Asked by Terrence Robbins on Jun 06, 2024

verifed

Verified

In Printz v.United States,the Supreme Court struck down a law that required state and local
Law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on handgun purchasers because the law

A) infringed on the Second Amendment right for individuals to bear arms.
B) ignored the constitutional principle of habeas corpus.
C) violated the Tenth Amendment's guarantee of state sovereignty.
D) encroached on the constitutional right to privacy.

Tenth Amendment

A change to the U.S. Constitution specifying that any powers not assigned to the federal government or banned by the Constitution from the states belong either to the state governments or to the citizens.

State Sovereignty

The concept that states possess independent authority and the right to govern themselves without external intervention, within their territorial boundaries.

Printz v. United States

A United States Supreme Court case that decided it was unconstitutional for the federal government to command states' law enforcement officers to enforce federal laws.

  • Explore the impact of the Supreme Court on the development and interpretation of federalism.
verifed

Verified Answer

JM
Jonathon MavecJun 11, 2024
Final Answer :
C
Explanation :
The Supreme Court in Printz v. United States ruled that the law mandating state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on handgun purchasers violated the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, thereby upholding the principle of state sovereignty.