BRADY LAW IS A TEST OF STATES' RIGHTS

On the surface, the current Supreme Court review of the Brady gun-control law looks like a test of firearm regulation. But sharp questions from several justices indicate there is a far more important issue at stake: states' rights.

"Can the states require the federal government to do something?" asked Justice Anthony Kennedy. "No," responded Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, arguing in defense of the 1993 law. Asked Kennedy: "Why does it work in reverse? ... Isn't the point not to have one government interfere with another?"

The Brady law requires local law enforcement agencies to do a background on purchasers of firearms in an attempt to prevent sales to individuals with criminal records. But the checks are costly and time-consuming, and sheriffs in Montana and Arizona have refused to do them. The sheriffs contend the federal government shouldn't be telling local sheriffs how to do their jobs.

There is little doubt that local officials are in a better position to decide how to handle the gun issue. The kicker is they are currently being forced to do background checks even when they aren't deemed necessary, because the federal government has the authority to withhold funding unless local officials comply with the federal law.