MADISON, Wisc. (July 16, 2021) – Last week, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers vetoed a bill that would have prohibited local enforcement of some future federal gun control. Passage into law would have taken a first step toward stopping any new federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.

A large coalition of Republicans introduced House Bill 293 (AB293) on May 3. The legislation would prohibit any person from enforcing a federal act, law, statute, rule, regulation, treaty, or order that takes effect on or after January 1, 2021, if it bans or restricts semi-automatic firearms, assault weapons, or magazines; requires registration of firearms, magazines, or other firearm accessories; regulates the capacity of magazines; regulates the quantity of ammunition or bullets an individual may possess; prohibits types of ammunition or bullets; or requires the confiscation of a firearm if the federal act isn’t identical to existing state law.

The proposed law would also bar any state agency or other body in state government and any local governmental unit from expending money or using other resources to confiscate a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition that is lawfully possessed under the laws of Wisconsin.

Anyone in violation of the law would be subject to Class A misdemeanor charges.

Additionally, AB293 includes provisions to exempt a firearm, accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured within the state and that does not leave the state from federal regulations under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. It also includes potential misdemeanor charges for federal agents, although these two sections of the bill are unlikely to have an immediate impact without the approval of a federal court.


The Democrat governor was expected to veto the bill. In his veto message, Evers erroneously claimed “this bill is not permitted by the United States Constitution,” citing the supremacy clause.

“This bill purports to nullify the enforcement of federal law,” he wrote.

While the provisions applying to federal agents are arguably problematic, Evers completely ignores the fact that the Supreme Court has held consistently that states don’t have to enforce federal laws. The state of Wisconsin can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control (or any other federal act.) Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.

The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. 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”

No determination of constitutionality is necessary to invoke the anti-commandeering doctrine. State and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or implement federal programs whether they are constitutional or not.

When Evers says the bill is unconstitutional, he’s either ignorant or lying.

Since states have the authority to direct their personnel and resources as they see fit, they can legally punish state officers for participating in enforcement actions prohibited by state law..

But admittedly, prosecuting federal agents would be problematic.

Under federal statutes, any case involving a federal agent acting within the scope of his or her official duties gets removed to federal court. In other words, the current structure of the legal system makes it virtually impossible to prosecute a federal agent in state court. Lawyers for the charged federal agent would immediately make a motion to remove the case to a federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). Unless the state judge refused to comply, the case would then be out of state hands.

Nevertheless, the threat of arrest would create problems for federal agents trying to enforce unconstitutional gun laws in Wisconsin and would certainly gum up the works even if they were never prosecuted. The question is whether or not local law enforcement will be willing to enforce the law on federal officials.


Given that Evers was almost certain to veto any effort to limit enforcement of federal gun control and considering the fact that the Republicans knew they couldn’t pass such a bill with a veto-proof majority, AB293 was clearly introduced and passed to make a statement. But why did Republicans choose to only ban enforcement of future federal gun control? Why not go all the way and refuse to enforce all federal gun control? Why the half-measure? Do Wisconsin Republicans believe that gun control that isn’t implemented by Joe Biden is somehow constitutional? Because it’s not.

A bill limited to taking on future federal gun control only makes sense as a strategic first step. In some states, a more limited measure may be the best politically viable option. But if you’re just making a statement, and you know you’re just making a statement, why not go all the way and make a real statement? This bill makes little sense strategically. But Wisconsin Republicans certainly did make a statement – that they don’t care about all of the unconstitutional federal gun control enforced every single day in the Badger State.


Despite Gov. Evers’s constitutional ignorance and spineless Republicans, state and local refusal to cooperate with federal actions provides a powerful tool to resist unconstitutional federal overreach.

The provisions relating to firearms manufactured within the state would likely have little practical effect, but the ban on state and local enforcement of future federal acts that don’t conform to state law would make them nearly impossible to enforce in Wisconsin.

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

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 effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.

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.

“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin said. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional acts to their much-needed end.”

Mike Maharrey

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.