• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

SCOTUS - Sheriff Printz

Mike

Well-known member
Case Summary

Jay Printz, a law enforcement officer from Arizona, sued to challenge the constitutionality of the Brady Act provision that required him and other local chief law enforcement officials (CLEOs) to conduct background checks on prospective gun purchasers. Printz and other officials won at the district court, but the Court of Appeals found the Brady Act constitutional. They then appealed to the Supreme Court.





The Court's Decision

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Brady Act provision was unconstitutional. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion. He stated that early federal statutes did not suggest that Congress thought it had the power to direct the actions of State executive officials. Also, the overall structure of the Constitution implies that Congress may not direct State officials: “The Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States.” Finally, although it is the President's job under the Constitution to oversee execution of federal laws, “The Brady Act effectively transfers this responsibility to thousands of CLEOs in the 50 States, who are left to implement the program without meaningful Presidential control….”


Read more: Printz v. United States (1997) http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar31.html#ixzz2z5JziA6x
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Although advocates and opponents of gun control watched the Printz case closely as it worked its way through the courts, the issue actually considered by the Supreme Court has had little effect on the gun control debate. The Brady Act itself required the Attorney General to establish a national instant background check system by November 30, 1998. The duties imposed on CLEOs, which were ultimately found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, were part of the temporary process that Congress established until a national instant background check system was operating.

Under the national system in effect since November 30, 1998, a prospective buyer provides background information to the gun dealer, and the dealer calls an FBI office in West Virginia where an agent performs an immediate check. The FBI responds by telling the dealer to proceed with the sale, to wait pending further investigation, or to not sell to this buyer.


Read more: Printz v. United States (1997) http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar31.html#ixzz2z5MPlcBo

Yeah it turned out to be pretty much a moot decision- because shortly after the SCOTUS ruled- the national system was in effect....
Our Office and most the local Sheriff's Offices and Police Depts. continued to do the checks after the case was filed because the folks that suffered by not doing them were the local residents...
 

Mike

Well-known member
Conclusion

The most important effect of Printz was not on handgun sales. Post-Printz, many local law enforcement officials chose to continue doing handgun checks voluntarily. More and more states are setting up their own "instant-check" system for handgun buyers (similar to a credit card verification), and thereby exempting themselves from the Brady Act. Yet Printz was still a very important case.

Hanging in the balance in the Printz case was the survival of states as states, rather than as administrative subdivisions of the federal government.

"No one will take the Constitution seriously if Congress and the courts refuse to do so," observes Professor Merritt. The Brady Act's unprecedented assault on the states and on constitutional federalism was the result of decades of Supreme Court refusal to take federalism seriously. Printz, like Lopez and other 1990s cases in which a slender Court majority has begun to enforce constitutional limits on federal power, is welcome not just because an unconstitutional law was stricken. Just as the Supreme Court's consistent and commendable attention to the First Amendment has raised popular consciousness about the importance of free speech, the Court's renewed attention to the limits of federal power will remind both citizens and legislators that the powers that the People granted to Congress in the Constitution are specific and finite. And those powers surely do not include the power to dragoon state employees into federal service.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Conclusion

The most important effect of Printz was not on handgun sales. Post-Printz, many local law enforcement officials chose to continue doing handgun checks voluntarily. More and more states are setting up their own "instant-check" system for handgun buyers (similar to a credit card verification), and thereby exempting themselves from the Brady Act. Yet Printz was still a very important case.

Hanging in the balance in the Printz case was the survival of states as states, rather than as administrative subdivisions of the federal government.

"No one will take the Constitution seriously if Congress and the courts refuse to do so," observes Professor Merritt. The Brady Act's unprecedented assault on the states and on constitutional federalism was the result of decades of Supreme Court refusal to take federalism seriously. Printz, like Lopez and other 1990s cases in which a slender Court majority has begun to enforce constitutional limits on federal power, is welcome not just because an unconstitutional law was stricken. Just as the Supreme Court's consistent and commendable attention to the First Amendment has raised popular consciousness about the importance of free speech, the Court's renewed attention to the limits of federal power will remind both citizens and legislators that the powers that the People granted to Congress in the Constitution are specific and finite. And those powers surely do not include the power to dragoon state employees into federal service.


Well anything that may have been gained by that ruling or any 1990 rulings all went down the drain and were buried on October 26, 2001 when GW Bush signed the Patriot Act....
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Conclusion

The most important effect of Printz was not on handgun sales. Post-Printz, many local law enforcement officials chose to continue doing handgun checks voluntarily. More and more states are setting up their own "instant-check" system for handgun buyers (similar to a credit card verification), and thereby exempting themselves from the Brady Act. Yet Printz was still a very important case.

Hanging in the balance in the Printz case was the survival of states as states, rather than as administrative subdivisions of the federal government.

"No one will take the Constitution seriously if Congress and the courts refuse to do so," observes Professor Merritt. The Brady Act's unprecedented assault on the states and on constitutional federalism was the result of decades of Supreme Court refusal to take federalism seriously. Printz, like Lopez and other 1990s cases in which a slender Court majority has begun to enforce constitutional limits on federal power, is welcome not just because an unconstitutional law was stricken. Just as the Supreme Court's consistent and commendable attention to the First Amendment has raised popular consciousness about the importance of free speech, the Court's renewed attention to the limits of federal power will remind both citizens and legislators that the powers that the People granted to Congress in the Constitution are specific and finite. And those powers surely do not include the power to dragoon state employees into federal service.


Well anything that may have been gained by that ruling or any 1990 rulings all went down the drain and were buried on October 26, 2001 when GW Bush signed the Patriot Act....

Yes. Just sickening isn't it?
On October 26, 2001, President Bush signed the USA PATRIOT Act, which preempts state liability law in two specific areas. Section 358 amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to preempt state laws regarding privacy of credit records and to protect credit reporting agencies from state liability law. This section requires consumer reporting agencies to disclose credit reports to authorized government agencies investigating terrorism, and it provides that agencies providing information based on “good-faith reliance upon a certification of a governmental agency … shall not be liable to any person for such disclosure under this subchapter, the constitution of any State, or any law or regulation of any State or any political subdivision of any State.”

Section 507 amends the General Education Provisions Act in a way that preempts state liability laws. The section requires educational institutions to turn over educational records if sought by the U.S. Attorney General in a written application to a court of competent jurisdiction. In such cases, the section provides that “[a]n educational agency or institution that, in good faith, produces education records in accordance with an order issued under this subsection shall not be liable to any person for that production.”
 
Top