NCSL scores major victory in Brady Law case.

• Position: National Conference of State Legislatures on Brady Gun Law - The States' Advocate.

Sheriff Jay Printz of Ravalli County, Mont., and Sheriff Richard Mack of Graham County, Ariz., were on the receiving end of an unfunded federal mandate. The Brady Gun Law required a waiting period and background check on private handgun purchases. Until a national system to check backgrounds of gun purchasers is established, Congress commanded local law enforcement officers to perform the checks.

Small, rural sheriffs' departments have neither the manpower nor resources to comply with the federal mandate. The "department," after all, in a small western county might consist only of the sheriff and maybe a deputy. Fed up with the federal government's unreasonable demand, Sheriffs Printz and Mack sued the United States. NCSL filed an amicus brief in support of the two sheriffs when the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

NCSL recognized that Printz was potentially a landmark federalism case. The issue before the Court was not gun control; the issue was whether Congress has the power, in effect to impress state officials into its service.

NCSL's brief, written by Professor Bruce La Pierre of Washington University, argued that Congress does not have the constitutional power to compel state officials to serve as the "implements" of federal regulation. Congress's action was essentially coercive; states had no opportunity to decline participation. All the administrative and financial costs of the program were imposed on state and local officials, forcing them to reallocate resources away from enforcement of state and and local laws. In short, the Brady law unconstitutionally treated states as administrative subdivisions of the federal government.

The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision agreed with the LaPierre argument and struck down the background check provisions of the Brady Law as a violation of states' rights under the 10th Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion for the Court is a ringing defense of states' rights. "The federal government," said Scalia, "may neither issue directives requiring the states to address particular problems, nor command the states' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of 'dual sovereignty.'"

The mandate on states was declared unconstitutional, a decision that prompted a strong dissenting opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices David Souter, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Stevens sharply contested Scalia's reading of American history, arguing, "The basic change in the character of the government...