States that do not maintain an application process to allow persons disqualified for mental health reasons to obtain relief from firearms prohibition face Justice Assistance Grant penalties.

On November 30, 1993, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.

Petitioners Sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack, the Chief Law Enforcement Officers for Ravalli County, Montana, and Graham County, Arizona, represented by Stephen Halbrook and David T. Hardy respectively, filed separate actions challenging the constitutionality of the Brady Act's interim provisions.

On May 16, 1994, United States District Judge Charles C. Lovell granted the Sheriff declaratory judgment, finding that the provision requiring CLEOs to perform background checks violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but also concluding that provision was severable from the remainder of the Act, effectively leaving a voluntary background check system in place.

[9] Rather, the Court viewed "almost two centuries of apparent congressional avoidance of the practice" as strong evidence that Congressmen did not think they had the power to command state officials.

The Court expressed a worry that Members of Congress might take credit for "solving" a problem with policies that impose all the financial and administrative burden, as well as the blame, on local officials.

51's argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people.

"[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

[6] Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion, alone, highlighting that the Court's holding left local Chief Law Enforcement Officers free to voluntarily comply with the federal mandate.

[6] Justice Thomas also added a concurrence, alone, clarifying that, in his opinion, Congress's interstate Commerce Clause powers do not apply to purely intrastate firearms transfers.

He was very concerned with the ability of the federal government to respond to a national emergency and did not believe that "there is anything in the 10th amendment 'in historical understanding and practice, in the structure of the Constitution, or in the jurisprudence of this Court,' that forbids the enlistment of state officers to make that response effective."

Moreover, the text of the Constitution does not support the Majority's apparent proposition that "a local police officer can ignore a command contained in a statute enacted by Congress pursuant to an express delegation of power enumerated in Article I."

27 as providing ample evidence that the Framers' original intent was to require states to act as auxiliaries of the Federal government.

The vast majority of local and state law enforcement officials supported the interim provisions and were happy to comply with the background checks.

"[13] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court adopted the suggestion from Justice Thomas's concurrence that the Constitution grants individuals a personal right to own firearms.