statutes from the
GFSZA. (69) This "narrowing from below" (70)
Lopez addresses a challenge to the
GFSZA, which prohibited gun
(18) The Court held that the
GFSZA could be considered constitutional only if it was a valid exercise of the last of these powers; it was not a regulation of the channels of interstate commerce and not an attempt to protect an instrumentality of interstate commerce or a thing or person in interstate commerce.
The
GFSZA is one of those feelgood laws that so often pass in the wake of a tragedy--the Stockton, Calif., schoolyard shooting, in this case--which do nothing to address the problem, but which leave a wake of unintended consequences.
(144) After establishing this analytical framework, Rehnquist applied it to the
GFSZA. The statute did not fall within the first two categories.
this conclusion, the Chief Justice stressed that the
GFSZA "is a
the
GFSZA involved non-economic activity, and struck down the law after
GFSZA should be constitutional when applied to the commercial activity
The relationship between the act of possession, for example, and commerce is the same whether regulated by the
GFSZA or the CSA.
(30) An argument can also be made that the VAWA,
GFSZA, and the Brady Bill are also "position taking" measures.
(39) But in 1995, the Rehnquist Court ended the ever-expanding Congressional Commerce Clause power in Lopez, (40) a challenge to the Gun Free School Zones Act (
GFSZA) of 1990.
to dismiss the charges on the ground that the
GFSZA violated the