United States Vs. Lopez
Presented To
Mr. Coonan
By
Alex Pappas
Us Government
10-15-2010
The case of United States vs. Lopez that all started in 1990 when Alfonso Lopez Jr. brought a
consealed loaded handgun into his local high school. When he was found with the gun he was charged
under Texas law with the posession of a firearm in a school zone. This case was dismissed from the
District Court and brought to a Federal level when the charges were changed to a federal crime under
the Commerce Clause. Alfonso Lopez challanged this decision using the idea that commerce was in no
way compromised by him bringing a handgun into a known school zone. This lead to a case on the
jurisdiction of the Commerce Clause and how far its limits can be stretched to protect commerce. In
conjunction with the limits of the Commerce Clause this case effected anyone that would ever be
traveling through or be in a school zone. The flaw in the Commerce Clause also lead to many other
regulations that would cover a incident of this magnitude in the future, and of related issues. The
American society also would see a increase in security as a nation and in government run buildings
from cases such as this and other well known cases where weapons have be found in schools.
Throughout the case of United States vs. Lopez many boundries were pushed and battle fought
yet not that much was changed. The main issue that was realy brought out in this case was were does
the Department of Commerce's jurisdiction end, and how much power do they have over trial. This
question was put to the test and finaly answered when the trial was over. The big question does the
Department of Commerce have jurisdiction over a 12th grade high school bringing a hand gun to
school, and how does this effect commerce? This was tested throughout the trial coming from both
sides of the court.
In the case of United States vs. Lopez the defendant Lopez was charged under the Gun Free
School Zone Act of 1990 (GFSZA) for “carrying a concealed .38 caliber handgun and five bullets” (5)
knowingly in a school zone. “Acting upon an anonymous tip, school authorities confronted respondent,
who admitted that he was carrying the weapon.”(5) Once Lopez confesed to having a loaded handgun
in a school zone he was arested for posession of a handgun in school under the state law. He was
charged under state law until the following day when the charges were dismissed and recharged under
federal law for violating the Gun Free School Zone Act which lead to federal charges. At the
conclusion of the trial he was sentenced to six months in jail and two years supervised realease. When
Lopez apealed the judgement he acused the Gun Free School Zone Act to be unconstitutional under the
terms it was used in his trial. Lopez and his lawer posed the argument that the Department of
Commerce does not have rule over school weapon charges even a gun. They argued that the
Department of Commerce has control over commerce not a school or state violation regarding a gun in
school. When this went to court there was a long debate, but in the end Lopez did win his case that the
Gun Free School Zone Act was unconstitutional and that the Department of Commerce did not have
control over guns in school.
Throughout this case only a few people were effected by the case of United States vs. Lopez
mostly Lopez and the Department of Commerce. This case was fairly small just effecting only Lopez
and the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce. The effects of this case were limited to Lopez
winning his case helped him by not having a large sentence. On the Department of Commerce's side
there rule was limted from being able to govern school zones back to the commerce which was the
origonal intent of the department.
The ruling in favor of Lopez changed a few problems that were occuring in the flaud system
that was starting to become overpowering. The Department of Commerce was slowly becoming
emensed in its power and slowly started to try and take power over systems that it did not properly
have rule over. This power kept growing and growing until someone finaly disputed there power with
the case of United States vs. Lopez. The case of United States vs. Lopez was a wake up call to the
Department of Commerce showing them and testing their power by oposing the charges placed upon
Lopez.
Work Cited Page
1.
Prestel, Claire. "United States v." Berkman Center. Web. 13 Oct. 2010.
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/archived_content/events/vaw/readings/lopezsummary.html
>.
2. "United States v. Lopez, U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument." The
Oyez Project | U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument Recordings, Case Abstracts and
More. Web. 13 Oct. 2010. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/19901999/1994/1994_93_1260>.
3.
"United States v. Lopez – Case Brief Summary." Lawnix - Law Resources and Legal
Information. Web. 13 Oct. 2010. <http://www.lawnix.com/cases/united-stateslopez.html>.
4.
"United States v. Lopez." LII | Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School. 08
Nov. 1994. Web. 13 Oct. 2010.
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0514_0549_ZS.html>.
5.
"U.S. v. Lopez - Rehnquist." Constitution Society Home Page. Web. 13 Oct. 2010.
<http://www.constitution.org/ussc/514-549a.htm>.