Printz v.

United States
Introduction:
Owning a gun is a constitutional right set by the Second Amendment of the US Bill of Rights (1791)
which guarantees a right of the people to keep and bear arms [which] shall not be infringed. This
right was established by the landmark decision of District of Columbia v Heller, 2008 which
recognizes the right of an individual to possess a firearm unconnected to a militia and to use it for
traditional lawful purposes such as self-defense.
Preceding this landmark decision is Printz v United States 1997 given by the US Supreme Court and
its majority opinion was given by Justice Scalia. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, 1993 is
an act of the United States Congress passed under the first Clinton administration (nov. 1992 nov.
1996.). It amends the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 which placed a prohibition on persons that fall
under a certain category such as convicted felon, mentally ill persons, or persons found to have
engaged in domestic abuse to acquire firearms.
The Brady Act was signed into law on November 30
th
1993 and was named after James Brady who
was shot in the place of President Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981 during an attempted
assassination which revealed the fact that it was possible for citizen to buy guns under fake
identities.
Facts : Petitioners Jay Printz and Richard Mack sued the Federal government over the Brady Act
which provides for a mandatory background check on anyone who buys a gun. The provision they
are fighting is the temporary commandeering of state officials to conduct these background checks
that they deem unconstitutional. The Supreme Court decided in a very close decision that it was
indeed unconstitutional.
Issues:
- 1. The Supreme Court is not bound by its previous decisions. Should it apply the rationale of
New-York v United States or does it only apply to the legislative body?
- -2. Did Congress by passing this law go over the boundaries of the powers granted by the
Constitution and violate States right by passing this law?
Holding: the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals as it considered that on
the basis of the Federalist papers (n27, 45) and an originalist interpretation of the Constitution.
Rationale: 1. Concerning the first question, Justice Scalia found that following a broad reading of The
Federalist n27 (A.Hamilton) recommended by Justice Souter would mean the state officials would
have to implement federal laws because of their oaths, and not because Congress makes it a
necessity. He also considers that it would be granting Congress the right to direct state legislatures;
which would be incoherent with its decision in New
-York v United States.
2. According to Justice Scalia, who prefers a strict reading of the Constitution, the answer is to be
found somewhere else than the constitution. Scalia states that, although there is no constitutional
text precisely responding to the challenge, an answer can be found in historical understanding and
practice, the structure of the Constitution, and in the jurisprudence of this Court. Which is where
The Federalist papers came into play. The dual sovereignty of the Constitution is mentioned. The
majority arrives at the conclusion that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of
the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.
Dissenting opinions: In his dissent, Justice Stevens suggests the Commerce clause of the Constitution
gave the Federal government the right to regulate handgun sales. HE also mentioned the Necessary
and Proper Clause, giving Congress the power to pass whatever laws are necessary and proper to
carry out its previously enumerated power.
Consequences: There were little effects of the ruling as the majority of local and state officials were
happy to comply with the temporary provisions. Mack and Printz v. United States was an important
ruling in support of States' Rights and limits on Federal power.