Us V Lopez

Samuel Malebranche

Intro to Criminal Justice

Professor Chiarlitti

Research Paper #2

United States v. Lopez

High school senior Alfonso Lopez of Edison High concealed a .38 caliber revolver into school on March 10, 1992. Although he did have five cartridges, the gun was not loaded. Lopez told authority that he was to deliver the firearm in exchange for 40 dollars. He was caught by authority because of anonymous tips by fellow classmates. He was confronted and confessed to the crime. He was charged with a possession of a firearm in school premises”. Lopez challenged that what was done to him was completely unconstitutional. He thought this was unconstitutional because “it is unconstitutional as it is beyond the power of Congress to legislate control over our public schools." (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lopez.html) After he was charged, the next day, the charges were dropped after federal agents charged the respondent with a violation of the “Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990”. The motion was denied because “it is a constitution exercise of congress well-defined power to regulate activities affecting commerce and the business o elementary, middle and high-schools affects interstate commerce.” (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lopez.html)
With a 5-4 decision at hand, the Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the court of appeals. The fact was held that although the congress did have a general lawmaking authority under its commerce clause, power was limited and did not extend any further then commerce to authorize any carrying of guns. Lopez proceeded to waive his right to a jury trial so the court conducted a bench trial and found him guilty. He was sentenced to six months of imprisonment along with two full years of supervised release. With The Gun Free Schools Act, Congress made it an offense of federal level “for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html Copyright Lawnix 2008-2012) The whole idea of the act was to establish polices in order to commence a Holt on the possession of any firearms in schools and within a certain range of the building to help protect all schools from any type of gun related crime. To be specific, the act made it a crime to possess a weapon and or firearm with in a range of one thousand feet from any type of school, whether it is public or private or etc. The punishment can go for up to five years of jail and up to five thousand dollars worth of fines. There are no exceptions for whether or not the gun isn’t loaded, in any sort of container whatsoever, or tucked away in a vehicle. The whole thing was set because the threats of concealed guns are real. Schools must be especially worried about drug traffickers, fearful classmates and gangs. A large chunk of people arrested for carrying a weapon in that time were people under 18 years of age. The United States v. Lopez had an impact on our court system. It went to question how far the Court would go to implement scapegoats against encroachment on state supreme power. This United States v Lopez case still takes significance on other cases where our government attempts to limit conduct. It also reminds us why we must take special caution on limiting government power and regulating how much is necessary to complete any task at hand. No convictions under the newly revised Gun-Act law have yet to be overturned because of the United States v Lopez case. I agree with the United States Supreme Court because something had to be done about Lopez. He clearly violated the Gun-Free Schools act. He, or anyone else in this matter should know better then to have a weapon with in a one thousand foot radius of a school and he was better off not having a gun period. He was not punished to the fullest extent of the crime but did pay the price. It was a good decision to imprison him. It is important to never take a situation like this lightly and for it to be addressed immediately. It is a good thing that an anonymous person spoke up and possibly saved plenty of lives by doing so. This also goes that it is important to speak up when something is not right, no matter what, so that a situation like this is prevented. It is less of a hassle and less time consuming to prevent crime then to combat crime at any given day at any time period in history.

Work Citied:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lopez.html