Johnny Dollar said:
Yes,we thought it was settled with Lopez in '95 and the runts come back with the ever present Commerce Clause.
The Commerce Clause is far more powerful now than it was at the time of Lopez.
At the time of Lopez the old standard was that if something was actually moved in interstate commerce.
Another far reaching losing argument presented in Lopez was to say interfering with the education of students would impact their employment in the future and as a result their involvement in commerce.
Today the Commerce Clause is far more reaching, something no longer has to be part of interstate commerce, just its potential to impact it is enough.
The Lopez decision would likely have had to reach the opposite conclusion in light of today's commerce interpretation.
However the 2nd Amendment is also much stronger today. The height of the anti-gun legislation and sentiment being in the mid 1990s around the time of Lopez.
So while the Gun Free School Zone Act might be be within the scope of federal jurisdiction now, it may be determined an unconstitutional infringement of the citizens under the 2nd Amendment.
A map created to demonstrate what a school zone is in most urban areas would show how it defacto outlaws firearms.
It is also not a simple 1,000 foot radius in all directions as many of the helpful maps created display it as. But much larger, because it extends 1,000 feet from the edge of irregularly shaped school properties.
These properties including the athletic fields and other areas can create prohibited zones a half mile long near many high schools for example.
These zones effectively act as dozens of firearm prohibition checkpoints on public roads, sidewalks, and streets throughout your typical city.
Rural areas are little better, as with fewer roads their local schools tend to be along the few routes in and out of the community.
The legislation could be determined unconstitutional in its entirety.
However it could also be determined that the zone itself is an unconstitutional barrier to the citizens' 2nd Amendment, while the restrictions on the school grounds themselves are within the scope of restrictions permitted under Heller.
The zones are too far reaching, covering streets, highways, interstates, and acting as barriers to Constitutional rights in public places.
ttolhurst said:
The GFSZA is a travesty, yes. I applaud AZ's intentions. But it's legally meaningless. If the GFSZA is constitutional, AZ cannot short-circuit it with this sort of legislation.
That is not necessarily true. For example I believe being a member of law enforcement is an exemption to the restriction.
The state could theoretically deputize every adult at the age of 18 if it so chose, exempting the entire population. They could then impose their own restrictions on those deputized in such a way so they don't actually gain any special law enforcement privileges outside of such exemptions to federal restrictions.
Similarly it could issue a permit to every citizen when they turn 18, automatically, providing them the ability to exercise all rights that they choose to. It likewise could tie automatic permits to unprohibited adults that get a driver's licenses or state ID, permitting most of society without any need to formally apply for anything.
So clearly the state does have the power even under the legislation to exempt all of its unprohibited citizens in a few different ways if it so decided. So if the feds want to be difficult, the state could be as well.
The downside to these measures is they would only apply to AZ residents and not visitors as well.
I would like to see the Arizona Gun Safety Program become an elective like Drivers Ed in school, as that might help.
