Quick Summary
Printz v. United States was a landmark victory in the fight against gun control, as it declared federal gun control laws unconstitutional. After a four-year legal battle, the United States Supreme Court rendered its decision on June 27, 1997. The case involved the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, which enforced that local and state law enforcement conduct background checks on gun purchases.
The petitioners, Sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack argued that the Act violated the 10th Amendment (which protects state sovereignty) and Article VI of the Constitution (which prohibits federal mandates).
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Printz and found that Congress cannot make it mandatory for state and local officials to implement a federal regulatory program. The Court also ruled that Section 922(s) of Title 18, which requires state chief law enforcement officers to perform background checks on prospective handgun buyers, is unconstitutional.
Rule of Law
According to the 10th Amendment, “The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.”
Facts of the Case
In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act as a follow-up to the Gun Control Act of 1968. The Brady Act was a federal gun control legislation that mandated the United States attorney general to implement a national handgun background check system.
Officials at the state and municipal levels were assigned to conduct background checks on gun buyers while the country worked toward a unified system. The Brady Act required gun dealers to report transactions to the sheriff’s offices in their respective counties (CLEOs). The CLEOs would verify the transactions’ legitimacy by performing necessary checks. Printz and Mack (plaintiffs) were chief law enforcement officers in Montana and Arizona.
As the Brady Act required state officials to do federal duty, Printz sued the United States government (Defendant) in federal district court, arguing that this constituted an unlawful exercise of Congressional authority. The responded argued that previous Congresses freely exercised their authority to compel state officers to participate in federal programs. Accordingly, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issue
Does the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Act) violate the 10th Amendment by requiring states to implement a federal program?
Holding and Conclusion
Yes.
The Court held that the mandate violates the Tenth Amendment, which protects the “Sovereign Immunity of the States.” Therefore, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 was unconstitutional and a violation of the Tenth Amendment because it sought to compel state and local officials to enforce federal gun laws.
The Tenth Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The Supreme Court also ruled that the federal government could not force the states to implement or execute a federal regulatory scheme. Therefore, the Act’s provisions on background checks run afoul of this ban.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Court’s reasoning is based on the time-honored concept that local legislators are immune to federal control. The Court ruled that the Necessary and Proper Clause does not give the federal government the authority to require state CLEOs to carry out federal duties on its behalf, even temporarily. This is because Congress can require the federal government to regulate commerce directly, in this case, by conducting background checks on applicants for handgun ownership.
Further, the Court ruled that the Brady Bill could not mandate CLEOs to carry out the associated responsibilities of disposing of handgun-application forms or writing to certain applicants to explain why they were denied a handgun license.
Constitutionally, our form of government is founded on federalism’s separation of powers between the federal government and the states, a concept known as “dual sovereignty.” Therefore, under federalism principles, the federal government should not be given unfettered authority over state police forces.
Relevant FAQs of this case
Is the Brady Act still in effect today?
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was passed in 1994 and was named after James Brady, the press secretary for Ronald Reagan, who was shot and disabled during an assassination attempt on Reagan. The law required that background checks be done for buyers of handguns. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was created in 1998 to do these checks and runs by the FBI.
The Brady Act expired in 2003 but was reauthorized in 2005. The original act required a five-day waiting period before a buyer could take possession of a handgun. This waiting period has since been reduced to three days. In addition to the background check, being older than 21 years old, not being convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for over one year, and not being an illegal immigrant are also requirements for buying a gun.
References
Was this case brief helpful?