Talk:Printz v. United States

10th amendment ramifications mention in lede

Surely the precedent related to the rights of states and individuals vis-à-vis the federal government is important enough that it should be mentioned in the introduction? __meco (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The ruling focused on where Federal jurisdiction ended and State began, with the Court basically saying the Fed can make the laws, the States decide how to enforce them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're referring to the how portions of the Bill of Rights have become applied to the States, which, while important yes, is not relevant to this decision much at all. Terrance the James (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggested new section: Ruling

I received an email today headed "County Sheriffs Can Block Federal Gun Control", and saying that, due to Printz, "no matter what gun control laws are passed by the federal government, they can only be enforced in your area if your county sheriff allows them to be." I'm not a lawyer but, by my reading, that overstates things. By my reading, local authorities can refuse to enforce federal laws and regulations, but they cannot block enforcement by federal authorities. My article-related problem with that is that I reached that conclusion after looking at the SCOTUS opinion in Printz, not after looking at this article. The information needed for that conclusion is in the article, but it's not easy to dig out.

I suggest the addition of a new section headed Ruling, located ahead of the Background section and containing something like the following:

Referring to New York v. United States, the Court ruled as follows:

We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed.^{citation of the Printz ruling}

As I said, I'm a non-lawyer, so I'll leave it up to regular editors of this article to decide whether or not this suggestion has merit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ramos

Ramos has the following quotes (syllabus/decision)

• The States are free to provide greater protections in their criminal justice system than the Federal Constitution requires.
• It is elementary that States are free to provide greater protections in their criminal justice system than the Federal Constitution requires

These do not adequately back the statement "The States can only add-to individual and fundamental rights but can never diminish them.

While this statement may be true, it is not a statement that is backed by Ramos. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant mention of Tuscon Shooting

Since the shooter underwent (and passed) a background check to obtain their weapon, the outcome of this case couldn't have had any effect on the incident whatsoever. Why is this here? Oktayey (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Seeing that nobody has provided any explanation, I have removed the mention from the article. Oktayey (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)