LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (Feb. 14, 2025) – A bill filed in the Arkansas 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 ending the implementation of federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.
Rep. Wayne Long and Sen. Gary Stubblefield filed House Bill 1481 (HB1481). Titled the Anti-ATF Commandeering Act, the legislation takes a broad approach to ending state and local enforcement of federal gun control measures.
Specifically, the bill would prohibit state agencies, local governments, and their employees from providing what it calls “material aid and support” in the enforcement or implementation of federal firearms laws, regulations, executive orders, or treaties. That includes not just direct enforcement but also administrative actions like processing paperwork or handling enforcement-related communications. The bill defines “material aid and support” to include:
“Voluntarily providing or allowing others to use lodging or communications equipment or services, including social media accounts, data, facilities, weapons, personnel, transportation, clothing, or other physical assets.”
This broad definition extends beyond purely law enforcement activities to include any form of logistical or operational support, such as providing access to facilities, personnel, or resources that could assist in the enforcement of federal gun control measures.
Beyond that, the bill goes further by explicitly prohibiting public employees and elected officials from knowingly taking any action that aids federal enforcement efforts. This includes direct enforcement as well as indirect assistance, such as sharing information about potential violations with federal agencies. The bill states:
“A public employee or elected official shall not knowingly (1) assist in the enforcement of any federal firearms law, regulation, executive order, or treaty; or (2) refer a violation of a federal firearms law, regulation, executive order, or treaty to the federal government.”
This means that state and local officials are explicitly barred from taking any intentional action that supports the enforcement of federal gun control measures. For example, if a local law enforcement officer becomes aware of a possible violation of federal firearms regulations, they cannot report it to federal authorities.
The intent is clear: to ensure that Arkansas law enforcement remains independent of federal gun control efforts by preventing both direct enforcement and indirect cooperation.
However, the legislation does allow Arkansas law enforcement to accept assistance from federal agencies – but only when enforcing state laws.
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.”
Withdrawing state support for federal gun control enforcement has already demonstrated a significant impact in Missouri. The ATF explicitly acknowledged this in its lawsuit against the state’s Second Amendment Protection Act, noting that severed partnerships with state and local law enforcement have “severely impaired federal criminal law enforcement operations within the State of Missouri.”
“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.
LEGAL BASIS
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.
In the federal lawsuit against Missouri, two federal courts have strongly affirmed Missouri’s right to refuse to participate in federal gun control enforcement under the anti-commandeering doctrine. However, both courts rejected some of the Act’s language asserting the unconstitutionality of federal gun laws, citing that as their basis for holding the entire act unconstitutional.
The Arkansas Anti-ATF Commandeering Act avoids this same fate by avoiding use of any of the language the federal courts found objectionable, while keeping the strong provisions banning state and local enforcement the courts affirmed.
As the anti-commandeering doctrine has long affirmed, 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
Public employees and elected officials who violate the law would be guilty of a class A misdemeanor. Public employees would also be subject to termination and the revocation of state law enforcement certification.
A person legally “injured” by a violation of the law would have standing to bring suit in state court.
Under the proposed law, a person subjected to a violation would have standing to file a claim with the Arkansas State Claims Commission and could receive a settlement of $50,000 per violation. They could also sue a state agency or political subdivision that violates the law in state civil court subject to a $50,000 civil penalty per violation.
WHAT’S NEXT
HB1481 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee where it is scheduled for a hearing and likely vote on Thursday, Feb. 20. It must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process. Residents of Arkansas are strongly urged to contact ALL members of the committee – and politely, but firmly – let them know they should vote YES on HB1481. (contact info here)
- The “Declare War” Lie: What the Founders and Constitution REALLY Said - March 17, 2025
- The Supremacy Clause Hoax: How We Became What the Founders Fought - March 14, 2025
- Second Amendment Preservation Act Clears Key Hurdle in Missouri - March 13, 2025