The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, otherwise known as the Brady Bill, came into effect on February 28, 1994. This bill required a five day waiting period before the purchase of a handgun while states conduct background checks on the purchaser. However, the Brady Bill imposes on state rights and was not an appropriate action taken by the federal government. The Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms was ruled by the Court to be a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense in the case District of Columbia v. Heller. This view had long been subject to debate, but was finally put to rest, and as such, no one should be impeded by the government from purchasing a handgun. Furthermore, gun purchasers who are …show more content…
Additionally, if this responsibility were to be imposed on the states by the federal government, Scalia maintained, the states were not only forced to accept the financial burden of its implementation, but the state enforcement would be “blamed for any error” in the Bill’s functioning. Though some hold the opinion that the execution of the Brady Bill is only a “minor burden” on the States, this defense is refutable. In order to enact the provisions of the Bill, state law enforcement is conscripted in the enforcement of the law, and rather than the character of the Bill, an unfunded federal mandate, being the issue, it is its implementation, which requires the service of state and local executives for a federal cause. Not only were local police officers guaranteed federal immunity under the Department of Justice for violation of the Brady Bill, but under the Bill, Sheriff Printz was forced to violate Arizona state law, which forbade sheriffs to be involved in handgun purchases. The question posed here is answered by historical examples that run directly counter to the Brady Bill, as according to Annals of Congress 912-913, the first federal law asking responsibility of the