A federal statute that establishes a national instant background check system for prospective handgun purchasers. The statute requires firearms dealers to notify the chief law enforcement officer of the purchaser's residence and imposes interim duties on those officers to conduct checks until the federal system becomes operational.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
2
State Officer Background Check Mandate
Barbara Bennett serves as the chief law enforcement officer in her county. A local dealer notifies her of a proposed handgun sale to Bernard Bass and asks her to perform the required check. Bennett must divert time from her regular duties to review federal databases and state records for disqualifying information. When she refuses on the ground that the federal government cannot compel her participation, the dealer withholds the transfer pending resolution of the constitutional objection.
Data Regulation Distinction
Boubacar Bah, a state motor vehicle official, receives a federal directive to release driver records containing personal information to a private research firm. The directive regulates the commercial sale of that data rather than requiring Bah to perform new investigative tasks. Because the requirement targets the handling of an article of commerce instead of conscripting state personnel into federal enforcement, the obligation survives constitutional challenge.
In 1994 Congress enacted the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, which regulates the disclosure of personal information contained in the records of state motor vehicle departments. State DMVs require drivers and automobile owners to provide personal information that may include a person’s name, address, telephone number, vehicle description, Social Security number, medical information, and photograph as a condition of obtaining a driver’s license or registering an automobile. Many states sell this personal information to individuals and businesses, generating significant revenues such as the approximately $8 million received each year by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation.
The DPPA generally prohibits any state DMV or its officers, employees, or contractors from knowingly disclosing or making available personal information obtained in connection with a motor vehicle record without the driver’s consent. The prohibition is subject to numerous statutory exceptions for uses such as motor vehicle safety, theft prevention, emissions compliance, and court proceedings. The Act also regulates the resale and redisclosure of drivers’ personal information by private persons who have obtained that information from a state DMV. Such persons must maintain records identifying to whom the records were disclosed and the permitted purpose for five years. Any person who knowingly violates the DPPA may be subject to a criminal fine. A state agency maintaining a policy or practice of substantial noncompliance may be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 per day imposed by the United States Attorney General.
South Carolina law conflicts with the DPPA. Under that law, the information contained in the state’s DMV records is available to any person or entity that fills out a form listing the requester’s name and address. The form must state that the information will not be used for telephone solicitation. State law authorizes the DMV to charge a fee for releasing motor vehicle information and requires the DMV to allow drivers to prohibit use of their information for commercial activities such as telephone solicitation. Following the DPPA’s enactment, South Carolina and its Attorney General, respondent Condon, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina alleging that the DPPA violates the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments.
The district court concluded that the Act is incompatible with principles of federalism, granted summary judgment for the state, and permanently enjoined the Act’s enforcement against the state and its officers. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1999.
What does the Brady Act require of state law enforcement officers?
The statute directs chief law enforcement officers to make reasonable efforts to determine whether a prospective handgun purchaser is legally disqualified. Officers must receive notice from dealers and conduct checks during an interim period before the national instant system is fully operational.
Supporting sources
Why did the Supreme Court invalidate portions of the Brady Act?
The Court held that the interim provisions commandeered state officers to administer a federal regulatory program. This direct federal command to state executive officials violates the Tenth Amendment and the principle of dual sovereignty.
Supporting sources
How does the Brady Act differ from statutes upheld under the anti-commandeering doctrine?
Unlike laws that regulate state conduct as participants in interstate commerce, the Brady Act provisions required officers to perform affirmative investigative duties on behalf of the federal government. The distinction turns on whether the federal measure compels new enforcement actions rather than merely regulating existing state activities.
Supporting sources
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
(
Brady Act
or Act), 18 U. S. C. § 922(g)(8), requires the Attorney General to establish a national instant background check system by November 30, 1998. In the interim, the Act requires…