Printz v. United States

Facts

Congress amended the Gun Control Act of 1968 in 1993 by enacting the Brady Act. The Act told the Attorney General to build a national instant background-check system by November 30, 1998. Under the interim provisions, a firearms dealer who wanted to sell a handgun first had to get a Brady Form from the buyer, check the buyer's identification, and send notice of the form's contents, with a copy, to the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) of the buyer's residence. The dealer then generally had to wait five business days, unless the CLEO said sooner that he had no reason to believe the sale would be illegal. A dealer could sell at once if the buyer had a state handgun permit issued after a background check, or if state law provided an instant check. In other States, the CLEO had to make a reasonable effort within five business days to find out whether the sale would break the law, including research in whatever state and local recordkeeping systems were available and in a national system. The Act did not require the CLEO to take any particular action if he found the sale unlawful. It did require him to give a rejected buyer, on request, a written statement of reasons, and to destroy his records if he found no basis to object. Jay Printz and Richard Mack, the CLEOs of Ravalli County, Montana, and Graham County, Arizona, challenged the interim provisions.

Issues

1. Does Congress violate the Constitution when it commands state and local chief law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers under the Brady Act's interim provisions?
2. If the background-check duty is invalid, are the Act's separate duties to destroy Brady Forms and to give reasons for ineligibility determinations also unconstitutional as applied to these petitioners?

Holding

The Brady Act's interim requirement that CLEOs perform background checks is unconstitutional, because Congress cannot conscript state officers to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. The duty to accept Brady Forms falls with it. The duties to destroy forms and give reasons are, as to petitioners, inoperative rather than unconstitutional.