How A Kid Bringing a Gun to School Led to the Federal Government Losing Power | U.S. v. Lopez
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @iammrbeat
In episode 72 of Supreme Court Briefs, a kid brings a gun to school, but ends up winning in court.
Produced by Matt Beat and Beat Productions, LLC. All images/video by Matt Beat, found in the public domain, or used under fair use guidelines. Music by Cheel.
Mr. Beat's Supreme Court Briefs playlist: • Supreme Court Briefs
Here's an annotated script with footnotes: docs.google.co...
Check out cool primary sources here:
www.oyez.org/c...
Other sources used:
supreme.justia...
billofrightsin...
joshblackman.c...
en.wikipedia.o...
www.thirteen.o...
For business inquiries or to send snail mail to Mr. Beat:
www.iammrbeat....
/ iammrbeat
How to support and donate to my channel:
Subscribe to @iammrbeat & hit the notification bell 🔔
Join for great perks on Patreon: / iammrbeat
Donate to Mr. Beat on Paypal: www.paypal.me/...
Buy Mr. Beat a coffee: ko-fi.com/iamm...
Cameo: www.cameo.com/...
Subscribe to my second channel: @mattbeatgoeson
Patreon for The Beat Goes On: / thebeatgoeson
Connect with me:
Links: linktr.ee/iamm...
Website: www.iammrbeat....
Podcast: anchor.fm/theb...
Reddit: / mrbeat
@beatmastermatt on Twitter: / beatmastermatt
Facebook: / iammrbeat
Instagram: / iammrbeat
Beatcord: / discord
TikTok: / iammrbeat
Merch:
matt-beat-shop...
www.bonfire.co...
sfsf.shop/supp...
amzn.to/3fdakiZ
Affiliate Links:
Useful Charts: usefulcharts.c...
#supremecourtbriefs #scotus #supremecourt
San Antonio, Texas
March 10, 1992
Alfonso Lopez, Jr., a senior at Edison High School, brings a concealed .38 caliber revolver into the school. Although the gun is not loaded, he also brings bullets for it. After receiving an anonymous tip about the gun and bullets, school authorities confront Lopez about it, man. Lopez admitted to having the gun and bullets, but claimed that he brought them to school just to sell to someone. It’s not like he was gonna, ya know, SHOOT anyone at school. Like that ever happens, anyway amirite? But yeah, it didn’t matter that Alfonso just brought the gun and bullets to SELL to someone. It was ILLEGAL to do that, and frankly…terrifying to know a student brought such a dangerous weapon to school. He was charged with breaking a Texas law that banned guns on school property.
However, the next day there was good news and bad news for Lopez. The good news was that the charges against him were dropped. The bad news was that the only reason why the charges were dropped was because now he was charged for breaking a federal law, the Gun Free School Zones Act, a law that made it a federal offense for anyone to bring a gun into a school zone.
In the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Lopez’s lawyers argued that the Gun Free School Zones Act was actually unconstitutional. According to them, there was nothing in the Constitution about controlling what happened at public schools. Therefore, the Tenth Amendment applied. However, the U.S. District court disagreed, ruling that the Gun Free School Zones Act was a “constitutional exercise of Congress’ well defined power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce, and the ‘business’ of elementary, middle and high schools…affects interstate commerce.” In other words, the U.S. District Court argued that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate guns in public schools, and their rationale was that, since guns in schools led to gun violence, people might be reluctant to travel through these areas from other states. The district court added that the disruptions in schools caused by weapons being there resulted in a less educated population, which could negatively affect commerce in the future.
Well, Lopez and his lawyers thought this was quite a reach, to say the least. After Lopez was found guilty and sentenced to six months in prison, followed by two years of probation, he appealed the case to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the Commerce Clause didn’t apply to guns in schools. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Lopez and reversed his conviction. After this, the federal government got the Supreme Court to weigh in.
My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available!
Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS
Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680
Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680
Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss
Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b
Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023
Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495
Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e
Do the dobbs decison?
Weapons on school grounds used to be quite common. In fact, many schools had rifle teams. I had no idea, but when I was at college in Sacramento, California I saw some year books from the 1950s. In those year books were photographs of the boys' and girls' rifle teams posing in a city park with their rifles.
The gun free school zone is one of the most ridiculous laws ever passed in US history. Like someone bent on a mass shooting is going to stop at the 1,500 foot mark. It is nearly impossible to be beyond that distance from a school in any town or city, and there are even schools scattered around the countryside. The burb I live in has only a few slivers that are farther than that from a school, and the central city is even more densely packed. Last time I was in the city, I later looked at Google Earth and saw that I was only a block away from a school and I've lived in this area for most of my life.
Such laws only risk getting someone who has no intent of harming anyone in serious legal trouble while doing nothing to stop those who do seek to harm.
Seriously the commerce clause gotta be the most abused clause in the entire US Constitution
i couldn't care less if it results in fewer dead children
fr, when i took ap government we had to write like a 5 page essay on if we thought it was being abused or not.
It was definitely an overstretch
The constitution is abused in general
@@alonkatz4633 a better question is why we feel the need to treat the constitution as infallible. Plenty of it has clearly not aged well, constitutional "abuse" in the name of the public good is better than evil done in the name of "constitutionality."
"I wonder how this happened"
"San Antonio, Texas..."
"I understand now."
Literally my first though was “of course it’s Texas”
In the late 70's and early 80's I brought a .22cal semi-auto rifle on the bus and to school every Tuesday and Thursday for the rifle club. We would locked them up in the metals shop's gun locker During the duck, deer or upland game hunting seasons I would bring my Browning A5 shotgun and my retired Special Forces vice principle would lean it against the wall behind his desk. This was just 20 miles or so outside of Boston, Ma on RT-117. In the mid 80's due to 'safety' concerns the 30 year incident free gun range was replaced with a football field that has killed at least one student so far...
I remember my mother telling me that all of the boys at her school had .22s in their trucks so that they could go hunting right after school ended. my grandfather also told me that he and all of the other boys would bring their pocket knives to school. Yet nobody was running around stabbing and shooting each other. Maybe it has to do with the fact that if you treat somebody like a prisoner they will act like a prisoner.
one of my favorites thank you mr beat!
welcome to your final test, im mr beast.
we can scrap the s cause i never miss a beat
That was five weeks before I was born.
I’m all for gun rights but seriously? Why would anyone bring a gun to school knowing it’s illegal too and to sell one illegally?
Yeah the use of the commerce clause is definitely A HUGE STRETCH
@@no.6660 you guys love weapons way too much 😂
@@no.6660 It was a comment on Americans as a whole. Specifically your more fanatic neighbors. If you're American that is.
@@no.6660 that’s irrelevant. The case was obvious
If it's not a gun, it's a knife. If it's not a knife, it's a bat. If it's not a bat, it's a sharp pencil.
People hurt people. Maybe we should address that instead of putting a bandaid over it. But we won't. 🤣
@@ahmedj7866 watch the old mad max movies and gangs of NY. That’s the future of USA. In Maybe 20 yrs.
While I disagree with having people bring guns to school (specifically high schools or below), the Commerce Clause is completely irrelevant to the gun control issue.
It’s like veeeeery slightly related, I’m sure there’s a better argument to be made against being able to bring guns to school
You know like, common sense or something
@@nerdwisdomyo9563 Good thing there isn't a part of the constitution that says "the federal government has the power to do anything if it's common sense or something".
@@hn396 … actually that’s a good point, I guess that’s where the saying “in the eyes of the law” comes from, no matter how obvious it is if it isn’t written to be illegal it’s fine
@@nerdwisdomyo9563 Is there some particular reason why the 50 states cannot handle this? Feds are only supposed to get involved if it's something that the states cannot handle by themselves.
@@nerdwisdomyo9563 It wasn't ever an argument being made against being able to bring guns to school. The argument was about whether the federal government had the power to regulate such a thing.
You know you’re American when gun violence in schools is discussed in an economic way.
Oh, America, you're totally crazy, but I still love you
You know you're in politics when gun violence in schools is discussed in an economic way
That was a horrible argument by the lawyers
whoa dude, it's almost like socioeconomic issues require socioeconomic approaches! clearly, your education system is so much better than ours
To be fair, its almost entirely because the gun free zone was a federal decision that they then argued for on pretty shaky ground. If they wanted it to stick, they should have gone the long way around to enshrine the Gun free school zone act in a way that didnt have it relying on the flipping commerce clause of all things.
Quick rundown: Dude brings gun to school to sell for a few dollars. Dude's family spends 100's of 1000's of dollars in legal fees to prove that dude wasn't breaking the law.
Revs aint cheap wdym lolz
Well they probably didn’t plan on getting arrested and battling in court, they just had to in order to not go to jail
@@virux4107 that was a cheap gun. maybe 2-3 hundred he'd get for it.
@@TiocfaidhArLa34 yes
Probably most of the legal fees were covered by sponsors such as pro-gun PACs and perhaps the NRA (not 100% sure but the NAACP and ACLU are known to sponsor such important cases)
Arguing commerce clause here kind of comes off as a nearly direct acknowledgement that the constitution doesn't allow it but they want the law to stay anyway. The moment I heard there was a federal criminal law that was even tangentially related to the situation, alarm bells were ringing and I figured it was going to get struck down.
SCOTUS actually allowed for such a loose interpretation of the Commerce clause during most of the 20th century starting with the New Deal. The thing is most civil rights are actually protected this way, not via the 14th Amendment.
Yeah, for some reason SCOTUS denied Congress the ability to protect civil rights via legislation that directly referenced the 14th and 15th amendments, can't remember their reasoning. So, later on during the last century using the Commerce clause as a basis SCOTUS approved and that's how most of our civil rights are actually protections of our commercial rights instead.🤷♂️
@@OpinionesDeJACCsOpinions Yeah, because the supreme court was controlled by new dealers. and by a 5-4 margin, which is actually a horrible margin and will probably get overturned if it became a case again somehow. Anything less then a 7 in favor is very controversial and has a good chance of being overturned.
The Commerce Clause is usually how the federal government "justifies" grabbing more power.
@@Gamerad360
Ah, would the new dealer still be the ones that decided the Brown case or other civil rights cases from the 60s and 70s?
@@OpinionesDeJACCsOpinions Interestingly yeah 2 of them were on the new deal and brown vs board of education cases.
Brown vs education wasn't a controversial case for the judges, even the 3 republican Judges agreed.
For most of those 60s and 70s civil rights cases didn't involve new dealers and the courts were republican leaning.
These Supreme Court briefs videos are very informative and should be shown in classrooms across the country. I like you take a dive into some of the lesser known cases as well and not just the ones that everyone has heard about as well. Loving this series!
My son's history teacher has shown a few of them.
Fun fact, in Nebraska, guns were allowed on college campuses until 2009. As long as they were locked up on campus. After it was made illegal many students just took their guns to their friends house where they happen to also host parties. My senior in one of the school, my school had donated gun lockers, and placed the lockers in the local police department, for a safe lockup location, until the student would go out hunting. As someone who worked fro t desk security, I can say I have seen many students leave the dorm for the stated reason of going hunting at 4 or 5 am.
Colorado, Utah, and a bunch of other states have campus carry today.
I wish my state had that.
@@mrrogersrabbit I'd be curious how many mass shootings happen on college campuses in Colorado, Utah, and said other states.
@Munitia Blastpaw not many (I know, less descriptive then you want) as far as I am aware, the vast majority of school shootings are K-12.
We can carry on campus here in Utah
Back when I was a kid (1986 to be specific) a friend’s brother brought a gun to school and all that happened was he the gun was confiscated and he was expelled (but I think that was changed to a 10 day suspension, my recollection is hazy). Lopez is an example of the adage “don’t make a Federal case of it.” I’m assuming that someone with a political axe to grind was involved with Lopez…
Oh I bet so, too!
"The commerce clause allows Congress to regilate guns anywhere"
Yeah. Sorry Stevens, I love you man, but you messed up here. At least you improved with the Heller dissent...
I have two fun suggestions for future videos:
1. Smith v. U.S. (1993), the case that defines what "using a gun" means and Scalia (rightfully) despised.
2. County of Allegheny v. ACLU, one mess of a case that clarified the circumstances in which the government may promote religious messages. This one would be more appropriate for the holiday season, though...
Dang, two deep cut cases for suggestions there!
The answer to Allegheny is NEVER!
The government should never EVER promote ANY religious message. We're not a theocracy. Go to Iran or Sudan if you want that crap.
I have to agree with you there. That act was definitely living on borrowed time if it was decided using the commerce clause as a precedent. Good intentions, baaaad reasoning.
@@jwjones1979 The United Kingdom has a state religion: the Church of England. Are they a theocracy akin to Iran or Sudan?
@@pascalausensi9592 I'm pretty sure religion isn't a major source for British law, so not really...
The Commerce Clause is one of those parts of the Constitution that's been batted back and forth in the courts for decades. It always seems to be the basis for any argument whenever the Federal government expands its authority. Congress passes a law, someone challenges it in court, and the government's defense is some convoluted argument about interstate commerce. The movement for an Article 5 convention to discuss amendments to the Constitution (Hey Beat, might be a good topic for a video, eh?) lists an amendment to redefine the Commerce Clause as being one of the top issues of interest. Another possible topic for a video might be the 1942 case of Wickard v Filburn, which used wheat farming for personal use as the basis for the government to penalize an Ohio farmer.
Government schools are obviously not commerce. That is a ridiculous (and typical) stretch of the Commerce Clause. I'm surprised they didn't argue that since Lopez was planning to sell the gun the Commerce Clause applied but then, unless the person he was selling it to was from a different state that wouldn't hold water anyhow since the clause is about interstate commerce. lol
No, you're onto something. Tell me, have you ever pondered how the Controlled Substances Act's prohibition of possessing controlled substances is constitutional? Well, Congress argues that possessing controlled substances has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. That's right. If you create controlled substances in your garage, then consume them yourself, you're substantially affecting interstate commerce. See, Congress argues that it is extremely difficult to distinguish between controlled substances that have taken art in interstate commerce and controlled substances which haven't. Therefore they shouldn't have to. And that's a pretty scary argument if you think about it.
This gets even funnier when you remember the Prohibition. They needed a full-on constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. So why didn't they need one for banning methamphetamine? I don't know.
Wouldn't hold water period. If someone sells something within a state regardless of who they sell it to, only the states laws govern that transaction. The only time the commerce clause is supposed to be used is specifically when the control of state borders is effected. Not when you travel on a highway, not when you work at a rail terminal. Only when crossing borders as historically relevant as to why the commerce clause even exists.
This court case was a big case in my AP Government class (it was presented as a counter example to Marbury v Madison), cool to see you doing a video on it!
Why does it counter Marbury v. Madison? Wouldn't the court saying that the Commerce Clause not being applicable in this situation still use the powers granted by Marbury v. Madison of being able to interpret the Constitution?
@@kyleolcott1769 I think they meant Gibbons v. Ogden.
@@kyleolcott1769 It's an example of the Supreme Court limiting the power of the federal government.
@@jas7256 with that kind of broad comparison you could compare it to brown v board of education if you wanted
Just a quick note, Congress rewrote the Gun Free School Zone act to require that the firearm traveled in interstate commerce. The new wording has not been challenged as far as i know.
So far I think there is a case in Pennsylvania. Not for carrying a gun but a type of knife or tool. The judge ruled that the knife or took was used for legal purposes and not to harm. People where think about what carrying guns legally for protection. So far it hasn’t gun far. And yes the gun free school is still federal law. It mostly applies if you go on school property. I can have my guns in home and in my car as long as I don’t stop and keep on driving.
@@Warhead_235 IMO knife is fine; firearms are not.
@@xryphon to me if the person has a license to carry I say keep it concealed. I personally believe all schools should have both armed police to mostly deal with arrest, issued stuff and private arm security to respond to actual shooters.
@@Warhead_235 or we just figure out how to not have school shooters every week, like the rest of the world. But given that, bandaid solutions could help a bit
@@sandshark2 well I am not for bans. I am not giving up my AR-15 or AK-47. And I am not giving up on carrying my handgun either. Plus I work for a company that makes guns and I love my job. It’s a job I enjoying doing
Lol Lopez was so lucky they dropped the state charge for the unconstitutional federal charge
Hey Mr. Beat, I wanna say thank you for being someone who has helped me beable to see different points of view without saying it in an angry or argumentative way. I have changed my mind on many things recently that I never thought I would before. It really is a fresh new point of view that allows me to see the echo chamber I used to be stuck in.
Please do a video about Universal Basic income by the way, I would love to hear why you support it.
Then you must be one who can be brainwashed as this guy doesn’t know S from Shinola.
UBI is nonsensical (everyone don’t need $1k a month, some need more. And will cause inflation) and it’s blood money to uphold an inherently unjust system.
Get a job.
@@makepeoplemad Tell us you're mentally challenged without telling us you're mentally challenged.
@@makepeoplemad why would letting peoples salary/wage become disposable income be bad for the economy? Giving people economic freedom is a great way to free people from being debt trapped in poverty.
1:20
The Gun Free School Zones Act, otherwise known as, The “let’s tell the bad people that we aren’t armed and hope they don’t come here” act.
I hope they follow that law...not like all the other laws they probably broke having that firearm in the first place... (Alot of school shootings were done by ppl that weren't supposed to have guns anyway but yes if we make more laws maybe they'll follow one :P) Edit: Shooting people is also illegal and that didn't stop any of the other school shooters....hmm I'm sure another law will make all the difference! 😂
@@gokublack8342 they will follow that law, to pick out where they are going to target.
@paytonyoder1260 Yes I suppose it's like a painting a target on your back saying "Shoot me" 😂
I've been waiting for this FOREVER. I took AP Gov in high school and never understood this case even after researching it.(Even after this video it is still somewhat confusing. No way should commerce be thought about with a gun in a school, even if he just wanted to sell it.)
Not an American, but from my understanding of US law, I think that was because they went for the case on a federal level where the constitution will lead the way on another level. So the fed gov were grasping at straws to prove it with the constitution. I could be completely wrong though.
Law student here. Hopefully I can explain this in a way that makes sense.
Basically there is something called “police power” which is the governments ability to regulate for the health, safety and welfare of their citizens.
There is no federally enumerated police power. The framers decided to leave it to the states after extensive debate at the conditional convention.
As a result, the way the federal government regulates anything is usually via the necessary and proper clause (as in the regulating is necessary and proper to further another enumerated power), the commerce clause, or both. This is why for example, the FBI only has jurisdiction over inter-state crimes (cause the commerce clause only allows regulating inter-state commerce).
In this case, congress was claiming the commerce clause gave them the power to regulate guns used in schools zones because in the aggregate- guns in school zones leads to gun violence, which leads to less educated children, which leads to a less educated populace, which causes crime that is detrimental to inter-state commerce.
The majority here said no: due to the lack of any jurisdictional element they would have to pile “inference upon inference” to find that this law was within congress’ enumerated power. AKA: if Congress wrote the statute to regulate guns transported via interstate commerce (or even used in interstate commerce) then the law would be valid.
The dissent used the aggregate argument I just described.
I hope this explains it and makes sense.
@@ryansilverstein9353 Thanks for your explanation! It is still somewhat confusing, but maybe I'll try to read it more to understand.
@@moses4769 I’ll simplify it: since Congress doesn’t have any authority granted to them by the constitution to regulate issues left to the states (like schools). Hence, they use their vested powers (like the power to regulate interstate commerce) to make laws like the one in question.
The reason the court ruled against the government here is that congress didn’t include the jurisdictional element (specifically- they didn’t ban guns used in interstate commerce, only broadly guns). If the statute banned guns used in interstate commerce then the law would be valid according to the court.
This is why congress amended the law after this case was decided- so they could comply with SCOTUS decision and get the policy outcome they desired.
@@moses4769 It was Texas' decision whether or not to make this a crime. The federal government didn't have jurisdiction, so federal law.
The Supreme Court Dunking on Congress doing unconstitutional things and trying to justify it with bad reasoning will never not be funny. Seriously the commerce clause can’t be used as a silver bullet whenever congress wants to over step it’s delegated authority.
Its just a sign of a terribly-built political system when preventing weapons from going onto school grounds cannot be protected without making up a legal justification. It wasnt overstepping by the government to prevent guns to go on school grounds, it was a failure of the system entirely to allow that basic enforcement without breaking some other legal framework
@@sandshark2
Yep.
@@sandshark2 The whole point is that it should be the state's decision and not the federal government's. I have no issue with states creating laws. The problem is giving too much power to the federal government.
If you give them the authority to van/do whatever they want, that sets a bad precedent for other cases.
@@HudsonGTV now take the entire argument you made, and replace federal with state government. How is giving too much power to the state gov any better than too much power to the federal government?
I dont understand how the average american is so anti-fed (for good reason) while being entirely a bootlicker for the states, and half of americans dont even vote for state politicians!
(I do actually know why, its dogma from history class)
@@sandshark2 Comparatively speaking an individual has more political power and influence over state and local politics than over federal politics.
State level officials are also more accessible than federal level officials, my dad has talked to our state representative about issues before. (But that does depend on where you live. It may not be applicable to other areas.)
Honestly it would make more of a difference if people would pay attention to their local and state affairs more often. It does however mean that those of us that do pay more attention and interact with our representatives have more influence on what goes on.
Instead of commerce clause they should have used common sense clause.
Common sense?! that's against the law fifty years dungeon!
I feel everything in the country is all about being economically competitive, you can’t just do something because it’s objectively good, it has to be about how to make money
@@nerdwisdomyo9563 the entire world honestly.
That's not a clause
@@epicow_1973 yeah, isn’t that one of the ideas of capitalism? Those who profit the most outcompete others, it’s supposed to bring down prices and lead to innovation but sometimes having a Society that only values profit can be pretty bad, like when it comes to education and safety
A "Gun Free Zone" sign is probably the most idiotic way to stop school shootings . Its like leaving a - "Doors are unlocked , knifes are in the kitchen" sign at your lawn before going to sleep .
I disagree. a suicidal school shooter is going to run up to the school with rifle in hand but he sees the gun free zone sign. 6 months in jail is gonna scare him shitless.
@@TiocfaidhArLa34 nigga what?💀💀u gotta be joking..
@@TiocfaidhArLa34 doesn't seem to work so far
If anything it seems to only encourage them since noone can stop them besides the police, who will shoot to kill anyway
@@TiocfaidhArLa34 Your right 6 months is a lot so no one would do that
@@RoflcopterLamo did you know that 6 months is like 180 days
crazy, my dad grew up in Texas and he said it was normal for the students to have a shotgun/rifle mounted in their truck. People never thought anything about it. At the time though most teenagers knew about gun handling
im sure he didnt bring a handgun into school though lol
Yeah, when my brother was in high school in the late 80s, they got a call from someone threatening to come shoot up the school. So, after notifying the police, a few teachers and students went to their cars, got their guns, and waited at the various entrances to the building. Nobody came to shoot the school up.
Crimminals need to be taught to read! 😇😍 Then they will follow the law!
it's a shame they f'ed it up with police and barred us in so their is no escape or illusion of freedom.
they locked all but 2 bathrooms for 1500 students bc some tried to start a small fire in a bathroom.
they were supposed to unlock them when classes changed but they never did
@@4rumani are you sure?
Everyone's legal team: "One thing I know is that the only applicable clause is the commerce clause"
😂😂😂 thank you for explaining the incomprehensible logic of this case as best you could.🎉 this case is very strange altogether!
Small correction, the Federal Government didn't lose power. It never had it because it was never granted by the Constitution. The federal government only has the power granted to it by the Constitution. Everything else is inherent in the states or the people.
@5:00. "The government should also be able to restrict guns anywhere"(this is paraphrasing). This seems like an anti second amendment statement if I've ever seen one. By this logic guns could be banned by the federal government stating that guns are banned everywhere. Me thinks someone should never have been on the supreme Court, due to blatant disregard for the 10th amendment, and in trying to destroy the 2nd amendment.
I graduated from Marshal County High School in Marshal County KY in 1993. Every single day multiple kids brought their guns to school. We were country folks. 99% of them left heir guns in their cars/trucks. Rifles were seen on gun racks in many pick up trucks in the parking lot. Occasionally, a kid would being a hand gun into school to show it off his cool new gun. No one ever dreamed of any kid using a gun for violence at school. Shortly after I graduated the practice was done away with. Likely because of the school shooting in nearby Paducah, Kentucky in 1997. That town didn’t have the same demographics and, as far as I know, didn’t bring guns to school as a matter of practice. Then in 2018 there was a school shooting in at Marshal county high school, the school I graduated from. 14 people shot and 2 died. I’ve often wondered if this kid would have been taken out or stopped if the practice of taking guns to school, like it was when I was there, had still been practice.
Covered this case prepping for my AP Gov test! Beforehand I had no idea how the commerce clause could’ve even been argued in the first place, and I still have no idea!
Me when I'm in a "fail the easy court case" challenge and my opponent if the US Federal Government.
you have a .01 chance unfortunately
Mr. Beat, can you do a video on Gonzales v. Raich? That was another Commerce Clause case but on medical marijuana. Interestingly, Scalia and Kennedy flipped on that case and took the government's position
And we're all worse for it
If only congress had some way, when working with the senate, to pass some sort of constitutional amendment 🤔 maube then you wouldn't have to break constitutional law 🤯
It's extremely difficult to amend the Constitution, especially these days.
America really has a whole new school horror genre unlocked for kids
yea they lock them in and no one has a weapon AND YOU'LL GET B**T f'ed when your sent to prison for attempting to save everyones life using violence.
that's is the pigs don't shoot the hero in the back like that mall guy who killed that mass shooter before he went all killing spree.
Given the current atmosphere about guns at schools, Lopez was stupid to take that .38 to school. Back in the day when almost every pickup truck in a school parking lot had several rifles in the gun racks within the pickup trucks, no one would have said much had he brought it to school then.
But attitudes have changed and having schools as gun free zones has done a lot of good keeping students safe. Just ask those no longer with us today.
I think Bostock v. Clayton County would be a good one, especially with how relevant it is to a lot of people.
Riley v California would be another good one too, especially as a lesser known case that still had big implications
As a mexican i aspire to have a moustache that's just 2 patches of hair on the side of my lips one day...
Yay! Less power in the Federal Government!
Stevens also advocated for the repeal of 2A when he was no longer on the court so no surprise
Never knew about any of this!
My father used to bring, if not his trusty shotgun, then his rifle to school everyday, along with his buddies, and ammo, and they would just walk in to the main office, check in their arms, and be off to class until school was out and they'd go drink beer legally < when he was 18> with the principle and hunt squirrels or shoot targets out back in the school woods
My father never smoked cigarettes but there wa plenty of that legally going on, too
No cannabis though, unthinkable and verboten
This was the late 60s early 70s
Edit addendum: in Moo York
I mean he ' couldve ' been selling the weapon or maybe he just wanted to look tough or cool. But its absolutely terrifying to think what he may of tried to do.
Saying that it did sound a bit of a stretch based on the laws youve stated.
Some people don’t get that sometimes, the us Supreme Court (though expected to be impartial and only using their power in good faith), they can literally rule in ways that are or aren’t constitutional, regardless of the constitution, as long as they side in the majority and can justify it constitutionally.
@@jtgd If you can justify it constitutionally, how would their rulings not be constitutional then?
@@anonymousperson3023 because the justifications are really just up to the justices constitutional interpretation, and each justice has biases that influence that interpretation. All people would tbh, being truly impartial without anyway to verify that is kinda not possible.
@@jtgd Their rulings on the Constitution and the Constitution itself are one and the same.
This is a common law country.
@@jtgd @Patio_Daddio_69 Follow that line of reasoning to its logic conclusion and you arrive at phrases like "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it" (Andrew Jackson) or "cease quoting laws to us that have swords" (Pompey).
In the end SCOTUS has powers because the social contract grants it those powers, and that contract implicitly stipulates that they will base their decisions on interpretations of the law, the constitution, and precedent. If they do not adhere to the contract refer to the previous two quotes.
If he really needed the money but had a gun, he should have pointed it at people. The money comes in immediately.
Disclaimer: this is a joke.
I highly appreciated your joke
I wonder how this case would’ve been called if it had happened after columbine
One of the many unfortunate decisions of the supreme court. Its a completely sound argument that guns can have an effect on interstate commerce. Just look at how people buy homes or choose schools for their children. You can look at crime statistics for an area before ever setting food in a city. More gun crimes could very easily lead to less economic activity. This would include school related incidents.
Yeah the descenting justices definitely tried to stretch the 10th amendment a bi thin on that one.
I remember An older fellow told me him and his friends used to bring 22lrs to school on the buses so they could shoot gophers during lunch. I think this was fairly common in my part of Canada back in the day.
Never misspelling Mr Beast again
mr breast give me money
When I was a kid in the late 70s in rural texas, we weren’t supposed to bring guns but often forgot - we kept them in our trucks. If you did bring one, you unloaded it and brought it to the principals office where it would remain until school was out for the day. Wasn’t a concern to anyone, a gun is a tool and just part of ranch life
You know if you have to go to court it cost you a lot of money and a lot of time. If you lose there's usually some kind of a punishment involved like you go to jail or someone successfully sues you so you have to pay them a lot of money. But when the government goes to court and they lose they just say whoops and scratch out the law. We're seeing this happen today a lot where a certain gun laws deemed unconstitutional until State pass a lot more laws that probably are also unconstitutional. The problem is they got to go to court for every single one. I think people seem to forget that your neighbors not taking your rights from you but the government is. Things that happen in government schools that are not right are literally happening because the government is pushing them on you. The Constitution says you can have a gun and it's the government who's trying to say you can't. People should realize the government is not their friend. I'm all for small government and especially localized government.
I don't know, but if you want to make bringing guns to school illegal surely there is a better way than invoking a commerce clause lol. 10th amendment ftw.
Yeah I’d imagine safety would be the main focus
If they cared about safety, they should take some of that defense budget for schools. Oh wait, teachers aren't worth paying. 😅
@@Veltrosstho yeah that’s fair
I love this great video so much！if you dont mind，I would like ask your permission to translate this video into Chinese and share to the other website in china，I will put the source of this video on my channel.thank you very much
So moral of the story, the biggest mistake of the original plaintiff was dropping the charges to go for a felony offence.
The 4 who opposed seriously should have been disbarred. They forget that the second amendment exists. To say the commerce clause means firearms can be banned anywhere is to nullify the second amendment which applies everywhere in the union of states. The problem i find is it doesn't state either only the federal congress or all congresses under this union shall make no law infringing the right to bear arms. If a certain supreme court that is left leaning politically wanted to they could rule this as an interpretation: "Since it says "congress" it only means the federal congress not the congress of every state in the union therefore it is constitutional for laws banning guns to be present in the states but not in the federal government. The constitution also says that it is the supreme law of the land but this is not over all land, only federal land. It does not rule over state land therefore it could be stated all rights within the constitution do not apply on these other lands that are not federal lands."
"...Led to the Federal Government Losing Power" I already like this story.
Give me money mrbreast
I always wonder why this was never challenged under the 2nd amendment.
Nevertheless, the Gun Free School Zones Act has been further upheld in NYSRPA v Bruen last year as the decision explicitly rules that guns can be banned in "sensitive places" listing schools as an example
Also, you forgot to add that Congress responded to this case directly with another Gun Free School Zones Act of 1996 that asserts that because firearms do travel in interstate commerce, they can prevent guns in schools but only guns that have been involved in Interstate Commerce. They also said the law doesn't directly preempt any state laws on the banning of carrying guns in schools. It is still a federal crime to carry a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school zone unless you have a qualifying concealed carry permit from your state of residence.
Having to find justification in the constitution of a country for why guns should not be brought to school in order to make a legal case against it is really strange to me.
It's almost like the constitution is revered as a sacred document with unique foresight on the human condition or something.
Heh heh
I think you’re deliberately misinterpreting this case. It’s not a question of whether guns should be brought into schools, it’s about whether the power to regulate it is a federal or state power.
@@donaldwobamajr6550 Call me old fashioned, but I find it highly appropriate for the federal government of the US to be able to legislate against the presence of guns in schools. There are plenty of federal crimes already; add this one to the list.
Politics is a tool for solving problems; let's solve the problem.
@@MadsBoldingMusic Your “screw government institutions and separation of powers, give me what I want” attitude is how liberties die. If you want to solve the problem, solve it at the state level. You are one of the people who doesn’t give a damn about democracy except as a means of obtaining power.
@@MadsBoldingMusic it's already illegal for most people under 18 (most school goers) to own guns anyways. The only people who would be bringing guns to school would be responsible gun owning adults. Most school kids die from car accidents and suicide anyways, the proportion of school shooting deaths are extremely rare.
Nothing wrong with 18 year old students carrying guns for self defense if you ask me and armed society is a polite society and it’ll definitely make someone think twice for shooting people for no reason or whatever their agenda was
I do agree that the commerce clause had nothing to do with this, but i do thing it should still be illegal to have guns on school property
It is, in most schools. Doesn't seem to stop school shooters.
It's almost as if criminals don't care about the law. Why make it easy to go shoot st armed victims, when we can make it eash to go shoot unarmed victimes, eh?
Guns don't kill people
@@mrroger-t6m u are correct, but I have a quote for you
"Guns Don't Kill People, People Do, BUT THE GUNS F*CKIN HELP"
Guns are the problem, literally look anywhere else in the world which has stricter gun laws, weird how stricter gun laws = less shooting right? Almost like it works, or is that just a coincidence?
Why?
@@Veltrosstho because there's no a reason a gun should be at a place full of children, because America has a shooting problem so guns at schools just isn't a good thing
No reason for kids to bring guns to school, no reason for anyone to bring guns unless it's the police tryna take care of a active school shooter
bringing a gun to school is bad.
I highly recommend you cover INS v Chadha. It played a huge role in strengthening the power of the President and it's one of the most underrated cases in my humble opinion
I live in San Antonio. Since most everyone has firearms, legally that’s not a criminal, most actual criminals act very different. A lot less victims in San Antonio. Keep the anti-2nd politicians out. 🤠🇺🇸
If UA-cam tells you I gave this a thumbs down, that was a mistake. My young'un bumped my arm as I was approaching the like/dislike buttons. I immediately corrected it but there was already a message that my feedback would be shared with you 😮. You are awesome. One of the best.
It's insane that someone would go through all that trouble just because they're too lazy to go home and back out again just to sell a gun.
The extreme left-wing justices that want federal control of everything need to form a new nation elsewhere or encourage congress to completely re-write the Constitution. We need to bring freedom back to the states. It's even in our name: the United STATES. Not the "Grand One Nation." The political fighting would go down if right-leaning states and left-leaning states could live their values. But everyone wants to control the other guy. And the left-leaners want the right-leaners' money.
Mr beat can you do brown v entertainment merchants association
I second that. It's an overlooked decision, and one of my favorites. My only concern is that any video about it might get demonetized instantly...
....Guy has gun on school grounds for 'SALE'
supreme court decides commerce clause does not apply for sale of goods.
A good remindwr to what i just leanred in my ap gov class this year, gonna miss you mr k
2:10 ah the "public needs" doctrine... or how it really is: the "shut-up peasant!" doctrine. when did public need enter the debate on law again? it is whether it is legal or not... not needed or not.
Hope you have a great day & Safe Travels!
Wonders if this ages well or not
Ok, so either he wielded the gun to sell, or to “defend” himself, if not “offend” other students with bullets.
The intention determined the ruling.
Selling a gun isn't protected by the 2nd amendment. The problem was he didn't actually get to sell it, and you can rarely arrest someone for intentions. Same thing with the intention of murdering people...
And you can't presume someone's intentions...
Ergo you shouldn't think people with guns are bad guys.
The entire idea of "gun-free zones" is just odd to me. It does not help reduce gun crime. Someone that wants to shoot up a place that is a gun-free zone will just do it. Tacking on the charge of bringing a gun into a gun-free zone is the least of their concerns if they mean to shoot up the place.
The only way I see gun-free zones having any kind of impact is if you visually see someone carrying a gun in a gun free zone, you know that you should call the police immediately because they are almost certainly up to no good. But frankly, that hasn't helped almost any gun-free zone shooting in the last few decades. People that want to shoot up a gun-free zone just walk in suddenly and start doing it, and the fact that they weren't supposed to have a firearm in that location did little to nothing to prevent a shooting from happening. On top of this, if someone wants to shoot up a place and sees a location where no one else will have a firearm, they'll probably see it as a perfect target. Nobody has anything to stop them quickly, and you end up with situations where they run rampant while law enforcements has to make their way there and find out what is going on, where the person is, and figure out how to handle the situation.
I'm very much pro-gun control, but the federal government hilariously tried to reach with their arguments on this one. I'm surpised it was as close as it was cause I personally would've sided with Lopez if I was a justice.
If they had utilized another law instead of the Commerce Clause then this probably would've went the other way
@@xryphondoubtful, especially now gun laws have to pass text, history, and tradition
Why are you Very Much pro gun control? do you trust the government to save you in your time of need?
I just **have** to pt out the utter hilarity of how youtube shortened the title on this vid for me on my TV xD Which btw, it doesnt make clear that the title is cut off, on the TV app they dont show ...; the title just ends
So todays vid is called "How A Kid Bringing a Gun to School Led to the Federal Government"
And i rly wanna hear that AU story now xD xD xD Some kid in the late 18th century carryin a musket to lunch bein the pivotal creation pt of USA
Man its crazy!
Most reasonable response ever
What I don't get is why any American would want the federal government to have any more power, states rights should be a matter of consensus and therefore the need to limit the use of the commerce clause (perhaps an amendment to explicitly state where the commerce clause applies). It's hard for an ordinary person to change misguided state law, it's even harder to change misguided federal laws and while Republicans might feel states rights generally benefit their point of view, democrats know that urbanisation is essentially unstoppable and so over time they should get more people on their side in every state.
I was binging this series, so I see this as a absolute win.
its crazy one of the dissenting justices really said that congress had the right to enforce gun free zones ANYWHERE, dude either has a clear lack of knowledge or extreme bias when it comes to the second amendment
I think teachers in the minimum should have the right to have concealed firearms in a locked safe on premises so long as other staff are aware of it's presence. This would allow teachers to be able to safely arm themselves in the case of a mass shooting event. Never should anyone have to wait for police to be protected.
I'd rather the teachers not go out of their way to endanger themselves like that. If there are going to be locked guns on campus as a counter to school shooters, the school should just hire trained security guards to use them in such an emergency.
1- That's stupid and kind of impractical, specially since mass shootings happen on a whim.
2- Schools are notorious for cases of child abuse, arming teachers sounds like a very easy way to make that even worse.
3- It still doesn't adress the issue which is the origin of the mass shooters to begin with. The equivalent of having to build up walls around your house as a "solution" to crime.
Wow. "Don’t bring guns to school, It’s bad for business". While I, as a European (and, BTW, former keeper of a Naval Home Guard service MP5 w/ammo), just shake my head in stunned disbelief over US gun culture, that was a far too desperate move by Congress.
It’s very absurd. I was watching a video at how “uncomfortable” so many used to be over seeing people with ARs or AKs, but now they love seeing that because it represents American Freedom.
I’ll say it until the day I die. I hunt and have a rifle at home for hunting. But if someone said I’d have to give it and the occasional hunt up to save a child from having a bullet go through them definitely, I’d give both and ask if they want the receipt for the gun. Like sweet Jesus Christ, it quite literally is commodity fetishism.
@@therealwattambor8347 yeah but you aren’t everyone else. A gun represents the ability to defend ones self. That cant be taken away.
@@therealwattambor8347 cuckoldry goes far and wide i see
@@therealwattambor8347why would you giving up your gun prevent a child from getting shot ? Are you the one shooting the kid ? The criminal is still gonna get the gun , now you’ve taken your right to defend that kid . I wont give my guns up unless I’m dead
@@slugoo6474 So, defend from absolutely what? Because I don’t think walking into a public place with an assault rifle is doing anything but fueling my own and other’s paranoia.
I will say however that, in stark contrast to you. I’m not emotionally fragile, so I’m just going to leave it at that so you don’t turn the poor man above’s comment section a war ground
i think the worst part is that the us has to relate every law to something from hundreds of years ago instead of every other country that can just make new laws, they were against bringing guns to school but couldnt stop them not cbecause the law but because the law hundreds of years ago
This is America, guns in my area
I got the strap I gotta carry 'em
@@sidwilson6171 yeah yeah imma go into this, yeah yeah this is guerrilla whoo
I'm only halfway through the video, but here is my prediction:
Because the boy brought the gun to SELL, the commerce clause will be ruled to apply, or some similar bullshit
Edit: god, I'm glad that didn't happen
Nice Video
Thanks Lennox!
How is this comment from 3 days ago if it’s just 1 minute old?
@@Ikamara21 - The video was unlisted. I’m assuming that Lennox is a Patreon patron of Matt’s, so he got the link to the video before it was published for all.
Here how about this . since the 2nd amendment has been misinterpreted for a 100 years. , the word regulators in there so the government has the right to regulate weapons. Just a Scalia even stated as much.
interesting.... so is the gun free school zones act then unconstitutional?
Yes. Anything anti gun is unconstitutional. It’s literally our rights as Americans to have weapons.
@@SuperNeos2 well, I believe it’s a constitutional right for a militia to bear arms, people are still debating if that applies to individuals or not, ether way you probably shouldn’t bring a gun to school
Congress changed the wording to require the firearm to have traveled in interstate commerce, and as far as I know there has been no challenges to the new wording.
@@nerdwisdomyo9563 The militia argument kinda got thrown out the window when it was ruled that all citizens of the country comprise a national militia when necessary whether they know it or not, even if they aren't a particularly well-trained one.
@@SeruraRenge11 when necessary makes it sound like it applies to national defense or something, I would not describe school as a necessary moment for students to be a militia (but this is America, so you can unfortunately argue that school is that dangerous)
I’ve never head this, why was this ruled and in what context? It makes since in a national defense context, some country’s are like that (typically ones that are at high risk of getting invaded)
… maybe I’m being to disagreeable, I don’t know, when necessary sounds really unrelated to selling guns at school
My father used to bring his rifle to school and brought the bullets to the office
It would be really neat if you could do a collaboration with Legal Eagle channel for one of these at some point. 🙂 Interesting how the commerce clause got all mixed up in this...
That would be so cool!
I’m very pro gun but how a gun control debate was being argued via commerce is just ridiculous like how do you get there we need gun control because commerce not to stop shootings in schools
The righr decision. If they ruled the other way the federal government could just ban guns everywhere which would make the second amendment pointless. This case is basically a precursor to NYSRPA vs Bruen
When was the last time this country actually had a militia?
A militia are just civilians with firearms that can help the military so I guess there is a large militia
"A well balanced breakfeast, being necessary to a person's health, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed"
Who has a right tibkeep and eat food, "the people" or "a well balanced breakfeast"?
@@sonicboy678 It was ruled that all citizens of the country comprise a national militia when necessary whether they know it or not, even if they aren't a particularly well-trained one.
@@sonicboy678 the militia at the end of the day is basically you. Off the top of my head though, the last time people armed themselves against a threat. During the L.A. riots in Korea town, Aka the Rooftop Koreans. If you never heard of them I highly recommend looking it up it's a very interesting story. That's a really good example why the 2nd amendment is still it's still relevant to people.
What actually gets ruled as over-reaching with the commerce clause seems - as with treatment of other precedent - to depend greatly on the agenda of the Court’s majority.
The notion that the Justices are above politics is pretty dubious; a more realistic view is that what we get in judicial appointments is among the consequences of elections.
Back in the day my grandfather and his friends used to bring in his shotguns and the ducks he shot and clean them in the highschool showers.
We have come a long way from public places being for the public. Most schools now are based on prison blueprints... That should tell you something.
Seeing as there was also a state law against it, he was still guilty despite the 10th Amendment.
Or did the double jeopardy clause of the 5th Amendment apply, since that charge had already been dropped? Come to think of it, does double jeopardy apply for initially dropped charges that didn't actually go to court?
Happy this case turned out like it did! That was such an overreach.
In what way?
@@sonicboy678 Good question. It is a very important component when reviewing this case.
It's a weird one for me.
On one hand, it followed the Constitution to a T, as it should. On the other, it just shows how incredibly disfunctional and complicated US law can be, when the issue can be solved much easier.
So I'm confused, he brought the gun to school in 92, WA sentenced to 6mo in prison, and then it hit the Supreme Court in 94? Did he just not have to serve prison time between these two dates or did he already serve he sentence in full (minus 6mo of the probation)?
I feel we need an amendment that clarifies the commerce clause and grants Congress more, but very clear, authorities.