CHARLESTON, W.Va. (Jan. 13, 2022) โ A bill introduced in the West Virginia House would take on federal gun control; past, present and future. Passage into law would represent a major step toward ending federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state and improve on an awful law passed last year.
Del. Joe. Jeffries introduced House Bill 2159 (HB2159), along with 10 cosponsors, on Jan.12. The legislation would ban any person, including any public officer or employee of the state and its political subdivisions, from enforcing any past, present or future federal โacts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, or regulationsโ that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
HB2159 is similar to a bill that passed in Missouri last year.
Passage of this bill would be a huge improvement over the fake “gun sanctuary” law passed in West Virginia during the 2021 legislative session.
DETAILS OF THE LEGISLATION
Under the proposed law, federal acts that โinfringe on the peopleโs right to keep and bear arms,โ whether enacted before or after the passage of this law, would be invalid in the state, not recognized by the state, specifically rejected by the state, and considered “null and void and of no effect in this state.”
The bill includes a detailed definition of actions that qualify as โinfringement,โ including but not limited to:
- taxes and fees on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services that would have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
- registration and tracking schemes applied to firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition, or their owners, that would have a chilling effect;
- any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens;
- any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.
The proposed law defines a โlaw-abiding citizenโ as โa person who is not otherwise precluded under state law from possessing a firearm.โ
Under the proposed law, infringement on the right to keep and bear arms would include the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968. Pres. Trumpโsย bump-stock ban, proposed federal โred-flag laws,โ and any future gun control schemes implemented by the federal government.
The legislation includes a provision that would allow anybody who violates the law and knowingly deprives somebody of their right to keep and bear arms as defined by the law to be sued for damages in civil court.
Any federal agent who enforces an infringement as defined by the law would be permanently ineligible to serve as a law-enforcement officer or to supervise law-enforcement officers for the state or any political subdivision of the state.
EFFECTIVE
The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts โ including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governorsโ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, โstates are partners with the federal government onย mostย federal programs.โ
Based onย James Madisonโs advice for states and individualsย inย Federalist #46, a โrefusal to cooperate with officers of the Unionโ 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,ย he noted that a single state taking this stepย would make federal gun laws โnearly impossibleโ to enforce.
โPartnerships donโt work too well when half the team quits,โ said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. โBy 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.โ
LEGAL BASIS
The state of West Virginia can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement 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. Theย anti-commandeering doctrineย is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842.ย Printz v. U.S.ย serves as the cornerstone.
โWe 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 Statesโ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the Statesโ 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 sovereigntyโ
No determination of constitutionality is necessaryย 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.
WHATโS NEXT
HB2159 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee where it needs to receive a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.
- One Step is a Step Too Far - February 28, 2026
- Freedom Isn’t Granted: It’s Exercised and Defended - February 18, 2026
- Who’s in Charge? The Founders on Sovereignty - February 4, 2026