WASHINGTON, DC — US Representative Ron Paul (R-Surfside, TX) said on Friday that the US Supreme Court did the right thing by siding with local law enforcement officers against a major portion of the unconstitutional Brady Act, passed in 1993.

“The US Congress completely overstepped it’s bounds in the Brady Act; this is a major move in favor of the US Constitution,” said Paul, a staunch defender of the Constitution and its Second Amendment. He is the sponsor of HR 1147, the Second Amendment Restoration Act, which would restore the right of law-abiding citizens to own the firearms of their choice so that they may defend themselves and their family. In addition, Dr. Paul is a cosponsor of several pieces of pro-second amendment legislation, including HR 27, the Citizens’ Self-Defense Act, which prohibits gun control laws that target law abiding citizens and restores the right of all law abiding citizens to own firearms.

Paul offered his congratulations to the sheriffs who brought the case.

“These brave men are heroes for standing up for what is right against the full power of a federal government which had been bent on doing the wrong thing on this issue. I find it ironic that these locally-elected officials took much more seriously the oath to defend and protect the Constitution, than did the 103rd Congress’ federal officeholders who passed the unconstitutional Brady Act.”

Several sheriffs sued the federal government for requiring in the Brady Act that local police agencies perform background checks. In its ruling announced on Friday, the Supreme Court stated that the federal government does not have the right to commander state and local officials and compel them to execute federal rules and regulations.

“Under the Second Amendment, the federal government has no authority whatsoever to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning and possessing firearms,” said Paul. “At no point in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to in any way force state and local officials to do anything, this is a step toward returning sanity to our government. And by eliminating this horrible provision of the legislation, the Court has essentially rendered much of the Brady Act a lame-duck law, which is good news for anyone who cares about individual liberty and the Constitution.”

This entry was posted on Friday, June 27th, 1997 at 3:14 am and is filed under Press Releases. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.