PHOENIX, Ariz. – (Mar. 15, 2016) – Today, an important Arizona Senate committee passed a bill to prohibit the state from using personnel or resources to enforce any new federal gun control measures, setting the foundation to nullify them in practice within the state. 

Rep. Anthony Kern (R-Glendale), Rep. Darin Mitchell (R-Dist. 13) and Rep. Steve Montenegro (R-Avondale) filed House Bill 2300 (HB2300) in January with three other cosponsors. The legislation would prohibit any state or local agency and their employees from “knowingly and willingly” participating in any way in the enforcement of any future federal act, law, order, rule or regulation issued regarding a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition “that infringes the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution or that impairs that right in violation of Article 2, Section 26 of the Arizona constitution”

The bill would also ban the use of state assets or money in the enforcement of future federal gun laws.

Any local government found to have assisted in the enforcement of such federal gun laws in violation of the act would lose all of its state funding the following year. State or local employers would face criminal penalties for knowingly violating the law.

HB2300 was passed by vote of 35-24 in the House last month, and today, the Senate Federalism, Mandates and Fiscal Responsibility Committee passed it by a close vote of 4-3 in their last meeting of the 2016 legislative session.

“This is a great first step for Arizona,” said Scott Landreth of “Passing this bill will ensure that any new federal gun control is almost impossible to enforce, and sets the foundation to take on current gun control next year too.”


By removing the resources that the federal government relies upon to carry out enforcement, these bills would block some federal gun control measures in effect.

Louisiana gun-rights activist Trevor Ray put it this way in a comment on Facebook, “While the FBI/ATF can still operate business as usual, they couldn’t effectively investigate and enforce these laws without the local/state authorities handling most of the legwork and logistics, they’re usually just the purse strings.”

Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effectively method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, he noted that a single state taking this step would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.

The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun laws. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governor’s Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”

Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits. By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control schemes, the states can effectively bring them down.


The bill rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. US serves as the cornerstone.

“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”


The Arizona state constitution reads, in part:

“The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.”

In his important study on the right to keep and bear arms in state constitutions, Constitutional Scholar Dave Kopel noted, “The Washington and Arizona Constitutions make explicit a principle which has been considered implicit in the Second Amendment: protection of an individual right “to bear arms” does not forbid the government from controlling large assemblies of armed men. Just a few years before the Washington Constitution was adopted, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a state ban on armed parades in public, even as the Court plainly treated the Second Amendment as an individual right protected against federal infringement.”

As the NRA-ILA resource page for the state points out, Arizona doesn’t require licensing, a permit to carry, or registration for handguns, rifles and shotguns. It also has the Castle Doctrine enacted into law, right to carry in restaurants, and right to carry confidentiality, among other protections.

Under HB2300, any federal act, executive order, rule, regulation, or other measure that attempts to enact such restrictions would ensure that state or local enforcement of the federal gun control would be prohibited as violating “that right in violation of Article 2, Section 26 of the Arizona constitution.”

As Kopel suggested for a similar bill in another state last year, the way this could play out is that if the federal government were to ban or further restrict any firearms allowed under the Arizona state constitution, and then a local cop pulled someone over for a traffic violation and saw that firearm in the car, the cop could simply give the guy a ticket for the traffic violation and send him on his way.

Recently-proposed federal measures, such as an M855 ammo ban would fall under the new law and state resources would be prohibited from being used to help the federal government enforce such a ban. And any attempt to re-enact the federal “assault weapons” ban, which expired in 2004, should meet the same level of resistance in Arizona.

The latter is an important focus for gun rights activists, as presidential candidate Hillary Clinton recently renewed her call for reinstatement of the ban. Her opponent, Bernie Sanders, has also called for more aggressive gun control measures.

Something that could be particularly notable is the federal Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 (18 U.S.C. § 922(p)). The law is in effect until 2023 and “makes it illegal to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm that is not as detectable by walk-through metal detection as a security exemplar containing 3.7 oz of steel, or any firearm with major components that do not generate an accurate image before standard airport imaging technology.”

No concurrent prohibition exists in Arizona.


While the bill sailed through two committees and the full House along party lines without any significant opposition, today, opponents of the bill came out in force. Among those who stated fierce opposition to the bill were John Thomas of the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police and Trey Williams of the Arizona Association of Counties on behalf of Arizona county sheriffs.

“We’re not told we have to work with the federal government, we WANT to work with them,” said Thomas. Williams suggested that Arizona sheriffs were concerned about the “expansiveness in the language” of the bill that he claimed would stop them from participating in federal drug raids.

Federal drug laws were also important to Thomas, as he repeatedly mentioned the need to continue enforcing them for the federal government, and gave the committee an example that a state agent would violate HB2300 if they were simply monitoring a street for federal drug agents engaged in a federal drug raid and the feds subsequently found a violation of a federal gun law during the raid.

“Inadvertently” was the term Thomas used, suggesting that even by mere accident, a police officer could be charged with a crime under the bill.

On the committee, Sen. Smith cited language on Page 1, line 10.  As the bill states, in order for an officer to be in violation, they have to “knowingly and willingly” help the federal government enforce a federal act – enacted on or after Jan. 1, 2016 – that restricts the right to keep and bear arms under the federal or state constitution.

Arizona Tenth Amendment Center representative Michael Gibbs pointed out that this language was included to ensure that an officer wouldn’t be held accountable for doing something by accident. “Knowingly and willingly is a high legal bar,” said Gibbs.

Case law is strong on this as well, and it’s highly unlikely that any court in the country would hold anyone accountable for “inadvertently” violating HB2300 as Thomas warned would happen:

When the word “knowingly” is used , it means that the defendant realized what he was doing and was aware of the nature of his conduct and did not act through ignorance, mistake, or accident. Knowledge may be proved by the defendant’s conduct and by all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case.[United States v. Kisting, 159 Fed. Appx. 725, 728 (7th Cir. Ill. 2005)]


HB2300 will now move to the Senate Rules committee for further consideration.


In Arizona: follow all the steps to support these bills at THIS LINK

All other states: contact your state legislator and encourage them to introduce similar legislation to stop federal gun control at this link.

Michael Boldin

The 10th Amendment

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”



Featured Articles

On the Constitution, history, the founders, and analysis of current events.

featured articles


Tenther Blog and News

Nullification news, quick takes, history, interviews, podcasts and much more.

tenther blog


State of the Nullification Movement

232 pages. History, constitutionality, and application today.

get the report


Path to Liberty

Our flagship podcast. Michael Boldin on the constitution, history, and strategy for liberty today

path to liberty


Maharrey Minute

The title says it all. Mike Maharrey with a 1 minute take on issues under a 10th Amendment lens. maharrey minute

Tenther Essentials

2-4 minute videos on key Constitutional issues - history, and application today


Join TAC, Support Liberty!

Nothing helps us get the job done more than the financial support of our members, from just $2/month!



The 10th Amendment

History, meaning, and purpose - the "Foundation of the Constitution."

10th Amendment



Get an overview of the principles, background, and application in history - and today.