Gun News

States Draw the Line: 15+ States Ban Law‐Enforcement Cooperation with ATF Gun Enforcement

iStock-gustavofrazao

Across the U.S., a growing number of states—now totaling at least 15—have passed laws empowering sheriffs and local law enforcement to refuse cooperation with the ATF on federal gun control enforcement. This anti-commandeering movement, rooted in the Tenth Amendment, reflects a rising institutional stand for gun rights.

What Are Anti‑Commandeering Laws?

Rooted in Printz v. U.S. (1997), these laws prevent state or local agencies from enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of federal laws deemed unconstitutional. First introduced over a decade ago, this legal stance has accelerated post-2021, with new statutes directly targeting ATF involvement in federal gun efforts.

What Was Printz v. United States (1997)?

In the National Rifle Association (NRA) supported case of Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that required local sheriffs and police chiefs to run background checks for federal gun purchases.

Sheriff Jay Printz of Montana and Sheriff Richard Mack of Arizona challenged the law, arguing it was unconstitutional for Congress to force state and local officials to carry out federal mandates.

In a 5–4 decision, the Court agreed. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia explained that while the federal government can enforce its own laws, it cannot “commandeer” state or local officials to do its work. The ruling reaffirmed a key principle:

The federal government may not compel state officers to implement or enforce federal regulations.

This decision, based on the Tenth Amendment and the “anti‑commandeering” doctrine, laid the groundwork for modern laws that bar state or local cooperation with agencies like the ATF.

Which States Have Banned Cooperation?

According to state records and legal summaries:

Arkansas (Code 21‑1‑904): Any public officer “shall not enforce or assist federal agencies…in the enforcement of any federal statute…that conflicts with [state law]”
justia.com
Arizona (HB 2111, 2021): Bars state entities from enforcing federal gun laws that conflict with state statutes .
Alabama (2022 Second Amendment Preservation Act): Prohibits aiding federal enforcement of firearm laws
wikipedia.org
Alaska (2010 Firearms Freedom Act): Exempts intrastate firearms from federal regulation
Idaho (HB 69, 2014): Declares it unlawful to use state assets to enforce federal gun laws
Kansas (2013 Second Amendment Protection Act): Bars state assistance
Kentucky (HB 153, 2023): Prohibits law enforcement cooperation on federal firearm bans
Missouri (Preservation Act, 2021): Banned cooperation—but was struck down under Supremacy Clause; still shows the momentum .
Montana (HB 0258, 2021): Bans assisting federal firearms laws passed after Jan 1, 2021
New Hampshire (HB 1178, 2022): Prohibits enforcement of conflicting federal firearm regulations
North Dakota (HB 1383, 2021): Limits enforcement assistance for new federal gun laws
Oklahoma (SB 631, 2021): Prevents state/local enforcement of federal gun laws

South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, Wyoming, Utah – all have similar statutes, all forbidding cooperation on post‑2021 gun laws.

Sheriffs Stand Firm: Real Resistance in Action When it Came to Pistol Braces

In Hempstead County, AR, the Sheriff’s Office made its position clear in a public Facebook post following community concerns about federal overreach. The office stated:

“I stand with my fellow Sheriffs of Arkansas and will not support assisting any Federal Agency, ATF or otherwise who would attempt to violate the Constitution.” The post reaffirmed that local deputies would prioritize protecting the rights of county residents and would not divert resources to enforce federal gun regulations. (swark.today)

In Sharp County, MO, Sheriff Shane Russell echoed those sentiments in an official statement, emphasizing his commitment to the Constitution:

“The Sharp County Sheriff’s Office WILL NOT assist the federal government in enforcing this act… Nor will I be arresting, assisting in arrest, or housing law-abiding citizens for non-compliance.” Russell added that his department would focus on pursuing violent criminals, not citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights. (ecommnewsnetwork.com)

And in Stone County, AR, Sheriff Brandon Long underscored the importance of defending law-abiding gun owners. Speaking to local media, Long said:

“I felt like it was important to take a firm stance saying that we won’t be assisting the federal government in enforcing this act. We’re going to focus on serving the citizens, not the law-abiding citizens that have clearly purchased otherwise legal firearms.” His office has since received strong support from county residents for the decision. (kait8.com)

Legal Backdrop & Limitations

The anti‑commandeering principle, established in Printz v. United States (1997), makes it clear: while states cannot stop federal agents from enforcing federal laws within their borders, they are not required to help carry them out. This means state and local officials can legally refuse to use their personnel or resources to assist agencies like the ATF.

Attempts at full nullification—where states try to make federal gun laws outright unenforceable—have often been struck down in court, as seen with Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act. However, courts consistently uphold a state’s right to withhold cooperation, especially when it comes to protecting gun owners from federal overreach.

Why This Matters

This movement goes beyond individual sheriffs—entire state legislatures are now stepping in to shield their law enforcement agencies from being used as tools of federal gun control. By cutting off cooperation with the ATF, these laws create real institutional barriers to enforcing Washington’s firearm regulations.

For gun owners, this isn’t symbolic. These statutes provide practical protection by ensuring that even if Congress or the White House mandates new restrictions, enforcement efforts will be severely hampered at the ground level. Without help from local officers, federal agents face enormous logistical hurdles in carrying out raids, seizures, or prosecutions.

This growing friction between state sovereignty and federal authority is shaping up to be one of the most important constitutional battlegrounds of our time—and it’s a fight the gun rights community, and AmmoLand News readers, cannot afford to ignore.

Don’t Tread on Me

With public statements from sheriffs like Russell, Long, and others—backed by 15+ state statutes—refusal to assist ATF isn’t fringe anymore; it’s becoming entrenched in law and policy. This is a real, multi-state wave of non‑cooperation that ammunition outlets and gun-rights supporters should be watching—and it has strong appeal for anyone who values the RKBA!