, Fortas provides a brief summary stating how the policy banning armbands go against the First Amendment. In the following paragraph, Fortas says, “Only a few of the 18,00 students in the school system wore the black armbands.” When introducing his first argument, he supports this fact explaining how “the work of the schools or any class was [not] disrupted.” As for the fourth paragraph, Justice Fortas provides a counter argument with what the District Court said. The District Court concluded the school authorities were reasonable since it was based upon their fear o...
evaluate what version of identity is to be shown. There are two types of identity, social
In United States v. Alvarez, Xavier Alvarez claimed that he was a retired marine who had received the Congressional Medal of Honor in 1987 for being wounded repeatedly by the same person in combat. These claims were made in an attempt to have him gain more respect from his peers. The claim was that Alvarez had violated the Stolen Valor Act of 2005. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 states that there are protections against claiming to have received some type of military honor, such as the Medal of Honor and other military decorations and awards (GovTrack). The Government stated that there was first amendment value applicable to Alvarez’s false statements, and that his statements caused harm to others. By making this statement, it was argued that the value of the award of Honor would drop and that this type of false speech falls under the same category as speaking falsely on behalf of the government or as a government official. However, since his statements were not made with the intention of financial benefits or special treatment, his false claims may not be illegal because they were made for the purpose of gaining respect.
With many recent incidents that involve guns between 2012 and 2013, gun control laws have become a hot topic in America. On one hand, after the horrific incident like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting at Newtown in 2012, most people wanting to limit guns from getting into the wrong by setting up a rigorous system that control who can and cannot obtain a gun. On the other hand, we have the people who believe that with such rigorous system in place is violated the individual rights that granted and protected by the United States Constitution. They believe that the rigorous system will prevent people from defending themselves and could be a violation of their privacy. Regardless of which side is right, if we want to understand more about our current conflict, we have to look back on how this hold debate started. The District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court case in 2008 that found the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 unconstitutional, which influence the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense by questioning the Second Amendment and laws that restrict a person from acquire guns.
By appealing to several different views, Wheeler is able to grab every reader’s attention. Using schools as his focus point grabs the reader’s attention on a personal level. A school is a place where your children, your friends, your spouses all could be, and we still aren’t motivated to change our gun control laws. Tragic events do not have to happen like those that occurred at Virginia Tech, The Jewish Day care in Los Angeles, and Pearl High School. Wheeler believes concealed carry should be allowed in every school. Let’s make the students and teachers of these schools and colleges their own heroes. Wheeler says we must embrace all of the varied disciplines contributing to preparedness and response. We must become more willing to be guided and informed of empirical finding. School officials base policies on irrational fears. Wheeler states, “What is actually worse, the fear of what we think might happen, or the massacres that actually did occur?” Wheelers essay is very well thought out and uses fear, credibility, and factual evidence to support his beliefs. My belief is we should allow teachers and students to have guns at schools, as long as they have gone through training to do
Cole, D., & Dempsey, J. X. (2006). Terrorism and the constitution: sacrificing civil liberties in the name of national security. New York: New Press.
In this article Emmett Tyrell informs us about gun violence in schools and what the NRA has proposed to stop the gun violence, and mass shootings across America. While the gun control debate rages, many schools have become war zones, and all school zones are vulnerable. The National Rifle Association's has come up with a 225-page report contains dozens of recommendations to improve safety in our nation’s schools. The NRA’s National School Shield program will train and enable school personnel to carry firearms to protect our nation’s children.
The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican government, he and his fellow justices sought to perpetuate their Federalist principles in the United States’ court system. In one of the most memorable court cases of all time--the case of Marbury v. Madison-- Marshall established the idea of judicial review and strengthened the power of the judicial branch in the government. Abiding by his Federalist ideals, Marshall decided cases that would explicitly limit the power of the state government and broaden the strengths of the national government. Lastly, the Marshall Court was infamous for determining the results of cases that dealt with the interpretation of the Constitution and the importance of contracts in American society. The Marshall Court, over the span of a mere three decades, managed to influence the life of every American citizen even to this day by impacting the development of the judicial branch, establishing a boundary between the state and national government, and making declarations on the sanctity of contracts ("The Marshall Court"...
Over the past five years Americans have seen many horrific tragedies related to gun violence. Each of these terrible events has been accompanied with scrutinizing media coverage, and subsequently, a push on government level for increased gun control. On the surface these movements to take away guns from Americans may seem justified because of these events. In reality the federal government is encroaching upon our Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.
Author Asha Bendele talks about this subject in her article, “Loss & Hope.” She states that, “According to The U.S Census Bureau, it (Chicago) has the highest crime rate throughout the nation” (112). The average person in Chicago cannot legally get access to a firearm, but yet people still are able to get their hands on them. This significantly proves that a gun ban will do nothing but hurt this country and make criminal activity rise. Most of those against the Second Amendment, want other major cities to model what Chicago has done with gun laws. Once these other cities begin to model themselves after the city of Chicago, we would immediately start to see an increase of violence, drug use and firearm related crime. Schools have also become victim to the “gun free zone” curse. Serious criminals know that, in these areas, there is no one that can stand up to them, which gives them plenty of time to commit these evil acts and get away unharmed. Author Grant Arnold discusses this in, “Arming the Good Guys: School Zones and the Second Amendment.” He states, “Policies making areas ‘gun free’ provide a sense of safety to those who engage in magical thinking, but in practice, of course, killers aren 't stopped by gun-free zones. As always, it 's the honest people — the very ones you want to be armed — who tend to obey the law” (487). We need to realize that “gun free zones” are really just an area for the people there to be sitting ducks. The last thing we ever want to see on the news, is the death of a child who was unprotected due to these laws. The only way we can ever think to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a
Over the past few years there have been many incidents when children bring guns to school and shoot their fellow classmate(s) and/or teacher(s). The most recent and probably most tragic happened in 1998 at Colombine High School in Colorado when a group of students entered the school and murdered several students and a teacher. The first thing that everyone wondered once they finally heard the news is how the children got the guns? Supporters of gun control believe that if there were harsher gun laws, a lot of the school shootings would have never taken plac...
Rostron, Allen, and Brian Siebel. "No Gun Left Behind: The Gun Lobby's Campaign to Push Guns into Colleges and Schools." Www.bradycampaign.org. N.p.: Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 2007. 9-11. Rpt. in Juvenile Crime. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.
About forty years ago, teachers used to say that the worst problems in their schools were students chewing gum and talking during class. Wouldn't it be wonderful if those were still the biggest problems? Unfortunately, teachers now are struggling with many deaths of their students and maybe even their own children. The numbers of teenagers’ deaths increase everyday from gun violence. Students, particularly boys, who carry guns, are more likely to be involved in drug activity according to The Children Data Bank and more likely to have committed crimes with weapons. Likewise, girls who carried guns were more likely to report feeling threatened. Therefore, stricter law for gun control will lessen the insecurity of a person when holding a gun and prevent further unnecessary death.
Crime and guns. The two seem to go hand in hand with one another. But are the two really associated? Do guns necessarily lead to crime? And if so do laws placing restrictions on firearm ownership and use stop the crime or protect the citizens? These are the questions many citizens and lawmakers are asking themselves when setting about to create gun control laws. The debate over gun control, however, is nothing new. In 1924, Presidential Candidate, Robert La Follete said, “our choice is not merely to support or oppose gun control but to decide who can own which guns under what conditions.” Clearly this debate still goes on today and is the very reason for the formation of gun control laws.