Priutz+vs.+U.S.

Printz v. United States Justin & Hannah  FACTS!!! The Supreme Court wanted background-checks on the people purchasing hand guns to make sure that no illegal immigrants or criminals could purchase guns. County sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack, separately challenged the constitutionality of this interim. provision of the Brady Bill on behalf of (CLEOs) in Montana and Arizona respectively. In both cases District Courts found the background-checks unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that since this requirement was severable from the rest of the Brady Bill a voluntary background-check system could remain. Unlawful aliens are not allowed to purchase or own a firearm. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and consolidated the two cases deciding this one along with Mack v. United States. The Court constructed its opinion on the old principle that state legislatures are not subject to federal direction. The Court explained that while Congress may require the federal government to regulate commerce directly, in this case, performing background-checks on applicants for handgun ownership, the Necessary and Proper Clause does not empower it to compel state CLEOs to fulfill its federal tasks for it. The Court added that the Brady Bill could not require CLEOs to perform the related tasks of disposing of handgun-application forms or notifying certain applicants of the reasons for their refusal in writing. Printz had 5 votes for him and only 4 votes against him THE ISSUE!! Using the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I as justification, can Congress temporarily require state CLEOs to regulate handgun purchases by performing those duties called for by the Brady Bill's handgun applicant background-checks? RIGHTS DISCUSSED!! The major law or rights discussed was the right to own a handgun without having background-checks. Many people thought that this was unconstitutional because if the second amendment, the right to bare arms. They wanted a way to make sure the people were safe, but they still kept it constitutional. DECISION!! Decided on June 27th 1997 There were 5 votes for Printz, and 4 votes against him. REASONING!! Most people voted towards Printz because they believed that doing background-checks on people who wanted to buy fire arms was unconstitutional due to the 2nd amendment. Even though they voted against the background-checks they came up with a compromise. So both sides got something they wanted IMPACT!! Anyone can buy a hand gun that was of legal age and a citizen of the United States. You cannot buy one if you are considered a felon or if you are an illegal alien.

DISSENTING ARGUMENT!! Printz was a hand gun owner who thought his right was being violated by having a background-check done on him only to by a handgun. He said that it was unconstitutional to have these checks; following the second amendment. The opposing argument was that, they didn’t want felons or illegal aliens to buy hand guns.

IF YOU ARE STILL CONFUSED OR WANT A BETTER UNDERSTANDING IF THIS [|THEN WATCH THIS.]