The Brady Act imposes a waiting period of five business days for the purchase of handguns, during which police must conduct a background check of prospective buyers. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are sheriffs from Montana and Arizona, who claim that local police departments should not be "conscripted for a federal crusade." As such, the law's opponents believe the burden imposed upon local police is an infringement upon states' rights to regulate gun sales within their borders.
But the arguments against the Brady Act are flawed. The law is necessary no matter how difficult the enforcement. On one level is the matter of differential gun control statutes in various states. While many states currently have background checks or waiting periods more stringent than the actual guidelines that the Brady Act prescribes, others do not have specific laws to mandate criminal history screening. The loopholes raise the specter of criminals - who might risk detection in their own state - crossing into states without background checks to illegally purchase firearms. The presence of a uniform national law precludes that frightening scenario.
Furthermore, unlike previous legislation that the Supreme Court struck down, the Brady Act does not require states to enact further handgun legislation. Rather, it forces local police to run routine background checks to certify that those purchasing guns are eligible to do so. In a ruling to uphold the law last year, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals deemed the burden minor, akin to "federally imposed duties of state officers to report missing children or traffic fatalities." While the Supreme Court has been increasingly sympathetic to states' rights in recent years, this is a case in which they should clearly support the law as it now stands.
However, even if the justices follow the logical course of action, the Brady Act may require more help. As originally written, the provision for the waiting period will expire after five years - at which time a national computerized system is supposed to be in action to perform instant background checks. But current projections predict the computerized system will not be ready in time. Time constraints present a problem only Congress can solve. While members of the National Rifle Association fight to weaken the Brady Act, Congress must take action to extend the viability of the five-day waiting period provision until a national crime computer is established to allow instant background checks.
The Brady Act is an effective deterrent - federal officials estimate that its provisions have stopped more than 60,000 convicted criminals from purchasing firearms since its adoption. As an important weapon against crime, the law must not falter, either through judicial annulment or legislative neglect.