Undercover video shows how hard it is to get a gun permit in New Jersey

Opposition by National Rifle Association[edit]

After the Brady Act was originally proposed in 1987, the National Rifle Association (NRA) mobilized to defeat the legislation, spending millions of dollars in the process. While the bill eventually did pass in both chambers of the United States Congress, the NRA was able to win an important concession: the final version of the legislation provided that, in 1998, the five-day waiting period for handgun sales would be replaced by an instant computerized background check that involved no waiting periods.[18]

The NRA then funded lawsuits in Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Texas, Vermont and Wyoming that sought to strike down the Brady Act as unconstitutional. These cases wound their way through the courts, eventually leading the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Brady Act in the case of Printz v. United States.

In Printz, the NRA argued that the Brady Act was unconstitutional because its provisions requiring local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks was a violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution (Brief Amicus Curiae of the National Rifle Association of America in Support of Petitioners, Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 1997). Based on these grounds, the NRA told the Court "the whole Statute must be voided."

In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds. The Court determined that this provision violated both the concept of federalism and that of the unitary executive. However, the overall Brady statute was upheld and state and local law enforcement officials remained free to conduct background checks if they so chose. The vast majority continued to do so.[19] In 1998, background checks for firearm purchases became mostly a federally run activity when NICS came online, although many states continue to mandate state run background checks before a gun dealer may transfer a firearm to a buyer.

Background checks for firearms purchases operate in only one direction because of the Firearm Owners Protection Act.[20] That is, although a firearms dealer may obtain electronic information that an individual is excluded from firearms purchases, the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) do not receive electronic information in return to indicate what firearms are being purchased.
 
evince said:
Opposition by National Rifle Association[edit]

After the Brady Act was originally proposed in 1987, the National Rifle Association (NRA) mobilized to defeat the legislation, spending millions of dollars in the process. While the bill eventually did pass in both chambers of the United States Congress, the NRA was able to win an important concession: the final version of the legislation provided that, in 1998, the five-day waiting period for handgun sales would be replaced by an instant computerized background check that involved no waiting periods.[18]

The NRA then funded lawsuits in Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Texas, Vermont and Wyoming that sought to strike down the Brady Act as unconstitutional. These cases wound their way through the courts, eventually leading the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Brady Act in the case of Printz v. United States.

In Printz, the NRA argued that the Brady Act was unconstitutional because its provisions requiring local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks was a violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution (Brief Amicus Curiae of the National Rifle Association of America in Support of Petitioners, Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 1997). Based on these grounds, the NRA told the Court "the whole Statute must be voided."

In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds. The Court determined that this provision violated both the concept of federalism and that of the unitary executive. However, the overall Brady statute was upheld and state and local law enforcement officials remained free to conduct background checks if they so chose. The vast majority continued to do so.[19] In 1998, background checks for firearm purchases became mostly a federally run activity when NICS came online, although many states continue to mandate state run background checks before a gun dealer may transfer a firearm to a buyer.

Background checks for firearms purchases operate in only one direction because of the Firearm Owners Protection Act.[20] That is, although a firearms dealer may obtain electronic information that an individual is excluded from firearms purchases, the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) do not receive electronic information in return to indicate what firearms are being purchased.
Click to expand...

so now your going to say what the SCOTS does in not real?
 
Norah said:
It is constitutional through the 10th amendment but in that case it puts the responsibility on the states and people and not the federal government. There is no constitutional right for the federal government to restrict our rights.
Click to expand...

Norah sounds like a constitutional lawyer...
Impressive coming from a simple freshman cowgirl.
 
Buckly J. Ewer said:
Norah sounds like a constitutional lawyer...
Impressive coming from a simple freshman cowgirl.
Click to expand...

Thanks but really it's been this election that's gotten me interested in it primarily due to Ted Cruz and Rand Pauls words about it, and so I've been reading it and trying to understand it better. I'll admit though that I actually thought it would be harder to understand.
 
evince said:
it is constitutional to have gun laws



pretending that it is not makes you anti constitutional
Click to expand...

it's constitutional to gerrymander and also fuck with voter registration and have long poll lines.

I'll expect you to not complain about this stuff in the future.
 
Dad of Desh said:
it's constitutional to gerrymander and also fuck with voter registration and have long poll lines.

I'll expect you to not complain about this stuff in the future.
Click to expand...

You are in favor of gerrymandering and fucking with voter registration and having long poll lines?

Got it pinhead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top