This is a Complaint pleading for use in litigation of the title matter. Adapt this form to comply with your facts and circumstances, and with your specific state law. Not recommended for use by non-attorneys.
This is a Complaint pleading for use in litigation of the title matter. Adapt this form to comply with your facts and circumstances, and with your specific state law. Not recommended for use by non-attorneys.
5–4 decision 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.
In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause when it passed a law prohibiting gun possession in local school zones.
In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause when it passed a law prohibiting gun possession in local school zones.
4.4 Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment.
Lopez argues that section 922(q) exceeds Congress' delegated powers and violates the Tenth Amendment. The government counters that section 922(q) is a permissible exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.
Lopez argues that section 922(q) exceeds Congress' delegated powers and violates the Tenth Amendment. The government counters that section 922(q) is a permissible exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.
Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) Gun possession is not an economic activity that has any impact on interstate commerce, whether direct or indirect, so the federal government cannot base a law prohibiting gun possession near schools on the Commerce Clause.
The case of Goss v. Lopez was heard and decided by the Supreme Court in 1975. The argument given for the case concerned whether or not students have a right to due process in public education, where the action under review was student suspension.