The Supreme Court case, Printz v. United States(521 U.S. 88-1997), investigated The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Bill) that essential a locationâ??s specified chief law enforcement officers (CLEOs) to carry out background checks on hopeful handgun purchasers. County sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack challenged the constitutionality of this interim provision of the Brady Bill on behalf of CLEOs in Montana and Arizona, respectively.
In each situations, District Courts found the checks unconstitutional, but ruled that given that this requirement was severable from the rest of the Brady Bill, a voluntary background check program could remain in location. On appeal from the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that the interim background check provisions were constitutional, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and consolidated the two situations deciding this one particular along with Mack v. United States (Oyez).
Questions of the Case
Printz presented one solid query: Can particular â??interim provisionsâ? of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which commands regional and CLEOs to conduct a background check on prospective handgun purchasers and to â??perform particular connected tasks,â? violate the United States Constitution, in specific the Tenth Amendment?
Ultimately, the Court decided in a 5-4 selection that the bill did in truth violate the Constitution due to the fact Congress cannot specifically limit the use of handguns in schools beneath the commerce clause partly due to the fact the use of handguns in schools does not directly affect commerce.
The Court’s Opinion
The Court constructed its opinion on the principle that state legislatures are not subject to federal direction. The Court explained that whilst Congress might call for the federal government to regulate commerce directly, in this case by performing background checks on applicants for handgun ownership, the Required and Correct Clause does not empower Congress to force CLEOs to fulfill federal tasks.
The Court added that the Brady Bill could not call for CLEOs to carry out the related tasks of disposing of handgun application forms or notifying particular applicants of the factors for their refusal in writing, considering that the Brady Bill reserved such duties only for those CLEOs who voluntarily accepted them (Oyez).
The Concuring Opinion
Justice Thomas concurred by utilizing textual evidence of the Commerce Clause that provides Congress power to â??regulate Commerce â?¦ among the numerous states.” He said that it does not give Congress the regulation of a wholly intrastate point of transactions. Also, Thomas saw the Second Amendment as containing an express limitation on the governmentâ??s authority.
Thomas said that the Court has but to have a recent occasion to think about the nature of the Second Amendment, but if it is read to permit a personal proper to â??keep and bear arms,â? then an argument exists in the Federal Governmentâ??s scheme of regulation (4lawschool).
The DIssenting Opinion
Justice Stevens joined by Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Stevens: Said the commerce power provides Congress the appropriate to regulate the use of handguns. Also added that the Required and Suitable Clause (Post 1, Sec.8, Cl.18) offers Congress the authority to implement regulations through nearby officials. Said there is no purpose to interpret the Constitution as prohibiting state officials from carrying out federal duties.
The Supreme Court correctly refrained from deciding regardless of whether other easy-to-carry out duties imposed by Congress on states would also be invalid. Given that Congress does not have the authority to regulate intrastate transfer of firearms they also do not have the authority to demand state officials to administer and enforce such regulations. Per Souter: Cited implied powers from the Constitution by noting that states have an obligation to help federal law, so officials may be employed to carry out national functions.
Comments and the Future
Printz quite small effect on gun manage. The mandates Printz brought forth were a challenge to CLEOs and had been slated to be phased out in November 1998 when the background check technique took operation. The case also showed how the Rehnquist Court would influence the Eleventh Amendment and the thought of federalism.
References:
Oyez. “Printz v. United States, U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument.” The Oyez Project | U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument Recordings, Case Abstracts and Much more. N.p., n.d. Internet. 14 Nov. 2010. <http://www.oyez.org/situations/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_1478/>.
4lawschool. “Printz v. United States .” 4LawSchool.com: For Law, Pre-law students and legal professionals.. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Nov. 2010. <http://www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/print.shtml>.