Federal judges disagree on handgun background checks in Brady law.

Federal district courts in Mississippi, Montana, and Texas disagree over the constitutionality of the Brady handgun control law, which requires local law enforcers to conduct "reasonable" background checks on buyers during a five-day waiting period. Similar challenges to the law, all filed by rural sheriffs relying on the Tenth Amendment's protection of states' rights, are awaiting decisions from federal courts in Arizona, Louisiana, and Vermont.

Two of the courts - the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi and the U.S. District Court for Montana - "emasculated" the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act by striking down the background check provision, according to Stephen Halbrook, a Fairfax, Virginia, lawyer who represented the sheriffs. The National Rifle Association of America gave financial assistance to the sheriffs. (McGee v. United States, No. 2:94 CV-67-PS (S.D. Miss. June 2, 1994), and (Printz v. United States, No. CV 94-35-M-CCL. (D. Mont. May 16,1994).)

In Texas, U.S. District Court Judge Edward Prado reached the opposite conclusion. (Koog v. United States, Civ. DR-94-CA-8 (W.D. Tex. May, 31,1994).)

That decision marked a triumph for handgun control advocates who witnessed the enactment of the Brady law, on Feb. 28 following a seven-year battle with the NRA and other gun control opponents.

The new law whipped up all immediate flurry of lawsuits filed by local law enforcers who objected to the imposition of federal authority on their local crime-fighting duties.

The sheriffs scored a handy victory in Montana when U.S. District Court Judge Charles Lovell struck down the act's background check requirement. Lovell found the requirement "commandeered ... the states to administer a federal program" in violation of the Tenth Amendment, but he upheld the law's five-day waiting period.

Lovell's decision effectively ripped the teeth out of the Brady Act, a fact not lost on handgun control advocates, who implored law officers to conduct the background checks voluntarily.

The disagreement among the judges on the Tenth Amendment question offers a glimmer of hope to gun rights advocates who consistently have lost Second Amendment arguments at the federal appellate level. Department of Justice spokesman John Russell said an appeal of the Montana decision is "very likely." He could not be reached for comment on the Mississippi decision.

Halbrook said Congress could have prevented all of the lawsuits if it had drafted the act differently.

"The whole problem would have been solved if the FBI or ATF [the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] or some other federal agency instead of local law enforcers had been responsible for the background checks," Halbrook said.

Sarah Brady, chair of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, denounced the Montana and Mississippi decisions, but praised the Texas ruling. "The NRA's dangerous campaign to dismantle the Brady law is not succeeding," Brady said. "We remain steadfast in our belief that the Brady law violates none of the amendments to the Constitution."

Brady's husband, former presidential press secretary James Brady was wounded in the 1981 assassination attempt on President Reagan.

During the first month of enactment of the Brady law, background checks resulted in the denial of more than 1,000 gun purchases in 14 states that previously had no checks, according to ATF, which is responsible for enforcing the nation's gun laws.