Subj:   Court Hears Gun Law Argument
Date:   96-12-04 00:37:03 EST
From:   [A--P--s] at [aol.net]

.c The Associated Press
      By LAURIE ASSEO
      Associated Press Writer
      WASHINGTON (AP) -- Several Supreme Court justices voiced doubts
Tuesday about a central part of the Brady gun-control law -- the
requirement that local police check the backgrounds of prospective
gun buyers.
      ``Can the states require the federal government to do
something?'' Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asked acting Solicitor
General Walter Dellinger, who argued in defense of the 1993 law.
      When Dellinger answered ``No,'' Kennedy responded, ``Why does it
work in reverse? ... Isn't the point not to have one government
interfere with another?''
      Justice Sandra Day O'Connor questioned ``the notion that the
federal government can just commandeer'' state officials to carry
out a federal program.
      Two sheriffs from Montana and Arizona are challenging the
background-check requirement, saying the federal government cannot
make them help enforce the Brady law.
      There is a ``prohibition on requiring states to administer a
federal regulatory policy,'' said attorney Stephen P. Halbrook,
representing Sheriff Jay Printz of Ravalli County, Mont., and
Sheriff Richard Mack of Graham County, Ariz.
      But Dellinger argued that the requirement is a lawful effort to
curb the nation's 13,000 handgun murders each year.
      ``The information that this individual (gun buyer) may be a
convicted felon is right there in the same county,'' Dellinger
said. ``It's a rough-and-ready way to get the most readily
available information.''
      If a county refused to conduct the background checks, ``that's
the county where felons will buy guns,'' he said.
      Under questioning from O'Connor, Dellinger said the government
probably could not require states to administer a federal welfare
program without offering federal money and the chance to opt out.
      ``This is just a smaller version of that example, is it not?''
she asked.
      O'Connor and Kennedy are considered swing votes on the high
court, which in some recent decisions has signaled a shift toward
the states in the balance of power with the federal government.
      Halbrook acknowledged the government could get local police to
conduct background checks by making it a condition for receiving
federal funds.
      Rep. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who sponsored the Brady law, said
Tuesday he will introduce legislation early next year that would
deny federal crime funds to counties refusing to conduct background
checks.
      The Brady law was enacted in 1993 over bitter opposition from
gun-control opponents, including the National Rifle Association.
The measure is named after James Brady, the former press secretary
who was seriously wounded in the 1981 assassination attempt on
President Reagan.
      Brady attended the hour-long argument session, and afterward he
had these words on the law: ``Don't strike it ... because it's
working.''
      The measure requires a five-day waiting period before the sale
of a handgun. During that time, local authorities must try to find
out if the buyer has a felony record, a history of mental illness
or drug use, or some other problem that would make the sale
illegal.
      Many states have their own laws requiring such background
checks. And by late 1998, the federal government is to create a
national system to provide instant background checks.
      The government contends that even if the high court throws out
the current background-check requirement, the Brady law's five-day
waiting period can remain in force until the national system is in
place.
      Dellinger said the Brady law is valid because it does not
require states to adopt any particular policy.
      Justice Antonin Scalia suggested embracing that argument would
``leave states no options ... (and) make them dance like
marionettes'' to implement a federal policy.
      However, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wondered why a ``minor
requirement'' on local police would be considered worse than a
central bureaucracy to handle background checks. ``In other
countries they think the opposite,'' he said.
      Halbrook argued that the background-check requirement would be
unconstitutional even if local police had plenty of time to perform
the duty.
      ``Regardless of the burden or lack thereof, these commands are
not constitutional,'' he said.
      But Halbrook ran into trouble when he argued that the Brady law
would be unconstitutional even if it merely required local police
to let federal employees check local records.
      ``I think that's a rather strange answer,'' Chief Justice
William H. Rehnquist said. O'Connor added: ``That's an extreme
position.''
      Mack was defeated in a September primary election and leaves
office in January. The justices are expected to issue a ruling by
July.
      AP-NY-12-04-96 0034EST
      Copyright 1996 The Associated Press.  The information 
contained in the AP news report may not be published, 
broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without 
prior written authority of The Associated Press.