Interesting part of that wiki page (linked above):
Wikipedia wrote:United States v. Lopez (1995) was the first decision in six decades to invalidate a federal statute on the grounds that it exceeded the power of the Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The opinion described
Wickard v. Filburn as "perhaps the most far reaching example of Commerce Clause authority over intrastate commerce."
Lopez held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, the power was limited, and did not extend so far from "commerce" as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale.[2]
Following the
United States v. Lopez link gives us this:
Wikipedia wrote:Alfonso Lopez, Jr. was a 12th grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas. On March 10, 1992 he carried a concealed .38 caliber revolver, along with five cartridges, into the school. The pistol was not loaded; Lopez claimed that he was to deliver the weapon to another person, a service for which he would receive $40.[1] He was confronted by school authorities — the school had received anonymous tips that Lopez was carrying the weapon — and admitted to having the weapon. The next day, he was charged with violation of the federal[2] Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (the "Act"), 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)[3]
Lopez moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that §922(q) of the Act was "unconstitutional as it is beyond the power of Congress to legislate control over our public schools." The trial court denied the motion, ruling that §922(q) was "a constitutional exercise of Congress' well defined power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce, and the 'business' of elementary, middle and high schools... affects interstate commerce."
Lopez was tried and convicted. He appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming that §922(q) exceeded Congress' power to legislate under the Commerce Clause. The Fifth Circuit agreed and reversed his conviction, holding that "section 922(q), in the full reach of its terms, is invalid as beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause." The Court of Appeals noted that the findings and evidence presented before Congress to justify the passage of the Act pursuant to the federal Commerce Clause power was simply insufficient to uphold the Act, in effect ruling that the Government had simply not made its case that the Act was justified as an exercise of the Commerce Clause power of Congress; this of course left the door open for a later Congress, with more complete evidence and justification, to enact a valid Act, based upon a more complete showing of evidence of interstate commerce being sufficiently "affected" to justify the exercise of the federal Commerce power.[4]
The United States government filed a petition for certiorari, whereby the Court has discretion to hear or to decline a particular case, for Supreme Court review and the Court accepted the case.
To sustain the Act, the Government was obligated[5] to show that §922(q) was a valid exercise of the Congressional Commerce Clause power, i.e. that the section regulated a matter which "affected" (or "substantially affected"[6]) interstate commerce.[7]
The Government's principal argument was that the possession of a firearm in an educational environment would most likely lead to a violent crime [I recall kids bringing guns to school all the time when I was in high school back in the dark ages. Nobody ever got shot. ~ TAM], which in turn would affect the general economic condition in two ways. First, because violent crime causes harm and creates expense, it raises insurance costs, which are spread throughout the economy; and second, by limiting the willingness to travel in the area perceived to be unsafe. The Government also argued that the presence of firearms within a school would be seen as dangerous, resulting in students' being scared and disturbed; this would, in turn, inhibit learning; and this, in turn, would lead to a weaker national economy since education is clearly a crucial element of the nation's financial health.
The Court, however, found these arguments to create a dangerous slippery slope: what would prevent the federal government from then regulating any activity that might lead to violent crime, regardless of its connection to interstate commerce, because it imposed social costs? What would prevent Congress from regulating any activity that might bear on a person's economic productivity?[8]
And now this thread about
Wickard v. Filburn is neatly tied to gun rights.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT
)