You can use arrow keys to navigate in the map.
The federal government is granted enumerated powers by the Constitution.
The interpretation of the Commerce Clause has been expanded along with the expansion of how business is conducted throughout the United States.
The Supreme Court has still provided limitations to Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.
The Supreme Court must interpret the Constitution with the understanding that many issues were meant to be left to the state.
The Supreme Court has provided for 3 types of activities that can be regulated: channels of interstate commerce, instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and those with a substantial impact in interstate commerce.
The federal government must prove that the activity they wish to regulate falls within the 3 categories provided by the Supreme Court.
Possession of a firearm on school property clearly does not fall into the category of channels of interstate commerce or instrumentalities of interstate commerce.
The government argued that violent crime has a substantial impact on interstate commerce.
Nothing in the legislative history or the statute itself indicated any impact on interstate commerce at all.
The act of possessing a firearm on school property does not constitute violent crime, it merely becomes a possibility.
Even accepting the argument that violent crime has an impact on interstate commerce, one would still have to assume that the simple possession of a firearm would lead to violent crime which would impact interstate commerce.