This article argues that this proposed legislation, called “Brady II” in this article, would be unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Printz v. United States, which struck down Brady I’s requirement that State or local officials conduct background checks of prospective handgun purchasers. Under “Printz,” the Supreme Court held that “the Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a Federal regulatory program.” The mandatory obligation imposed on CLEOs (chief law enforcement officers) to perform background checks on prospective handgun purchasers plainly runs afoul of that rule. The Court reasoned that the U.S. Constitution rejects the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States. This article also identifies the practical difficulties that would arise under comprehensive handgun licensing and registration. These include the burden placed on the resources and capabilities of the Federal criminal justice system in enforcing the law, the various schemes that would emerge in order to evade the law, and the law’s ineffectiveness in preventing criminals from obtaining handguns. 117 notes