Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 01:31:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Douglas Davis <[d--i--a] at [rmi.net]> To: Multiple recipients of list <[r k ba alert] at [mainstream.net]> Subject: GOA: Brady and the Supreme Court Gun Owners Foundation files amicus brief BRADY CASE TO BE HEARD BY SUPREME COURT BEFORE THE INK from President Clinton's signature dried on the Brady law, Sheriff Richard Mack of Graham County, Arizona, filed a lawsuit in the federal district court in Tucson. From the outset of the case, Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation have been assisting and supporting, in every possible way, Sheriff Mack's challenge to the federal government. Now, Sheriff Mack's case, along with that of Sheriff Jay Printz of Montana, has worked its way through the court system and will finally be heard by the Supreme Court. GOF has recently filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief on behalf of the sheriffs. GOF makes the point that the Brady law is not only bad policy (it does not reduce crime and violence in this country as its proponents claim) but it is also blatantly unconstitutional. Recently, in a lecture before a group of medical students in Washington, DC, Bob Walker of Handgun Control, Inc., made the statement that the Constitution of this country is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. That reasoning, in spite of the fact that it is taught in most governent schools, is patently false. The Supreme Court, according to Article 111 of the U.S. Constitution, is obligated to rule in cases "arising under this Constitution." It was never intended that the Court would interpret the Constitution as a living, breathing document, having diverse meanings with changing times and ever-changing views. Rather, the Court was to base its decisions according to a predetermined, established rule of law. In essence, the Court was set up to ensure that the Constitution not become a living, elastic document. The current Court, it seems, is at least in some degree attempting to return to these fundamental principles. In the most recent decision affecting our Second Amendment rights, the Court declared in Lopez v. U.S. that the Congress cannot regulate firearms in a "school zone" based on the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. In Lopez, five Justices demolished the government's shallow argument, which went something like this: "Guns near schools create a negative environment, which diminishes education, which eventually will have an impact on commerce." Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring decision, pointed out that according to the government's broad definition of commerce, Congress could "regulate every aspect of human existence" and still be within its Constitutional parameters. Hopefully, the Court will continue to be guided by the Tenth Amendment and the principle of limited government as it considers the constitutionality of the Brady law. Gun Owners Foundation, in its brief to the Court and in prior studies of Brady, has pointed out several aspects of the law which violate the Constitution. These arguments against Brady should be studied and understood by all concerned gun owners. In addition to the Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment arguments, the GOF brief also points out that Brady violates the Faithful Execution clause of Article 11, Section 3, of the Constitution. In accordance with the separation of powers doctrine, Congress may pass laws, but it does not have enforcement authority. With Brady, however, Congress has arbitrarily appointed officials who are not answerable to any federal executive branch agency. What the Brady law has created amounts to Congress' own national posse. It is a dangerous precedent for Congress to be allowed to arbitrarily seize the resources of locally elected sheriffs. In New York v. U.S., the Court held that Congress cannot commandeer a state's resources in order to implement federal policy. Brady declares that the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) is responsible for undertaking the background check, be it instant or otherwise, of each handgun purchase transacted through a firearm dealer. Congress has, in effect, conscripted virtually every sheriff across the country to do its bidding. Many people correctly point out that this is an unfunded mandate. But as Sheriff Mack stated, it was not the unfunded part that bothered him, because they couldn't pay him to do that work. It is the mandate that is so onerous. Of course, the main reason Brady is so dangerous is also the most obvious. The law infringes on the individual's inalienable right to keep and bear arms. Any background check, regardless of how long it takes to conduct it, places the individual in the position of receiving the government's permission before being "allowed" to exercise his rights. If gun owners allow themselves to fall into the trap of accepting the least cumbersome form of gun control, i.e., the instant registration check, then the debate becomes how much gun control will we be willing to accept at a given time. Instead, we must diligently keep the debate on our foundation, the Constitution, and argue that Congress may not simply ravage the Constitution in the name of misguided political expediency. [Side bar] For GOA members and friends who wish to assist us in this challenge to the federal government and the Brady law, tax deductible contributions should be sent to: Gun Owners Foundation 8001 Forbes Place Suite 102, Drawer SC Springfield, VA 22151. Make checks payable to Gun Owners Foundation. Thank you for your continuing support of our efforts on behalf of our constitutional rights.