Following the attempted assassination of President Reagan, the congress enacted the Brady act, which imposed a background check system for gun sales across the nation. Until a working system is put in place, the act directed that these checks be conducted by Chief Law Enforcement Officers. The provisions required CLEOs to determine and as well, to ascertain, within a stated period of time, whether potential gun buyers were legible to own one or not. Printz, a CLEO of Ravalli County, Montana, and another, Richard Mark, consequently petitioned the directive, claiming that the interim provisions of the Brady act were unconstitutional. Aside from being one of the biggest cases in American court history, it also was as important one since it touched on the herculean issue of gun control as well as Brady’s Act violation of constitutional freedoms.
The Brady Act directed that CLEOs perform background checks on probable handgun buyers, until such a time when the Attorney General establishes a federal system suitable for this purpose. According to the Legal Information Institute in the Printz v. the United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) , two county CLEOs separately challenged the directive, terming it unconstitutional. The District Court basing on the two cases held that the provision directing CLEOs to perform background checks on potential handgun owners, was unconstitutional while maintaining that background checks were to be conducted, though in a system that allowed for it to be done voluntarily. The Court of Appeal, despite a divided panel for the ninth circuit, reversed this decision, finding that the disputed provisions of the Brady act were but constitutional. The petitioners then lodged an appeal of this decision with the Supreme Court, which ruled in their favor (Klaus, 2016). In perspective, the court is meant to rule on the petitioners’ claim that the provisions demanding CLEOs to perform background checks, overstep the law as they compel state officers to participate in the administration of a federal regulatory arrangement. The petitioners are against the idea of being pressed into federal service, and maintain that Congress cannot compel State Officers to execute federal laws. They term this as unconstitutional. The ruling on this case wouldn’t have a straightforward answer, though since the constitution doesn’t address this specific subject, it had to be determined basing its sources on the structure of the constitution, on the historical understanding of the issue of gun ownership, and on the juridical power of the court. The Supreme Court, in its ruling, held that the Brady act was unconstitutional. In a majority ruling of 5-4, Justice Scalia readout the majority opinion stating that previous federal laws didn’t give congress the mandate to align directives to state officials. The opinion also laid it out that the structure of the constitution doesn’t give congress the ability to direct state officials since these are governed by different laws of action. He is quoted as saying “The Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States.” by Information Please (2005). Further saying that the Brady Act directly transferred federal responsibility to CLEOs across America without any control on the part of the president, who according to the constitution, is the overseer of federal laws. With reference to historical practices, the World War 1 draft law came into light, and it authorized the president to utilize the services of state officers. Justice Scalia used this to dispute provisions in the Brady Act, stating that in light of the World War 1 draft, President Wilson used it to request state assistance in contrast to the Act, which commandeers it. Having exhausted and found no support for the government’s position, Justice Scalia turned to the court’s knowledge of matters federal and state. He said that the cases in question would hurt the government in that the intrusion on state sovereignty becomes more important especially when federal government tends to look down upon it.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Law.cornell.edu, a website on matters justice, states that the court decided the case in favor of the petitioners since there was no ground upon which the government’s position could hold water (Legal Information Institute). Therefore, it relied on the credibility entrusted upon it by the judiciary to give a fair ruling with reference to the findings. Dissent was obviously on the table, and Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the opinion of the majority misconstrued the power of the congress under the constitution. He said that even though congress can’t seize the powers reserved to the states, its actions are obligatory to the states when it exercises genuine constitutional powers and so, state officials have to fall in line. He also claims that the decision shouldn’t be based on lack of statutes in this line during the earlier times, since it doesn’t prove that congress can’t enact such laws. The opinions of both sets of judges were being weighted on the legal basis of the law. The four against were unable to cite any substantial sources that would support the government’s stand.
The decision by the court looks to have been a setback to individuals who would have wanted to limit citizens’ rights to own handguns. Owning guns is not bad, as it’s legal to own one in America for personal safety. Fear comes in where these arms get to end up in the wrong hands as it means they can be used even for illegal reasons. However, any efforts at regulating gun ownership should be done in regard to the constitution and further, with respect to the constitutional protection of gun ownership rights. It’s important to understand though that, as much as it doesn’t serve the expectations of many, the case is majorly determined at distinguishing the powers of the federal government and those ones of the state, with the bigger picture in mind.
References
Klaus, K. (2016). Printz v. United States . Retrieved from http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/printz-v-united-states
Legal Information Institute (n.d). Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). Law.cornell.edu. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html
Information Please (2005). Printz v. United States (1997). Retrieved from http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar31.html
