Printz v United States

 Federal Brady Act provided a detailed federal scheme regulating the sale of handguns.

And, as part of that scheme, required state law enforcement officers to perform background checks on persons applying to purchase a handgun.

 As the Court (per Justice Scalia) puts it, state law enforcement officers were conscripted or “pressed” into federal service. P. 255.

  New York v. United States controls. (P. 256)

 Categorical rule – The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program. 

Do you see why, in Printz, Congress' attempt to commandeer local police departments to perform background checks on purchasers of handguns does precisely what the Court in New York v. United States says Congress cannot do? 

 The Brady Act commandeers states into enforcing a federal regulatory scheme by making local law enforcement officers the administrative agents of the federal government.

 If Congress wishes to require background checks on handgun purchasers it must bear the economic and political costs of the program itself, rather than impose them on state officials.

When I am upset with federal agents poking their noses into my life and charging excessive fees for the privilege of purchasing a gun, I will know that my beef is with the Federal Government--not state government--and perhaps I will vote accordingly.

Some critics of Printz argue that the anti-commandeering principle is not contained in the text of the Constitution.

The real question, however, is where is the pro-commandeering principle contained in the text of the Constitution? Notice Justice Thomas (p. 256 ) concurred "calling for a more fundamental revisiting of Commerce Clause jurisprudence." 

Is it "proper" for Congress to conscript state officials into federal governmental service?

Notice that in Sibelius, in declaring the Commerce Clause insufficient to justify the Individual Mandate, the Court declared that individuals cannot be dragooned into the health care market. This is also a kind of anti-commandeering principle. The Individual Mandate may have been necessary, but it was not "proper."