Constitutionality of Gun-Free School (Zones) Acts

[darklordoftech]

In light of DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, are the federal Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990 and Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 unconstitutional?

[brucejoel99]

No. Heller expressly held up prohibitions on firearms in sensitive places such as schools as an example of a lawful regulation.

[Mr. Reactionary]

The concerning aspect of the GFSZA is less the impact on the 2nd amendment and more the attempt to shoehorn it in federally under the commerce clause.

[brucejoel99]

The concerning aspect of the GFSZA is less the impact on the 2nd amendment and more the attempt to shoehorn it in federally under the commerce clause.

Which is why the Supreme Court held in Lopez that the act was an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority under the Commerce Clause, & why the act was subsequently amended to specifically only apply to guns that had been moved via interstate commerce.

[Mr. Reactionary]

The concerning aspect of the GFSZA is less the impact on the 2nd amendment and more the attempt to shoehorn it in federally under the commerce clause.

Which is why the Supreme Court held in Lopez that the act was an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority under the Commerce Clause, & why the act was subsequently amended to specifically only apply to guns that had been moved via interstate commerce.

I doubt that's still good enough if it ever gets to SCOTUS again.

[brucejoel99]

The concerning aspect of the GFSZA is less the impact on the 2nd amendment and more the attempt to shoehorn it in federally under the commerce clause.

Which is why the Supreme Court held in Lopez that the act was an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority under the Commerce Clause, & why the act was subsequently amended to specifically only apply to guns that had been moved via interstate commerce.

I doubt that's still good enough if it ever gets to SCOTUS again.

Well actually, the revised act has already been challenged again in the courts, & has since been reviewed & upheld by several federal circuit courts. Indeed, in one such appellate case, United States v. Dorsey, it was those minor changes of the revised law that were specifically challenged, & the 9th Circuit ruled that said minor changes were indeed sufficient to correct the issues that had caused the original 1990 law to be struck down in Lopez.

[Mr. Reactionary]

The concerning aspect of the GFSZA is less the impact on the 2nd amendment and more the attempt to shoehorn it in federally under the commerce clause.

Which is why the Supreme Court held in Lopez that the act was an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority under the Commerce Clause, & why the act was subsequently amended to specifically only apply to guns that had been moved via interstate commerce.

I doubt that's still good enough if it ever gets to SCOTUS again.

Well actually, the revised act has already been challenged again in the courts, & has since been reviewed & upheld by several federal circuit courts. Indeed, in one such appellate case, United States v. Dorsey, it was those minor changes of the revised law that were specifically challenged, & the 9th Circuit ruled that said minor changes were indeed sufficient to correct the issues that had caused the original 1990 law to be struck down in Lopez.

With the current court a 9th circuit ruling isn't definitive. A few years ago they struck down the 75 year old raisin reserve.

[brucejoel99]

The concerning aspect of the GFSZA is less the impact on the 2nd amendment and more the attempt to shoehorn it in federally under the commerce clause.

Which is why the Supreme Court held in Lopez that the act was an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority under the Commerce Clause, & why the act was subsequently amended to specifically only apply to guns that had been moved via interstate commerce.

I doubt that's still good enough if it ever gets to SCOTUS again.

Well actually, the revised act has already been challenged again in the courts, & has since been reviewed & upheld by several federal circuit courts. Indeed, in one such appellate case, United States v. Dorsey, it was those minor changes of the revised law that were specifically challenged, & the 9th Circuit ruled that said minor changes were indeed sufficient to correct the issues that had caused the original 1990 law to be struck down in Lopez.

With the current court a 9th circuit ruling isn't definitive. A few years ago they struck down the 75 year old raisin reserve.

Okay but that decision in question was a 9th Circuit ruling from 2005 that wasn't even given the opportunity to be granted cert or not because no attached party opted to appeal to the Supreme Court. In fact, of the 10+ cases at the circuit court level concerning the amended act, no party has chosen to even attempt to appeal to SCOTUS, let alone be granted or denied cert. The point is, it's just so highly unlikely that the act would ever even appear before the Court anytime soon, 9th Circuit ruling (from however long ago) or not.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It would be different if a private school or business prohibited firearms on their property. If something is public and taxpayer funded, constitutional rights must be upheld.

Since when is it a constitutional right to be able to carry whatever you want on public property?  Not even Scalia himself held that extreme view. To quote from his opinion in the Heller decision:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. ²⁶
Footnotes

²⁶ We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

The only possibility for a future court to find the Gun-Free School Zone Acts unconstitutional would be a finding that they were an overbroad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, not because the Second Amendment forbids them.

[darklordoftech]

The only possibility for a future court to find the Gun-Free School Zone Acts unconstitutional would be a finding that they were an overbroad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, not because the Second Amendment forbids them.

Kavanaugh and Gorsuch could be to the right of Kennedy and Scalia on guns, the Gun-Free School Zones Act declares almost of America a “school zone” and includes private schools, and the Gun-Free Schools Act could be seen as cruel and unusual punishment and a violation of due process.