JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (Feb. 27, 2025) – The Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) took a step forward as a House committee advanced a bill to refine its language, addressing federal court objections while maintaining the state’s prohibition on enforcing federal gun control.
SAPA, signed into law in 2021, prohibits the enforcement of numerous federal gun control measures deemed to “infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.” In early 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice sued to block the enforcement of SAPA, citing primarily, its effectiveness.
Since then, two federal courts have affirmed Missouri’s right to refuse to participate in federal gun control enforcement under the anti-commandeering doctrine. However, both courts rejected some of SAPA’s language asserting the unconstitutionality of federal gun laws, citing that as their basis for holding the entire act unconstitutional.
Rep. Bill Hardwick introduced House Bill 1175 (HB1175) to amend SAPA and address the federal courts’ objections. It has since garnered 14 co-sponsors. Under the proposed law, public officers and employees of the state and its political subdivisions would be prohibited from enforcing or attempting to enforce “any federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances regarding firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition,” unless they were mirrored in state law.
On Feb. 26, the House General Laws Committee passed HB1175 by a vote of 9-4, making the bill eligible for debate and vote by the full House.
IMPACT
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 SAPA, noting that severed partnerships with state and local law enforcement have “severely impaired federal criminal law enforcement operations within the State of Missouri.”
Federal enforcement efforts, including gun control, rely heavily on state participation. The DOJ’s lawsuit and public statements confirm that SAPA has disrupted joint task forces, information-sharing, and other critical state-federal partnerships
For instance, the Missouri State Highway Patrol and multiple local law enforcement agencies withdrew officers from ATF task forces in response to SAPA’s provisions, forcing the federal government to operate without critical state-level resources.
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. As Judge Andrew Napolitano observed, a single state withdrawing support could render federal gun control 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
HB1175 retains SAPA’s provision imposing a $50,000 civil penalty per occurrence on political subdivisions or law enforcement agencies that employ officers who knowingly violate the law, allowing injured parties to seek legal or equitable remedies.
This applies to a law enforcement officer who gives “material aid and support to the efforts of another who enforces or attempts to enforce or participates in any way in the enforcement or implementation of any federal acts, laws, executive orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances regarding firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition” as prohibited under the law.
WHAT’S NEXT
HB1175 will now be eligible to move to the full House, where it will need to pass by a majority vote before being transmitted to the Senate.
- 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