ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, December 3, 1996 TAG: 9612030062
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
SOURCE: Chicago Tribune
Sheriff Jay Printz was more than angry when Congress passed a law two years ago ordering him and other local law enforcement officers to run background checks on prospective gun buyers.
A law enforcement officer in Ravalli County, Mont., for 24 years, Printz said he was incredulous and is determined to do something about the ``repugnant'' law.
``I'm not a federal official. I don't enforce federal law,'' said Printz, a former Marine who was born and reared in the mountain valley of western Montana. ``The federal government does not have the power to conscript me to do a federal job.''
Printz will take his argument to the Supreme Court today in a case that could help clarify the relationship between the states and the federal government.
At issue is the constitutionality of the federal Brady Act, which imposed five-day waiting periods on prospective gun buyers and required the nation's local law enforcement officers to run background checks on them.
Under the law, local officials such as Printz are required to make a ``reasonable effort'' to determine if the buyer is prohibited from getting a gun. Those barred include felons, illegal immigrants, people who were dishonorably discharged from the military and the mentally ill.
Passed with great fanfare, the act's supporters say it has stopped an average of 85 felons a day from buying guns, with minimal imposition on local officials.
But Printz and other opponents, including Sheriff Richard Mack of Graham County, Ariz., who also is involved in the case, say the law is less a success than a burden - and an unconstitutional one, at that.
Despite the politicians' claims, it's not so simple to run the checks, they say. In a rural area - with a tight budget, limited staff and vast territory to cover - it could take days of driving just to get the records of one prospective gun buyer, they say.
Congress simply went too far when it passed the law, Printz and Mack contend, because the Constitution doesn't give it power to order local officials around.
``They've stepped into areas they have no business being in,'' Printz said.
As a result, Printz argues, the law violates the Constitution's 10th Amendment, which leaves to the states those powers not specifically granted to Congress in the Constitution.
For three decades, federal law has prohibited gun dealers from selling handguns to convicted felons. But no checks were performed. The buyer simply had to swear he wasn't a convicted felon or member of another prohibited group.
The Brady law's supporters note that, under the old system, convicted felons could simply lie and get a gun. The new law, with its waiting periods and background checks, changed that.
Supporters of the Brady law say the sheriffs simply are pawns of the National Rifle Association, which is backing their lawsuits. The NRA's goal, they say, is to bring down the entire law, including the five-day waiting periods. They note that a sheriff's role will be eliminated by next November, when the waiting period is to be replaced by a computerized national system for instantly checking gun buyers' backgrounds.
LENGTH: Medium: 67 linesby CNB