Arizona Senate Passes Bill to Decriminalize Suppressors and Prohibit State Enforcement of Federal Restrictions

PHOENIX, Ariz. (Mar. 4, 2025) – Yesterday, the Arizona Senate passed a bill that would decriminalize firearm sound suppressors in the state. If passed into law, it would automatically prohibit state and local enforcement of federal regulations on suppressors under an existing Arizona law passed in 2021.

Sen. Wendy Rogers filed Senate Bill 1014 (SB1014). The legislation would remove “a device that is designed, made or adapted to muffle the report of a firearm,” from the state’s list of “prohibited weapons.” In effect, this would decriminalize the manufacture and possession of firearm sound suppressors, commonly referred to as “silencers,” in the state.

On Mar. 3, the Senate passed SB1014 by a 17-11 vote.

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 SB1014 would eliminate state-level regulation of firearm sound suppressors, 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 suppressor laws.

FEDERAL REGULATIONS

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.

The feds charge 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.

Under current federal law, it is illegal to manufacture, sell, or possess a suppressor without going through this burdensome federal process.

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

SB1014 will move to the House where it must first get a committee hearing and pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

Tags: 2nd Amendment, Arizona, Federal Gun Control, HB2111, SB1014, silencers, sound suppressors