SavannahMann
Platinum Member
- Nov 16, 2016
- 14,057
- 6,569
- 365
In the 1990’s the argument was if the United States Government could require the local police, in this case County Sheriffs, to perform background checks in compliance with the Brady Law.
The Brady Law not only limited weapons types but created a mandatory background check. The weapons limits nearly all expired, part of the comprise to get it passed. The background checks continued permanently.
The argument that won the day for the Sheriffs who objected was not the Second Amendment, but the Tenth.
Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
The Supreme Court determined that the Federal Government could not require a County Sheriff perform the background checks. The Federal Government could require the background checks. The County Sheriff could perform the checks, but could not be required to do so.
I believed then, and now, that this was the correct decision. It is the Federal Governments responsibility to enforce the laws it passes. It is not supposed to hand off that responsibility to others.
Today the same argument is ongoing. Yet the sides have changed. Today it is the left that arguing that the Tenth Amendment protects them from enforcing Federal Law at the local level. Like the Sheriff in Printz, Federal Law is Federal Responsibility.
As for me, I remain the same. I still believe that Federal Law can be enforced by Federal Authorities. But it is at the discression of the locals if they want to participate. If they do that is fine. If they do not, that is also fine. It is not flaunting Federal Law and it is not Treason now any more than it was then.
I believe those who have switched sides are lacking in core beliefs. They believe in the issue now, but not the larger issue. It was not the Second Amendment in Printz. It was the Tenth. Oh, and it was part of the foundation that supported Heller.
Think about it. What federal laws do you want the local cops enforcing? All of them, only a select few?
The Brady Law not only limited weapons types but created a mandatory background check. The weapons limits nearly all expired, part of the comprise to get it passed. The background checks continued permanently.
The argument that won the day for the Sheriffs who objected was not the Second Amendment, but the Tenth.
Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
The Supreme Court determined that the Federal Government could not require a County Sheriff perform the background checks. The Federal Government could require the background checks. The County Sheriff could perform the checks, but could not be required to do so.
I believed then, and now, that this was the correct decision. It is the Federal Governments responsibility to enforce the laws it passes. It is not supposed to hand off that responsibility to others.
Today the same argument is ongoing. Yet the sides have changed. Today it is the left that arguing that the Tenth Amendment protects them from enforcing Federal Law at the local level. Like the Sheriff in Printz, Federal Law is Federal Responsibility.
As for me, I remain the same. I still believe that Federal Law can be enforced by Federal Authorities. But it is at the discression of the locals if they want to participate. If they do that is fine. If they do not, that is also fine. It is not flaunting Federal Law and it is not Treason now any more than it was then.
I believe those who have switched sides are lacking in core beliefs. They believe in the issue now, but not the larger issue. It was not the Second Amendment in Printz. It was the Tenth. Oh, and it was part of the foundation that supported Heller.
Think about it. What federal laws do you want the local cops enforcing? All of them, only a select few?