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
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.
@@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."
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. 🤣
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.
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.
@@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!
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.
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.
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)
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.
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…
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.
"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...
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
@kalebisalwaysright 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.
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!
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.
@@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
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! 😂
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.
@@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.
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
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.
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
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 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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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
At my school for the science fair a student brought a big rail gun he built to school. It was missing a component to make it work. Two guys layed it down on the table. They brought a little kitchen TV we could see trees then they fired it and the middle of the trees exploded and the top halves fell down. The teacher left and came back with the principal and a police officer, they watched the video and ordered everyone to leave, we had to go down to the end of the school property. The busses started coming and some sort of special police, bomb squad or maybe SWAT came, the busses took us home even though it wasn't the end of the school day. The student who built the rail gun, we didn't see him for the rest of the school year. His parents are wealthy and were paying for lawyers, he came back the next year. I have no idea what went down in the court room, I wonder if they cited anything like in this video.
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.
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.
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
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.
@@Slava_Ukraini1991 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
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
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.
@@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 @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.
@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 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
@@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
According to Google, here in Texas, a kid can carry a gun to school as long as the kid has taken lessons on Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) and as long as the kid stores it in a car where the gun is not in plain view.
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.
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.
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.
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...
I find it interesting how my English teacher was allowed to bring his guns into school before the act, even shortly after the GFSZA came into effect, there were shooting clubs and sports groups centered around target shooting, bullseye, airgun, and skeet.
@@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.
I'm shocked that there isn't anything more relevant than the commerce clause for this case. I looked it up and it turns out that murder isn't even federally illegal unless it occurs as part of another federal crime or on federal property. wild!
Yes, because the way feds work means that more often not, the feds have no jurisdiction in anything unless it's crossing state lines or the local/state asks for assistance, which is largely just how the states like it.
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.
@@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 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.
Before López was decided, decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence made it quite clear that the Commerce Clause gave Congress essentially unlimited peer to regulate almost anything as long as Congress stated that the thing being regulated had an effect on interstate commerce. In Wickard v Fillburn, the Supreme Court held that the federal government could regulate what a farmer grew on his farm for personal consumption (not for resale) because not buying food that was sold in interstate commerce could affect the price of food for others. Notably, most federal statutes are Commerce Clause (or sometimes Spending Clause) enactments. For example, the is no specific enumerated power to regulate trademarks; yet the Lanham Act provides for national trademark registration. Conservatives often invoke the 10th Amendment and chant the mantra of states’ rights when they disagree with the will of the majority, but then conveniently forget about the 10th amendment when they try to limit state legislation or case law the disagree with. For example, nowhere in the federal Constitution does it mention that Congress can regulate marriage (and historically, marriage was solely a state law issue). Yet all the conservatives voted for the so-called Defense of Marriage Act because they could not accept the concept of gay people marrying. I think López was decided the way it was because it involved guns - a hot button issue for conservatives. I am sure that the case would have been decided differently had López brought in pornography, a dildo or contraceptives in violation of a federal statute. Yet nothing in the Constitution specifically empowers Congress to regulate any of those items. Let’s also ask how the Commerce Clause relates to abortion? How do you justify a federal abortion ban pursuant to the Commerce Clause?
This is crazy to see as a guy who went to high school in Oklahoma where every senior had his shotgun on his truckrack and the principal would talk gun shop with every one who wanted.
Wait, does this mean that congress can only make laws that are related to interstate commerce? So a federal law saying busses have to stop at railroad tracks within a state would be unconstitutional?
I mean Congress can pass laws to get taxes, print money, build a navy, declare war... lots of stuff. But when it comes to regulating things and creating social programs, they do often rely on the interstate commerce power and hope the courts will agree. That said, probably anything involving railroad tracks would qualify as regulating interstate commerce.
Article 1 of the US Constitution defines several powers for the Congress- Section 8 lists out explicitly what these (mostly) are: ===== --The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; --To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; --To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; --To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; --To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; --To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; --To establish Post Offices and post Roads; --To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; --To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; --To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; --To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; --To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; --To provide and maintain a Navy; --To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; --To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; --To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; --To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;-And --To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. ===== If Congress makes a law pertaining to these, which does not violate any other aspect of the Constitution or Bill of Rights, then it is valid federal law. The Commerce Clause here is just the justification most commonly used, since economic matters are very dynamic with many moving parts, so it can be used quite broadly. However, relating to your question, there is more power by the Federal Govt. than implied here. In your example, if a state made a law solely relating to their internal traffic rules, with no crossing of borders by any element, then the state should have the power to do so in theory. Yet in practice, the Federal Govt. creates numerous standards and policies they want to see adopted by states. To ensure compliance, since they are one of the largest funders to the states, they withhold funding if the states refuse to comply. This provides them with a great deal further influence than their powers explicitly provided are. This is how the Federal Govt. has such influence of educational policy, despite not having any constitutional authority to regulate it.
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."
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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.
Hey Mr. Beat. Love your videos. They taught me a lot about U.S. history and law. I wonder why you support the right to gun ownership, as you said in some interviews? I live in Germany where private gun ownership is super prohibited, excepted in case for sporting or federally approved hunting to maintain forests. I don´t feel less free or in any way restrained by the hurdles attached to gun ownership in my country. I don´t think loosening regulations on firearms (in Germany) would ad to my freedom as a citizen in anyway. I feel somewhat more free and secure with the certainty that really no one I meet on the street has a gun.
So I’m an American who conceal carries a pistol, even on public school property. In my state, it is legal with a permit, and that permit is not difficult to obtain. Laws vary greatly from state to state. Also I’ve never been out of country, so I lack some perspective. Gun rights advocates don’t usually focus on your point. And Americans usually have a different perspective on “freedom.” In so far that I am allowed to do something that you are not, I am more free. I can go to a range and have fun shooting. I have many times. However, practically/pragmatically speaking, I would say there is little difference. Most firearm carriers never need to use their gun defensively, which is what gun rights advocates usually focus on. However, I have the right to one if I do need it for defense. The US is mostly safe. Most violence here is very highly concentrated; nearly half of the country has 0 violence. So to the second perspective on freedom, gun rights provide a much better option for personal defense, but It’s an option I will probably never need. But still I carry a gun just like I carry my wallet or phone. To address your last point, America is in a very different position regarding guns because of how many are here. There are more guns than people. However, only about 30% own them. Eradication of guns is not feasible for some reasons. 1 the number. 2. Guns are surprisingly not that difficult to manufacture. There are cases of people making guns in their garages that were adopted by the military. So an experienced smith can literally make military grade weapons. Additionally, primitive guns can be assembled in less than an hour with ordinary parts from a hardware store. Lookup slamfire shotguns. Further, there was the assassination of former PM of Japan last year with a ramshackel short barrel shotgun. And then theres 3D printing and blah blah blah. While ownership rates may certainly be lower when it is illegal, they almost certainly exist and just go unnoticed. Returning to the main point, I doubt there is a substantial difference in the feeling of freedom, especially in day to day life. The primary difference being in the back of my mind, i know i can own it. Srry for long comment. And this is just my thoughts. Theres much more that could be added. Im not trying to persuade if guns should be legal, only compare freedoms of each case.
Murica, they're fun AF and protect not only yourself but to ensure our resistance to a tyrannical government. As A German you should understand Better than anyone since the first thing the moustache did was take your guns away
The situation with safety in Germany may not be the same as the way it is in America. You may feel safe because no one has a gun at all, but over here it is different. There are more guns than people, and there are many guns that are unregistered out in the streets. I live in California and even though gun laws are tighter than other states, it doesn’t mean that guns are completely gone. You can take guns away from law abiding citizens but criminals don’t follow laws, so therefore they’re not going to willingly go to a gun buyback stand. Gun control will only work if there is guaranteed nobody with a gun and bad intentions, but that’s not the world we live in unfortunately. So unless someone figures out how to solve the worlds problems, I will continue to carry for safety.
Part of the issue when it comes to "Why do you feel X is OK in the US in my country Y we very much dislike this" is that the US is culturally very very very very very very different from literally any other place on earth. The case above is a good example, legal regulation of whether bringing a gun to a public school ends up as a debate on commerce not safety. Americans would rather have less safety and more risk if it allows them more freedom. In general most americans, on both sides of politics, dislike government in general. You would be hard pressed to find someone that is going to claim they wish there was more government overall. Make new laws? Sure. Have more governing authority, no. the right to bear arms is also so deeply engrained in the US as a tenant of life, that it's just impossible to remove. A great example is that even some of the strongest gun control proponent argue people should have guns to defend themselves and hunt. Which is nearly opposite logic of most other restrictive countries where self defense is not a valid reason to own a gun ever. Overall anything like this boils down to the fact that comparing the US to literally anywhere else is nearly impossible just because of severely different cultural mindset. As well my personal opinion on the matter being the government, federal especially, has nearly no business in what an individual person does. They should have next to zero power, and especially no police authority over the public. Also the other realistic point to be made is there are something like 400 million estimated firearms in the US. It is just not humanly feasible to do anything about that, especially when it's considered something like 80% of them are not registered or tracked in any way.
@@bower31 okay thanks for sharing but a few nitpicks. 1. Idfk why this became a commerce trial it's really really weird. 2. Most gun control advocates do want all weaponry banned but more "moderate" ones start with the scary black guns then work their way down. 3. The reason we keep our guns is for self defense and due to our inalienable rights. If you look statistically there's a huge number of self defense shootings a year. With such a huge and diverse country there's a SHITTON OF criminals and violent people everywhere, it's inevitable. The cops aren't reliable simply due to reaction time, of they can't get there in time your options are to defend yourself or try to run and when you or your family's lives are in danger you fucking fight. Other countries if you defend yourself you're charged with murder even if the guy is trying to kill you. Many here pride ourselves with our freedom and our willingness to defend it and ourselves. If they try taking our shit fully it'll be a revolution.
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?
@@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?
@@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
Back when I was in high school (long time ago) my shop teacher required that we always had a pocket knife on us at all times failure to do so could cost you dentin (picking up trash alongside roads)He would often challenge (like military challenge coin).. then we had a project to redo a gun stock and every boy in my high school class (graduation class 9 people) had to bring an old riffle to shop class. Yes I am old.
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)?
@@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
Thats not the bill of rights being deficient, in fact, the decision strengthened the power of the 2nd Amendment. What this does show is that the federal government will use bogus reasoning to insert itself into matters it has no place in constitutionally. The court system's job is to interpret laws as constitutional or not, not on whether they are "good" or "bad" which is highly subjective.
It’s not a deficiency in the bill of rights. It’s the fact that powers are separated between states and the federal government. It’s not “we care more about money than people,” it’s that interstate commerce is a power explicitly given to the federal government.
You clearly didn't watch the video. The whole point is that only state governments have the power to regulate such things. This is why murder is not a federal offense. The federal government does not have that power. State governments are granted that power, not federal government. This is to ensure that the federal government does not have too much power. The law already existed in the state of Texas, meaning it was illegal statewide. The whole point of spreading power out to states is so that no one party can control the entire country and turn it into a dictatorship or something similar.
@@HudsonGTV The Second amendment says if you can pick up a weapon and carry it then neither the Federal nor State government can infringe your right to do so. That might have made sense when a musket or pistol was loaded down the barrel and if you were really good you could fire 3 rounds per minute. But it means the Bill of Rights is now deficient and there is practically no chance of fixing that.
I can see why people would not want guns near schools, but I feel like people who plan to do bad things with a gun at a school will only appreciate there being a 'gun free-zone.'
Not a good argument because schools typically have resources officers who do have guns. Plus, shooters would still have to deal with police even if a school has no guns in the event of a shooting.
@@Dsworddance22 Oh yeah they have about fifteen minutes to shoot until the cops decide to come and maybe do something about it if they even do something. This is why you need armed security at all schools. We protect the crooked fucks in DC with weapons, why not our children?
@@Dsworddance22 It doesn’t take long for a shooter to kill many. Less than 50% of schools have armed resource officers and recent shootings should be a good example on why waiting for a police response isn’t always the safest option.
@@JapanesePiano1 I get your point but I'm not sure if addressing gun free zones (or having armed personnel) is effective at tackling gun violence. For example, armed resource officers were present during the Columbine and Parkland shootings but did little to save lives. Armed personnel were present during the Louisville bank shooting and Allen TX mall shooting but still did not stop the shooter from killing handful of innocent people (or deter the shooting to begin with). On a broader point, "good guys with guns" is not a practical solution because most mass shooters are prepared to die.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
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."
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. 🤣
@@PercyIIV 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.
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
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.
@@Slava_Ukraini1991 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)
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.
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 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.
"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...
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.
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
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.
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.
@kalebisalwaysright Tell us you're mentally challenged without telling us you're mentally challenged.
@kalebisalwaysright 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.
Lol Lopez was so lucky they dropped the state charge for the unconstitutional federal charge
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!
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
"I wonder how this happened"
"San Antonio, Texas..."
"I understand now."
Literally my first though was “of course it’s Texas”
Thanks!
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.
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?
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
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.
I was binging this series, so I see this as a absolute win.
I’ve been waiting for this video for a long time, thank you Mr.Beat!
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!
....Guy has gun on school grounds for 'SALE'
supreme court decides commerce clause does not apply for sale of goods.
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.
Never misspelling Mr Beast again
mr breast give me money
Never knew about any of this!
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.
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.
Hi Matt, this is an excellent segment. Glad you're here!
Thanks Weston!
A good remindwr to what i just leanred in my ap gov class this year, gonna miss you mr k
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
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
Grew up with students and teachers having firearms at, around, and in schools. Never heard of a single shooting.
So moral of the story, the biggest mistake of the original plaintiff was dropping the charges to go for a felony offence.
At my school for the science fair a student brought a big rail gun he built to school. It was missing a component to make it work. Two guys layed it down on the table. They brought a little kitchen TV we could see trees then they fired it and the middle of the trees exploded and the top halves fell down. The teacher left and came back with the principal and a police officer, they watched the video and ordered everyone to leave, we had to go down to the end of the school property. The busses started coming and some sort of special police, bomb squad or maybe SWAT came, the busses took us home even though it wasn't the end of the school day. The student who built the rail gun, we didn't see him for the rest of the school year. His parents are wealthy and were paying for lawyers, he came back the next year. I have no idea what went down in the court room, I wonder if they cited anything like in this video.
As a mexican i aspire to have a moustache that's just 2 patches of hair on the side of my lips one day...
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.
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.
My favorite series! Thanks mr. Beat!
"...Led to the Federal Government Losing Power" I already like this story.
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
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.
@@Slava_Ukraini1991 nigga what?💀💀u gotta be joking..
@@Slava_Ukraini1991 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
@@Slava_Ukraini1991 Your right 6 months is a lot so no one would do that
@@RoflcopterLamo did you know that 6 months is like 180 days
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.
What's not mentioned is that Congress immediately repassed the law after adding "because it affects interstate commerce".
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
It’s such a “terrifying” thing today but roughly 10 years before his issue there were still sport shooting programs in some schools across the country
Yay! Less power in the Federal Government!
I’m currently taking Constitutional Law in law school and just read this case in my textbook. Very good brief!
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.
@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.
Man its crazy!
Most reasonable response ever
I was literally just thinking that I wish you’d upload more Supreme Court Briefs
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
According to Google, here in Texas, a kid can carry a gun to school as long as the kid has taken lessons on Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) and as long as the kid stores it in a car where the gun is not in plain view.
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.
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.
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.
Stevens also advocated for the repeal of 2A when he was no longer on the court so no surprise
I wonder how this case would’ve been called if it had happened after columbine
I find it interesting how my English teacher was allowed to bring his guns into school before the act, even shortly after the GFSZA came into effect, there were shooting clubs and sports groups centered around target shooting, bullseye, airgun, and skeet.
Yeah the descenting justices definitely tried to stretch the 10th amendment a bi thin on that one.
I love the Supreme Court briefs series, please keep it up. Thank you!! 😀
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.
I'm shocked that there isn't anything more relevant than the commerce clause for this case.
I looked it up and it turns out that murder isn't even federally illegal unless it occurs as part of another federal crime or on federal property. wild!
Yes, because the way feds work means that more often not, the feds have no jurisdiction in anything unless it's crossing state lines or the local/state asks for assistance, which is largely just how the states like it.
That's how it's supposed to work. States are supposed to handle their own business.
Yes the design is that the US government has basically no power over nearly anything
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
one of my favorites thank you mr beat!
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.
Before López was decided, decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence made it quite clear that the Commerce Clause gave Congress essentially unlimited peer to regulate almost anything as long as Congress stated that the thing being regulated had an effect on interstate commerce. In Wickard v Fillburn, the Supreme Court held that the federal government could regulate what a farmer grew on his farm for personal consumption (not for resale) because not buying food that was sold in interstate commerce could affect the price of food for others. Notably, most federal statutes are Commerce Clause (or sometimes Spending Clause) enactments. For example, the is no specific enumerated power to regulate trademarks; yet the Lanham Act provides for national trademark registration. Conservatives often invoke the 10th Amendment and chant the mantra of states’ rights when they disagree with the will of the majority, but then conveniently forget about the 10th amendment when they try to limit state legislation or case law the disagree with. For example, nowhere in the federal Constitution does it mention that Congress can regulate marriage (and historically, marriage was solely a state law issue). Yet all the conservatives voted for the so-called Defense of Marriage Act because they could not accept the concept of gay people marrying. I think López was decided the way it was because it involved guns - a hot button issue for conservatives. I am sure that the case would have been decided differently had López brought in pornography, a dildo or contraceptives in violation of a federal statute. Yet nothing in the Constitution specifically empowers Congress to regulate any of those items. Let’s also ask how the Commerce Clause relates to abortion? How do you justify a federal abortion ban pursuant to the Commerce Clause?
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...
This is crazy to see as a guy who went to high school in Oklahoma where every senior had his shotgun on his truckrack and the principal would talk gun shop with every one who wanted.
Wait, does this mean that congress can only make laws that are related to interstate commerce? So a federal law saying busses have to stop at railroad tracks within a state would be unconstitutional?
Unless the states ratified the law itself right?
I mean Congress can pass laws to get taxes, print money, build a navy, declare war... lots of stuff. But when it comes to regulating things and creating social programs, they do often rely on the interstate commerce power and hope the courts will agree. That said, probably anything involving railroad tracks would qualify as regulating interstate commerce.
Article 1 of the US Constitution defines several powers for the Congress- Section 8 lists out explicitly what these (mostly) are:
=====
--The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
--To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
--To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
--To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
--To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
--To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
--To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
--To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
--To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
--To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
--To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
--To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
--To provide and maintain a Navy;
--To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
--To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
--To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
--To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;-And
--To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
=====
If Congress makes a law pertaining to these, which does not violate any other aspect of the Constitution or Bill of Rights, then it is valid federal law. The Commerce Clause here is just the justification most commonly used, since economic matters are very dynamic with many moving parts, so it can be used quite broadly.
However, relating to your question, there is more power by the Federal Govt. than implied here. In your example, if a state made a law solely relating to their internal traffic rules, with no crossing of borders by any element, then the state should have the power to do so in theory.
Yet in practice, the Federal Govt. creates numerous standards and policies they want to see adopted by states. To ensure compliance, since they are one of the largest funders to the states, they withhold funding if the states refuse to comply. This provides them with a great deal further influence than their powers explicitly provided are. This is how the Federal Govt. has such influence of educational policy, despite not having any constitutional authority to regulate it.
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."
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.
*TFW you realize Mr Beat came before Mr Beast lol*
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.
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
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 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
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.
Hey Mr. Beat. Love your videos. They taught me a lot about U.S. history and law. I wonder why you support the right to gun ownership, as you said in some interviews? I live in Germany where private gun ownership is super prohibited, excepted in case for sporting or federally approved hunting to maintain forests. I don´t feel less free or in any way restrained by the hurdles attached to gun ownership in my country. I don´t think loosening regulations on firearms (in Germany) would ad to my freedom as a citizen in anyway. I feel somewhat more free and secure with the certainty that really no one I meet on the street has a gun.
So I’m an American who conceal carries a pistol, even on public school property. In my state, it is legal with a permit, and that permit is not difficult to obtain. Laws vary greatly from state to state. Also I’ve never been out of country, so I lack some perspective. Gun rights advocates don’t usually focus on your point. And Americans usually have a different perspective on “freedom.” In so far that I am allowed to do something that you are not, I am more free. I can go to a range and have fun shooting. I have many times. However, practically/pragmatically speaking, I would say there is little difference. Most firearm carriers never need to use their gun defensively, which is what gun rights advocates usually focus on. However, I have the right to one if I do need it for defense. The US is mostly safe. Most violence here is very highly concentrated; nearly half of the country has 0 violence. So to the second perspective on freedom, gun rights provide a much better option for personal defense, but It’s an option I will probably never need. But still I carry a gun just like I carry my wallet or phone.
To address your last point, America is in a very different position regarding guns because of how many are here. There are more guns than people. However, only about 30% own them. Eradication of guns is not feasible for some reasons. 1 the number. 2. Guns are surprisingly not that difficult to manufacture. There are cases of people making guns in their garages that were adopted by the military. So an experienced smith can literally make military grade weapons. Additionally, primitive guns can be assembled in less than an hour with ordinary parts from a hardware store. Lookup slamfire shotguns. Further, there was the assassination of former PM of Japan last year with a ramshackel short barrel shotgun. And then theres 3D printing and blah blah blah. While ownership rates may certainly be lower when it is illegal, they almost certainly exist and just go unnoticed. Returning to the main point, I doubt there is a substantial difference in the feeling of freedom, especially in day to day life. The primary difference being in the back of my mind, i know i can own it.
Srry for long comment. And this is just my thoughts. Theres much more that could be added. Im not trying to persuade if guns should be legal, only compare freedoms of each case.
Murica, they're fun AF and protect not only yourself but to ensure our resistance to a tyrannical government. As A German you should understand Better than anyone since the first thing the moustache did was take your guns away
The situation with safety in Germany may not be the same as the way it is in America. You may feel safe because no one has a gun at all, but over here it is different. There are more guns than people, and there are many guns that are unregistered out in the streets. I live in California and even though gun laws are tighter than other states, it doesn’t mean that guns are completely gone. You can take guns away from law abiding citizens but criminals don’t follow laws, so therefore they’re not going to willingly go to a gun buyback stand. Gun control will only work if there is guaranteed nobody with a gun and bad intentions, but that’s not the world we live in unfortunately. So unless someone figures out how to solve the worlds problems, I will continue to carry for safety.
Part of the issue when it comes to "Why do you feel X is OK in the US in my country Y we very much dislike this" is that the US is culturally very very very very very very different from literally any other place on earth. The case above is a good example, legal regulation of whether bringing a gun to a public school ends up as a debate on commerce not safety. Americans would rather have less safety and more risk if it allows them more freedom. In general most americans, on both sides of politics, dislike government in general. You would be hard pressed to find someone that is going to claim they wish there was more government overall. Make new laws? Sure. Have more governing authority, no. the right to bear arms is also so deeply engrained in the US as a tenant of life, that it's just impossible to remove. A great example is that even some of the strongest gun control proponent argue people should have guns to defend themselves and hunt. Which is nearly opposite logic of most other restrictive countries where self defense is not a valid reason to own a gun ever. Overall anything like this boils down to the fact that comparing the US to literally anywhere else is nearly impossible just because of severely different cultural mindset.
As well my personal opinion on the matter being the government, federal especially, has nearly no business in what an individual person does. They should have next to zero power, and especially no police authority over the public.
Also the other realistic point to be made is there are something like 400 million estimated firearms in the US. It is just not humanly feasible to do anything about that, especially when it's considered something like 80% of them are not registered or tracked in any way.
@@bower31 okay thanks for sharing but a few nitpicks. 1. Idfk why this became a commerce trial it's really really weird. 2. Most gun control advocates do want all weaponry banned but more "moderate" ones start with the scary black guns then work their way down. 3. The reason we keep our guns is for self defense and due to our inalienable rights. If you look statistically there's a huge number of self defense shootings a year. With such a huge and diverse country there's a SHITTON OF criminals and violent people everywhere, it's inevitable. The cops aren't reliable simply due to reaction time, of they can't get there in time your options are to defend yourself or try to run and when you or your family's lives are in danger you fucking fight. Other countries if you defend yourself you're charged with murder even if the guy is trying to kill you. Many here pride ourselves with our freedom and our willingness to defend it and ourselves. If they try taking our shit fully it'll be a revolution.
Lmao the sample of Senator Kennedy's "violent crime" was exceptionally placed. That earned my like 🤣
Give me money mrbreast
I think it shows something about this country when you need to stretch this much to explain why a kid shouldn't be allowed to bring a gun to school.
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
Back when I was in high school (long time ago) my shop teacher required that we always had a pocket knife on us at all times failure to do so could cost you dentin (picking up trash alongside roads)He would often challenge (like military challenge coin).. then we had a project to redo a gun stock and every boy in my high school class (graduation class 9 people) had to bring an old riffle to shop class. Yes I am old.
I feel we need an amendment that clarifies the commerce clause and grants Congress more, but very clear, authorities.
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)?
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
Tells you a lot about gun laws and the people behind them. Remember that.
Imagine having a Bill of Rights that is so deficient you have to try and argue the impact of guns on money.
Thats not the bill of rights being deficient, in fact, the decision strengthened the power of the 2nd Amendment.
What this does show is that the federal government will use bogus reasoning to insert itself into matters it has no place in constitutionally.
The court system's job is to interpret laws as constitutional or not, not on whether they are "good" or "bad" which is highly subjective.
It’s not a deficiency in the bill of rights. It’s the fact that powers are separated between states and the federal government. It’s not “we care more about money than people,” it’s that interstate commerce is a power explicitly given to the federal government.
You clearly didn't watch the video. The whole point is that only state governments have the power to regulate such things.
This is why murder is not a federal offense. The federal government does not have that power.
State governments are granted that power, not federal government.
This is to ensure that the federal government does not have too much power.
The law already existed in the state of Texas, meaning it was illegal statewide.
The whole point of spreading power out to states is so that no one party can control the entire country and turn it into a dictatorship or something similar.
@@HudsonGTV The Second amendment says if you can pick up a weapon and carry it then neither the Federal nor State government can infringe your right to do so. That might have made sense when a musket or pistol was loaded down the barrel and if you were really good you could fire 3 rounds per minute. But it means the Bill of Rights is now deficient and there is practically no chance of fixing that.
Hii, great video. Have you considered doing a Supreme Court Brief for the UK cases?
I can see why people would not want guns near schools, but I feel like people who plan to do bad things with a gun at a school will only appreciate there being a 'gun free-zone.'
So instead of mass shootings we can place kids in a shootout instead? yeah that's a really great idea, thanks for contributing Einstein
Not a good argument because schools typically have resources officers who do have guns. Plus, shooters would still have to deal with police even if a school has no guns in the event of a shooting.
@@Dsworddance22 Oh yeah they have about fifteen minutes to shoot until the cops decide to come and maybe do something about it if they even do something. This is why you need armed security at all schools. We protect the crooked fucks in DC with weapons, why not our children?
@@Dsworddance22 It doesn’t take long for a shooter to kill many. Less than 50% of schools have armed resource officers and recent shootings should be a good example on why waiting for a police response isn’t always the safest option.
@@JapanesePiano1 I get your point but I'm not sure if addressing gun free zones (or having armed personnel) is effective at tackling gun violence. For example, armed resource officers were present during the Columbine and Parkland shootings but did little to save lives. Armed personnel were present during the Louisville bank shooting and Allen TX mall shooting but still did not stop the shooter from killing handful of innocent people (or deter the shooting to begin with).
On a broader point, "good guys with guns" is not a practical solution because most mass shooters are prepared to die.