FRANKFORT, Ky. (Jan. 17, 2025) – A newly filed Kentucky House bill would expand current state law to prohibit state and local enforcement of any federal gun control measures enacted after December 15, 1791, the day the Second Amendment was ratified, drawing a bold line in defense of the right to keep and bear arms.
In 2023, the state enacted a law prohibiting Kentucky law enforcement agencies, local governments, and public agencies from “adopting a rule, order, ordinance, or policy under which the entity enforces, assists in the enforcement of, or otherwise cooperates in a โfederal banโ on firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessory enacted on or before Jan. 1, 2021.” It also prohibits the expenditure of public funds for the same.
Rep. T.J. Roberts and Rep. Felicia Rabourn filed House Bill 82 (HB82) to expand the current ban on state enforcement of a “federal ban” on firearms and ammunition to include any law, rule, or regulation effective after Dec. 15, 1791, the day the Second Amendment was ratified.
State law defined a “federal ban” as โa federal law, executive order, rule, or regulation … that infringes upon, calls into question, prohibits, restricts, or requires individual licensure for or registration of the purchase, ownership, possession, transfer, or use of any firearm, ammunition, or firearm accessories.โ
State or local government agents who violate the law are subject to termination and misdemeanor criminal charges.
A person commits an offense under this section when, while acting in his or her official capacity under color of law, he or she knowingly violates this section. An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor for the first offense and a Class A misdemeanor for each subsequent offense.
“I believe the ATF is evil and that Kentucky should never comply with federal gun control, so I introduced House Bill 82 to protect all peaceful peopleโs rights to keep and bear arms,” Roberts said in a post on X.
IMPACT
Withdrawing state support would significantly hinder the enforcement of federal gun control in Kentucky.
The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations, and acts โ including gun control. As noted by the National Governorsโ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, โstates are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.โ
By simply withdrawing this cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in practice and effect.
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 โnearly impossibleโ to enforce.
โPartnerships donโt work too well when half the team quits,โ Tenth Amendment Center director Michael Boldin said. 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
Under the Constitution, the state can legally bar state and local agents from enforcing federal gun control. As Roberts noted, “The Supreme Court, before I was born, made clear that the federal government cannot force states to use their resources to aid federal gun control measures.”
Based on James Madisonโs advice for states and individuals in 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.
This strategy of using a โrefusal to cooperateโ with federal enforcement has been reaffirmed under the long-standing and well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.
This legal concept dates back to the earliest days of the republic. As the third Chief Justice, Oliver Ellsworth put it, โThis Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, states, in their political capacity.”
Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or regulatory program.
The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five major Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.
โThe 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.โ
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.
WHAT’S NEXT
HB82 is currently in the House Committee on Committees. This committee must assign the bill to a House standing committee for further consideration.
- 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