Pros And Cons Of The Brady Act

The final version of the Brady Act requires mandatory background checks on individuals before a firearm purchase can be made from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer, or importer, unless there is an exception. Section 992 (g) of the Brady Bill prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who:

1) Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year;

2) Is a fugitive from justice;

3) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;

4) Has been adjuncated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
5) is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
6) Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
7) Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounce U.S. citizenship;
8) Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, or;
9) Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
(Federal Register).
An exception to the Brady Act is that it does not apply to licensed Curios and Relics (C&R) collectors, but only in respect to C&R firearms. To be exempt, the person must carry a FFL Category 03 Curio and Relic license, valid for three years. Licensed Curios and Relics collectors are also permitted to purchase C&R firearms from private individuals or from federal firearms dealers, regardless of if they’re in their home state or another states. They are also permitted to ship C&R firearms in interstate commerce by common carrier. In 27 C.F.R., Curios and relics are defined as “Firearms which are of special interest to collectors by reason of some quality other than is associated with firearms intended for sporting use or as offensive or defensive weapons.” Furthermore, to be recognized as curios or relics, firearms must fall within at least one of the following categories:
1) Firearms which were manufactured at least fifty years prior to the current date, but not including replicas thereof;
2) Firearms which are certified by the curator of a municipal, State, of Federal museum which exhibits firearms to be curios or relics of museum interest; or
3) Any other firearms which derive a substantial part of their monetary value from the fact that they are novel, rare, bizarre, or because of their association with some historical figure, period, or event. Proof of qualification of a particulat firearm under this category may be established by evidence of present value and evidence that like firearms are not available except as collector’s items, or that the value of like firearms available in ordinary commercial channels is substantially less
(27 C.F.R.).
Over its many years of cultivation and implementation, the Brady Act had one key adversary- the National Rifle Association (NRA).

The NRA was the one of the biggest factors in preventing the bill passage for so long. The NRA has the veto threat of George H.W. Bush to hold over lawmakers. However, with the election of Bill Clinton, the NRA relied heavily on Senator Dole to stall and filibuster the bill. The NRA lost the battle in 1993 with a Senate vote of 63-36 (Vice). After President Clinton signed the bill, the NRA released a statement, “When Bill Clinton signed the Brady bill into law on November 30, [1993] a drop of blood dripped from the finger of the sovereign American citizen (Line Up and Shut Up. Face Forward. Stay in Line. Last Name First).” Unhappy with how things turned out the NRA turned to its distinctive hyperbole, telling members that “the Brady Law has become one more tool that government agents are using to deny Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens (LaPierre).” “The anti-gun media” and “new wave of brainwashing propaganda aimed at further destroying our Constitutional freedoms” were to blame for the Congressional defeats

(LaPierre).
With the NRA’s failure to prevent the Brady bill from becoming law, they turned to the court systems. The organization funded lawsuits in Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Texas, Vermont, and Wyoming arguing that the law was unconstitutional and that “[The government will] go house to house, kicking in the law-abiding gun owners’ doors (Vice).” The cases eventually made their way to the Supreme Court of the United States in a review of Printz v. United States (Campbell).
In the case of Printz v United States, the two petitioners, Jay Printz and Richard Mack, were Chief Law Enforcement Officers for Ravalli County, Montana and Graham County, Arizona (Campbell).

The two filed separate claims challenging the constitutionality of the Brady Act’s provision that used congressional action to compel state officers to execute Federal law. The NRA stood behind them, stating that this provision violated the 10th Amendment. However, instead of just arguing for the removal of the provision, the NRA argued that the whole law must be voided. This argument contradicted prior claims from the NRA that they did, in fact, support background checks. In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled to remove the portion of the Brady Law that required local police to conduct background checks as it was an unconstitutional mandate. The rest of the law remained in place

(Vice).