CYBER EAGLES:  WHERE POSSIBLE, PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THIS TO YOUR
               LOCAL MEDIA OUTLETS - NEWSPAPER, RADIO, TV...
               
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE              For Further Information,

May 17, 1994             Contact:  NRA Public Affairs
                                   703-267-3820

BACKGROUND CHECKS UNDER BRADY ACT DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL  NRA
Chief Lobbyist:  "NRA said all along that mandatory background checks
under Brady were a ruse and a sham -- and a federal judge proved NRA
right."

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Siding with law enforcement officials and the
National Rifle Association of America, U.S. District Judge Charles C.
Lovell of Montana declared today that so-called mandatory background
checks under the Brady Act are unconstitutional.

In one of several suits brought by chief law enforcement officers
supported by NRA, a federal judge found that the "mandatory"
background checks under the Brady Act constitute a "commandeering" of
state police officials by the federal leviathan.  "The federal
government is not the lord of local law enforcement, " said Mrs.
Tanya K. Metaksa, chief lobbyist of the NRA.  "Brady Act proponents
advertised that the 'reasonable effort' background checks called for
under the Brady Act were mandatory.  Today, th ey were found guilty
of false advertising and they were thrown out of court along with
their rhetoric.

"Once upon a time, the NRA-backed, state-administered instantaneous
background checks -- truly fair, effective and mandatory where
implemented -- were labeled 'a ruse and a sham' by U. S. Rep. Charles
Schumer (D-NY, a Brady Act sponsor).  Today, a federal judge has
declared the very centerpiece of Mr. Schumer's law a ruse and a
sham."

Mrs. Metaksa commended Montana's Ravalli County Sheriff Jay Printz
for "courage in supporting city hall by taking on the White House."

Mrs. Metaksa noted that the lawsuits filed by Sheriff Printz and law
enforcement officials in other states focused on the
constitutionality of the federal government gun control mandate from
the peace officer's perspective.  "Requiring from on-high that state
authorities expend a 'reasonable effort' to conduct a background
check on handgun purchasers violates the officers' due process rights
under the Fifth Amendment," Mrs. Metaksa said .  "It also violates
the primacy of common sense and local control.  What is reasonable? 
Pulling officers off homicide investigations?  Reducing patrols of
high crime areas?  Hardly."

The law enforcement officers' suits also successfully argued that the
federal government cannot regulate states to implement a federal
regulatory program -- a violation of the Tenth Amendment.  The court
in Montana concurred.  

"The real tragedy is we're diverting local law enforcement resources
to check honest citizens rather than go after criminals directly,"
said Mrs. Metaksa. 

The court enjoined the Government of the United States from requiring
not only Sheriff Printz but any other law enforcement officer from
conducting the background checks.

- nra -

                Downloaded from GUN-TALK (703-719-6406)
                A service of the 
                National Rifle Association 
                Institute for Legislative Action
                Fairfax, VA 22030
 {PB