Printz v. United States - Significance, John Hinckley Helps Write The Brady Bill, The Majority Takes Its Cue From History
petitioner chief respondent congress
Petitioner
Jay Printz, Sheriff/Coroner, Ravalli County, Montana
Respondent
United States
Petitioner's Claim
That Congress's use of the Brady Act to require "chief law enforcement officers" (CLEOs) in a local jurisdiction to conduct background checks of handgun purchasers, and to perform other duties, is unconstitutional.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Stephen P. Halbrook
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Walter Dellinger, Acting Solicitor General
Justices for the Court
Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia (writing for the Court), Clarence Thomas
Justices Dissenting
Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
27 June 1997
Decision
That the "Necessary and Proper" Clause in Article I of the Constitution did not give Congress authority to override state legislatures and require local CLEOs to perform background checks.
Sources
"A New Round for and Against the Brady Bill." US News & World Report, September 9, 1996, p. 8.
User Comments