Printz v. United States Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Printz v. United States | 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
The United States Supreme Court is known to save the announcement of its most controversial case for the last day of each term. It’s no wonder that Printz versus United States was announced just as the justices were headed out the door to close the 1997 term. The case raises deeply divisive issues involving gun control and the balance of power between the states and the federal government.
Enacted by Congress in 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was a federal gun control statute that established a nationwide handgun background-check system. While gearing up to implement the nationwide system, interim provisions of the Brady Act temporarily required state and local officials, rather than federal officials, to conduct the background checks of prospective firearm purchasers. Under these interim provisions, firearm sellers were required to report pending firearm sales to county police chiefs, who were then required to conduct the background check and validate the sale.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here www.quimbee.com/cases/printz-...
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Have Questions about this Case?
Submit your questions and get answers from real attorney here: www.quimbee.com/cases/printz-...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our KZbin Channel ► kzbin.info_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

[@microcolonel]

The hilarious thing is that it is somehow implied by the outcome of this that the federal government can press private citizens into federal service, but not state executives. Justice Breyer's opinion is the most disappointing, as though the Supreme Court is called upon to ignore the constitution and focus on whether they personally think other countries are governed effectively with similar laws.

[@lisalasoya2898]

The United States Supreme court is know to save the announcement of its most controversial case fir the last day of each term. It's no wonder that Printz versus United States 521 U.S. 898 (19976) was announced just as tthe justices were headed out the door to close the 1997 term. The case raises deeply divisive issues involving gun control and the balance of power. Dept. of State v. Munoz (23-334

[@cherylfogel2683]

Good except it is “Jay “ Printz not Joe.

[@kyleprintz6471]

Lol who's this Joe guy!?

[@rickstrandberg6398]

The dissenters I believe are going against history, .

[@nathanieljefferson266]

hello

[@lemony_7379]

pizza pie

[@bryonwatkins1432]

AAAAAAAND no law exist nor can exist that would compel a PRIVATE individual to do a background check on another PRIVATE individual while selling them a firearm!!!! Some have asked, “Bryon, what if that individual is an ex-felon for doing 10 years for armed back robbery?” Not my problem. i don’t have to background check them, don’t have the RESOURCES to do so, and after working in a prison for five years, if one wants to get something, they’re going to get it. That’s a fact!!!!

[@valentinius62]

But, it was only a 5-4 decision and the majority of judges on the 9th Circuit disagreed 2-1 while two district court judges had ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It was a 8-6 decision overall and shows that a significant percentage of jurists are OK with the federal government having more power, and the states and the people less.

[@aaron.for.friends3153]

you don't get our judicial system, do you?

[@valentinius62]

@@aaron.for.friends3153 No, I get it. If you have different judges for any particular case, you would most likely get a different decision. Jurists like to pretend that jurisprudence is some kind of science. What it boils down to is akin to democratic mob rule. If their decisions were really correct, they would always be unanimous. So their decisions are actually arbitrary and can be overturned at some point in time. Try telling a scientist that you can no longer calculate power by dividing the amount of work done by the amount of time to do it because the times have changed and someone ruled that the definition of work has changed...because they said so.

[@aaron.for.friends3153]

@@valentinius62 its rather that different jurists interpret the law differently. There are also several judicial philosophies like originalism or judicial activism. All that plays into the decision. But that doesn't make some decisions 'wrong'. The Supreme Court always has the last word if needed, and if they believe a law violates the constitution, then it does. Ofc justices have different approaches to interpreting the constitution, but that doesn't invalidate one point of view.

[@valentinius62]

@@aaron.for.friends3153 So, laws are valid in some courts but are invalid in others. So one goes to prison for breaking a law, while someone else goes free for breaking the same law. Sounds legit.

[@david52875]

@@valentinius62 "Sounds legit." Yes. If one court has a retarded interpretation of a law, it doesn't affect the entire country.