ATLANTA, Ga. (Jan. 29, 2025) – A bill filed in the Georgia House would ban state and local enforcement of most federal gun control: past, present, and future. Passage into law would represent a major step toward blocking the enforcement of federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.
Rep. Charlice Byrd and Rep. Noelle Kahaian filed House Bill 121 (HB121). The Georgia Second Amendment Protection Act (SAPA) would prohibit any public officer of employ of the state or its political subdivisions from enforcing or attempting to enforce “any federal acts, executive orders, administrative orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances regarding firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition.” The law would also bar state agents from providing “material aid or support” to any effort to enforce the same.
The proposed law would allow state and local agencies to accept assistance from federal officials in “the enforcement of the laws of this state.”
In effect, the passage of HB121 would prohibit state and local enforcement of all federal gun control not mirrored in state law.
IMPACT
The federal government depends on state cooperation to enforce most of its laws and programs, including gun control. During the 2013 partial government shutdown, the National Governors’ Association noted, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”
“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” Tenth Amendment Center 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.”
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.
This approach aligns with the anti-commandeering doctrine, which affirms that states are not obligated to use their resources to enforce federal acts or regulatory programs. By simply refusing to help enforce, states can nullify many federal actions in practice and effect.
LEGAL BASIS
Under the Constitution, states have the legal authority to bar their agents from enforcing federal gun control.
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.
This strategy of using a “refusal to cooperate” with federal enforcement has been reaffirmed under the long-standing and well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.
As the 3rd Chief Justice, Oliver Ellsworth put it, “This 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.
“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.”
The anti-commandeering doctrine affirms that state and local governments can refuse to enforce federal laws or regulatory programs, regardless of their constitutionality.
PENALTIES
A person legally “injured” by a violation of the law would have standing to bring suit in state court.
Under the proposed law, any political subdivision or law enforcement agency that employs a law enforcement officer who knowingly violates the law would “be liable to the injured party in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress and subject to a civil penalty of $50,000.00 per occurrence.”
Any political subdivision or law enforcement agency that employs an “individual acting or who previously acted as an official, agent, employee, or deputy of the government of the United States, or otherwise acted under the color of federal law within this state who violated the law would also be subject to a $50,000 civil penalty.
WHAT’S NEXT
HB121 has been referred to the House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.
- Defend the Guard Act: Tennessee Legislation Would End Unconstitutional Deployments - February 9, 2025
- Defend the Guard Act: Montana Legislation Would End Unconstitutional Deployments - February 9, 2025
- Kansas Bill Would Establish Bullion Depository and Authorize State Gold and Silver Reserves - February 5, 2025