DES MOINES, Iowa (Feb. 21, 2025) – A bill filed in the Iowa 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. Jeff Shipley filed House Bill 428 (HF428). The Iowa Second Amendment Protection Act would take a broad approach to ending state and local enforcement of federal gun control measures.
The legislation would ban the state and its political subdivisions along with all public officers and employees from enforcing, attempting to enforce, or participating in the enforcement of “any federal act, executive order, administrative order, rule, regulation, statute, or ordinance regarding firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition against any law-abiding citizen.”
It would also prohibit them from “acceding to a request” or “giving material aid or support” to the efforts of another in the enforcement of the same. Material aid or support “includes but is not limited to voluntarily giving or allowing others to make use of lodging, communications equipment or services including social media accounts, facilities, weapons, personnel, transportation, clothing, or other physical assets.”
This would include not just direct enforcement but also administrative actions like processing paperwork or handling enforcement-related communications.
The intent is clear: to ensure that Iowa law enforcement remains independent of federal gun control efforts by preventing both direct enforcement and indirect cooperation.
However, the legislation does allow Iowa law enforcement to accept assistance from federal agencies – but only when enforcing state laws.
PENALTIES
Any public agency or law enforcement agency that employs a law enforcement officer who knowingly violates the law would be liable to the injured party in a lawsuit subject to a civil penalty of $50,000.
Any law-abiding citizen injured by a violation of the law would have standing to sue for injunctive relief in a state district court.
Any agency that knowingly employs a person who previously acted as an official, agent, employee, or deputy of the federal government who knowingly commits an act violating the law would be subject to a civil penalty of $50,000.
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 Iowa SAPA avoids this same fate by avoiding the 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 validated, 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
HF428 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee where it must get a hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.
- To the Governor: Kentucky Bill Would Reinstate Vetoed Sales Tax Exemption on Gold and Silver - March 17, 2025
- Arkansas House Committee Advances Bill to Prohibit Credit Card Codes to Track Firearms Purchases - March 14, 2025
- To the Governor: Idaho Passes Bill to Recognize Gold and Silver as Legal Tender - March 13, 2025