SOC205 - CASE ONE - UNITED STATES vs. LOPEZ

UNITED STATES v LOPEZ
CASE ONE
1








United States v Lopez
Strayer University
Felicia McCaw
Professor Clinton Gortney
SOC205
Online Winter 2017
January 19, 2017

United States v Lopez
2

The case of the United States v Lopez is reflective of a minor (Alfonso Lopez, Jr.) who had in his possession a concealed unloaded weapon (.38 caliber revolver along with five cartridges) on school property and into the school (Edison High School) in San Antonio, Texas on March 10, 1992. According to questioning and confrontation by school authorities after receiving a tip Lopez admitted to having a weapon in his possession. Subsequently, he was charged in the trial court of Texas with violating the Federal Gun-free School Zones Act of 1990 (the “Act”), 18 U.S.C. § 922 (q) which is part of the Crime Control Act of 1990 that Congress passed to address the growing concerns about school violence and that was enacted and signed into law on November 29, 1990.

This Act as explained provides that “it shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm in a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone” and with provision of knowledge the maximum penalty is five years of imprisonment.

Because acts of a felonious nature are submitted and channeled through the district court also known as trial court for judgment. The trial courts are the district courts which have general jurisdiction of Texas. Each court is established by the Legislature and covers certain geographical areas and each county must be served by at least one district court. These courts have original jurisdiction in felony criminal cases, cases involving title to land, divorce cases, election contest cases and civil matters involving damages exceeding $200. Therefore, it was necessary to place the case in this court because they have priority and right as designated by Legislature to hear, then render a judgment of punishment.

United States v Lopez
Page 3

Represented by legal counsel, Lopez moved to have the indictment dismissed on the grounds that 922 (q) of the Act was “unconstitutional as it is beyond the power of Congress to legislate control over our public schools” Subsequent motion was denied by the trial court (which is the district court) ruling that the 18 U.S.C. § 922 (q) was a correct ruling and within the right of congress and as such “a constitutional exercise of Congress' well defined power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce, and the 'business' of elementary, middle and high schools...affects interstate commerce”.

Based on this denial Lopez was tried, convicted and subsequently appealed said decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals with which was allowed by a writ of certiorari. In reception of Lopez’s appeal that Congress’ power to legislate under the Commerce Clause was indeed unfounded the Fifth Circuit concurred and reversed said conviction. As such the inability to harness and utilize the full power of Congress in this case under the Commerce Clause became realized and it held that what is characterized as insufficient finding by congressional examination and legislative history “section 922(q) in the entire reach of its terms is invalid and beyond Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause” 2F.3d 1342, 1367-1368 (1993). Due to the reflective importance of the issue the court granted certiorari, 511 U.S. ___ (1994) and conclusively now affirm. Further this case (514 U.S. 549) is noted to be the first United States Supreme Court since the New Deal to set a limit to Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. During the examination of the case and its contents the federal court of appeals found that the federal statute violated the Tenth Amendment as well and by a vote of five to four the Court upheld the ruling. Another point is that the Lopez decision became a renaissance for the principle of dual sovereignty which had not been utilized since Carter v Carter Coal Co. (1936).

United States v Lopez
Page 4

In explanation, the Commerce Clause is interactive between nations and parts of nations and is conversely in all its branches with regulations for prescribing rules to carry out its diverse interactions. Therefore, the commerce is the power to regulate and ensure that this vesting of power in Congress is complete and enabled to be exercised to its utmost limits other than those prescribed in the constitution that cause a limitation as written.

Because of the attributing and establishing of whether the act of Lopez’s entry into a school zone or within 1,000 feet was a measure in determining if the commerce clause was applicable in the determining factor of sentence since the matter was seen as a felonious act. The commerce clause became a limit on federal power due to the line between “affecting” and “substantially affecting” interstate commerce that is ambiguous and Congress can easily manipulate its findings or compilations regarding the magnitude of an activity’s affect on interstate commerce.

This gray area was deemed pretty much “no man’s land” due to Congress inability to review substantially congressional findings in this area and because the court deemed they were ill-equipped to do the review the court established a categorical limit on Congress’ exercise of the commerce power with hope to preserve the constitutional role. Consequently, Lopez was charged, sentenced and due to the true actual nature of the inability to make a clear standing he was allowed the rescinding of his sentence during his appeal.

The generalized law for carrying a concealed weapon is based on Penal Code 46.01, number three which was a violation and because of this an undisclosed or concealed firearm is a device designed, made or adapted to propel a projectile through a barrel and was a clear violation of the law with further definition of the weapon as a handgun that can be fired by one hand. As

United States v Lopez
Page 5

such this supports that a reckless, disregard for all safety was inclusive in the handling and carrying of such on a campus that forbade the allowance of any type of weaponry. This action violated the Gun-free School Zones Act (GFSZA) which is a federal law of the United States that prohibits any or all unauthorized individuals who knowingly possess a firearm at a place that is perceptively known as a school zone or within a school zone or has reasonable cause to believe it is as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921 (a)(25).

Therefore, this law 18 U.S.C. § 922(q) (2) (A) was broken as well as the local criminal Texas Penal Code § 42.02 and Texas Penal Code § 46.03, section one, which explains the causal factor of what is inclusive in the act of concealing and keeping a gun hidden for acts of a criminal nature. Due to the breaking of these laws the penalty for violation of the Act includes a fine of not more than $5,000, imprisonment for not more than five years or both 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(4). Further the Texas Penal Code § 46.11 was violated because said offense was within 300 feet of the premises of a school and inside as well.

The ramifications associated with the breaking of laws are identified by coding whether coding for the penal systems for each state or the federal system and these codes are aligned with the imposition of a prison term or conditional punishment. As such the consequences of his or her actions will always result in solutions to rectify the deviation, restore correctness and rectification whether it consists of community service, fines, incarceration of a few years to a lifetime imprisonment and/or the death penalty.

In conclusion, the outcome of the case was reflectively analyzed by the Supreme Court by determination to question the contested issues that flawed the judgment of the district court.

United States v Lopez
Page 6

The clause did not fit the category of the crime and subsequently was dismissed due to action of not having merit, clarity or a legal and established point to support decision. Further due to the need to administer a fair judgment adherence to the penal codes would have effectively closed the loop and also allowed a just and fair judgment.




REFERENCES
(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm
(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.criminal-lawyer-houston-texas.com/TEXAS-WEAPON-LAWS.pdf
(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-sullivan/the-commerce-power/united-states-v-lopez-4/print/
(n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/cj/penalcode.pdf
(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.txcourts.gov/about-texas-courts/trial-courts.aspx
Libdatab login. (n.d.). Retrieved January 20, 2017, from http://search.credoreference.com.libdatab.strayer.edu/content/entry/sageedlaw/united_states_v_lopez/0
(n.d.). Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=5e47e1e9-2ee8-4a1c-a142-2a38522aa7e1%40sessionmgr4009&hid=4211&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=bth&AN=9601096660
(n.d.). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990