- Jul 27, 2006
- 48,655
- 55,404
- Detector(s) used
- Minelab_Equinox_ 800 Minelab_CTX-3030 Minelab_Excal_1000 Minelab_Sovereign_GT Minelab_Safari Minelab_ETrac Whites_Beach_Hunter_ID Fisher_1235_X
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Turns out the Sheriffs and State governments know what they are doing in nullifying the gun laws....Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the Federal government can not order state or local govenment employees to enforce a federal mandate on gun control....
"As the head of the executive branch of the federal government, a president can issue executive orders only to employees of the federal government—and only regarding implementing federal laws or programs. A governor can likewise issue executive orders to employees of his state government regarding the laws or programs of that state.
Every sheriff is a county officer, elected by the voters of that county. The Supreme Court held in Printz v. U.S. in 1997 that the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government from ever ordering any state or local official to carry out a federal program. Ironically, that case also involved a sheriff—Jay Printz of Montana—and a federal gun control law"
Fact Check?CNN's Blitzer: Sheriffs Can't Defy Executive Orders
　
　
Printz v. United States 1997
Brief Fact Summary. The federal Brady Act interim provisions required state and local law enforcement officials to temporarily do background checks. Two local law enforcement officials challenged the constitutionality of the interim provisions.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Congress may not compel a state or local government to implement federal regulatory programs, even if they are temporary functions.
Facts. Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act (the Act). The Act required the Attorney General to establish a national background check system. Until the national system became computerized, interim provisions for background checks were established. Those provisions provided that state and local law enforcement officers must do background checks before issuing permits to buy firearms. Two local law enforcement officers challenged the constitutionality of the Act’s interim provisions.
Issue. May Congress compel a state or local government to even temporarily implement and administer a federal regulatory program?
"In New York v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) held the federal government could not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program. Thus, the background check provisions of the Act violated this prohibition.
Even if there is no policy-making involved, Congress cannot take away a state’s sovereignty. Federalism mandates states remain independent from the federal government."
Printz v. United States | Casebriefs
"As the head of the executive branch of the federal government, a president can issue executive orders only to employees of the federal government—and only regarding implementing federal laws or programs. A governor can likewise issue executive orders to employees of his state government regarding the laws or programs of that state.
Every sheriff is a county officer, elected by the voters of that county. The Supreme Court held in Printz v. U.S. in 1997 that the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government from ever ordering any state or local official to carry out a federal program. Ironically, that case also involved a sheriff—Jay Printz of Montana—and a federal gun control law"
Fact Check?CNN's Blitzer: Sheriffs Can't Defy Executive Orders
　
　
Printz v. United States 1997
Brief Fact Summary. The federal Brady Act interim provisions required state and local law enforcement officials to temporarily do background checks. Two local law enforcement officials challenged the constitutionality of the interim provisions.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Congress may not compel a state or local government to implement federal regulatory programs, even if they are temporary functions.
Facts. Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act (the Act). The Act required the Attorney General to establish a national background check system. Until the national system became computerized, interim provisions for background checks were established. Those provisions provided that state and local law enforcement officers must do background checks before issuing permits to buy firearms. Two local law enforcement officers challenged the constitutionality of the Act’s interim provisions.
Issue. May Congress compel a state or local government to even temporarily implement and administer a federal regulatory program?
"In New York v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) held the federal government could not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program. Thus, the background check provisions of the Act violated this prohibition.
Even if there is no policy-making involved, Congress cannot take away a state’s sovereignty. Federalism mandates states remain independent from the federal government."
Printz v. United States | Casebriefs
