PHOENIX, Ariz. (Feb. 18, 2025) – An Arizona House committee has unanimously passed a measure to let voters decide whether to decriminalize fully automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns, and firearm sound suppressors. If approved at the ballot box, the law would automatically prohibit state and local enforcement of federal restrictions on the same under a 2021 Arizona statute.
Rep. Alexander Kolodin filed House Concurrent Resolution 2037 (HCR2037). Titled the “Shall not Be Infringed Act,” the legislation would initiate a ballot measure that would remove fully automatic firearms (machine guns), short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and firearm sound suppressors (more commonly known as silencers) from the state’s list of “prohibited weapons.”
On Feb. 13, the House Judiciary Committee passed HCR2037 by a 6-3 vote. Yesterday, the House Rules committee moved the legislation forward with a vote of 7-0.
ENDING STATE ENFORCEMENT
Under the Arizona 2nd Amendment Firearm Freedom Act passed in 2021, the state and all of its political subdivisions are prohibited from “using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate with any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the United States government that is inconsistent with any law” of the state of Arizona regarding the regulation of firearms.
Because HCR2037 would eliminate state-level regulation of firearm sound suppressors, machine guns, and sawed-off shotguns, Arizona law would instantly classify federal suppressor regulations as “inconsistent” with state policy, making them unenforceable by any state or local agency.
No additional action would be required – Arizona officials would be prohibited from participating in any way, including investigations, arrests, or prosecutions related to federal laws regulating these weapons and firearm accessories.
Kolodin confirmed this was the intent of the bill.
“What this bill says is, if the feds want to infringe on our Second Amendment rights, they can darn well pay for doing that themselves, and we’re not going to have Arizona law enforcement do it.”
FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Under current federal law, it is illegal to manufacture, sell, or possess a sawed-off shotgun, a fully automatic weapon, or a firearm sound suppressor without going through this burdensome federal process.
The National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 heavily regulates fully automatic weapons and short-barreled shotguns, requiring them to be registered and imposing a $200 tax on their manufacture or transfer. The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 banned private ownership of new machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986.
Suppressors simply muffle the sound of a gun. They do not literally silence firearms. Nevertheless, the federal government heavily regulates silencers under the National Firearms Act as well, charging a $200 tax on the purchase of the devices. Buying one also requires months-long waits after filing extensive paperwork with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
IMPACT ON FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT
Federal enforcement efforts, including gun control, rely heavily on state participation. In fact, 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.
WHAT’S NEXT
HCR2037 will now move to the House floor where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.
- Missouri House Passes Bill to Reestablish Second Amendment Preservation Act - March 29, 2025
- How to Protect Shipping Routes without Shredding the Constitution - March 28, 2025
- Lysander Spooner vs the Supreme Court: The Judicial Supremacy Lie - March 24, 2025