| Shorttitle: | Crime Control Act of 1990 |
| Longtitle: | Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 |
| Colloquialacronym: | GFSZA, CCA |
| Nickname: | Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 |
| Enacted By: | 101st |
| Effective Date: | November 29, 1990 |
| Public Law Url: | http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-104/pdf/STATUTE-104-Pg4789.pdf |
| Cite Public Law: | 101-647 |
| Cite Statutes At Large: | aka 104 Stat. 4844 |
| Title Amended: | 18 U.S.C.: Crimes and Criminal Procedure |
| Introducedin: | Senate |
| Introducedbill: | S.3266 |
| Introducedby: | Herb Kohl (D-WI) |
| Introduceddate: | October 27, 1990 |
| Passedbody1: | Senate |
| Passeddate1: | October 27, 1990 |
| Passedvote1: | passed voice vote |
| Passedbody2: | House of Representatives |
| Passeddate2: | October 27, 1990 |
| Passedvote2: | 313–1, |
| Signedpresident: | George H. W. Bush |
| Signeddate: | November 29, 1990 |
| Scotus Cases: | United States v. Lopez |
The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) is an act of the U.S. Congress prohibiting any unauthorized individual from knowingly possessing a loaded or unsecured firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone as defined by . The law applies to public, private, and parochial elementary schools and high schools, and to non-private property within 1000feet of them. It provides that the states and their political subdivisions may issue licenses that exempt the licensed individuals from the prohibition.
It was first introduced in the U.S. Senate in February 1990 as S. 2070[1] by Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin and then was incorporated into the Crime Control Act of 1990 that was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush.
The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was originally passed as section 1702 of the Crime Control Act of 1990. It added ; itself was added by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently held that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). This was the first time in over half a century that the Supreme Court limited Congressional authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause.
Following the Lopez decision, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno proposed changes to that were adopted in section 657 of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, .[2] These changes required that the firearm in question "has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce."[3] As nearly all firearms have moved in interstate commerce at some point in their existence, critics assert this was merely a legislative tactic to circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling.[2]
The Supreme Court of the United States held that the original Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). This was the first time in over half a century that the Supreme Court limited Congressional authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause.[4]
Although the amended GFSZA has yet to be challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court, it has been reviewed and upheld by several federal Circuit Courts. In a 2005 Appellate case, United States v. Dorsey,[5] the minor changes of the revised law were specifically challenged. In Dorsey, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the minor changes were indeed sufficient to correct the issues that had caused the original 1990 law to be struck down in Lopez, and they upheld Dorsey's conviction under the revised version of the law. A 2000 ruling made by the Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Tait overturned a conviction for firearm possession in a school zone because the defendant was licensed to do so by the state in which the school zone is located.
Convictions upheld post-Lopez under the revised Gun Free School Zones Act include:
Convictions overturned post-Lopez under the revised Gun Free School Zones Act include:
states:
It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.states:
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the person knows is a school zone.
Pursuant to :