Printz v. United States
Significance, John Hinckley Helps Write The Brady Bill, The Majority Takes Its Cue From History
Jay Printz, Sheriff/Coroner, Ravalli County, Montana
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
Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens
Date of Decision
27 June 1997
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.
"A New Round for and Against the Brady Bill." US News & World Report, September 9, 1996, p. 8.
- Rae Carruth Trial: 2000-01 - A Promising Football Career Shattered, Cherica Adams Dies And Rae Carruth Flees, Recording Of 911 Call Is Played In Opening Statements
- Presidential Election Trials: 2000 - Manual Recounts Requested, Manual Recounts Begin, Florida Supreme Court Rules, An Hour And A Half In Washington - November 9 Thursday
- Printz v. United States - Significance
- Printz v. United States - Further Readings
- Printz v. United States - John Hinckley Helps Write The Brady Bill
- Printz v. United States - The Majority Takes Its Cue From History
- Printz v. United States - The Dissent Offers A Different Reading Of History
- Printz v. United States - Impact
- Printz v. United States - Related Cases
- Printz v. United States - The Brady Bill--does It Really Fight Crime?
- Other Free Encyclopedias