SAPA upholds gun rights, but DOJ seeks to nullify state sovereignty
By willowt // 2025-09-30
Copy
 
  • Missouri's Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) aims to prevent state officials from enforcing federal gun laws.
  • The Department of Justice (DOJ) under Attorney General Pam Bondi opposes the SAPA, arguing it insulates the state from federal law.
  • Bondi’s DOJ asserts this law could undermine federal supremacy and the balances of federalism.
  • The law has garnered support from Second Amendment advocates, who argue it safeguards individual rights.
  • Critics argue this law could weaken states' abilities to resist federal overreach.
Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) has become the latest battleground in the ongoing legal conflict over the balance of federal and state powers, particularly in the realm of firearms regulation. The state’s legislature approved SAPA in 2021, a law intended to shield Missouri from federal gun control measures by prohibiting state officials from enforcing federal firearms statutes deemed unconstitutional. Despite the state’s efforts, the Department of Justice (DOJ) under Attorney General Pam Bondi is now at odds with Missouri, filing arguments in court that challenge the constitutionality of SAPA. This legislative effort reflects a broader national debate over the extent of federal authority and states’ rights, raising questions about the future of individual liberties.

The birth of the Second Amendment Preservation Act

The genesis of SAPA dates back to 2021, when Missouri's House of Representatives passed a bill designed to protect the Second Amendment rights of its citizens. Representative Jered Taylor introduced the legislation, aiming to safeguard against potential federal overreach. The act explicitly declares state immunity from federal firearm regulations that, in Missouri’s view, exceed the constitutional limits set by the Second Amendment. The law outlines that state officers or employees can face civil penalties of up to $50,000 for enforcing any federal laws deemed invalid under SAPA. This legislation aligns with the long-standing principle of states’ rights, particularly critical in gun rights spheres. Missouri is not alone in its stance; several other states have enacted similar legislation aimed at shielding their citizens from federal firearms regulation. The core argument behind SAPA is straightforward: The federal government should not be allowed to "commandeer" state officials to enforce federal policies that states perceive as unconstitutional.

Attorney General Bondi's opposition to SAPA

In her role as Attorney General, Pam Bondi has taken a decidedly different stance on SAPA. Bondi’s DOJ has argued vehemently against the legislation, treating it much like the Biden administration had, despite having been appointed under President Trump, who promised to roll back infringements on Second Amendment rights. Bondi’s DOJ contends that Missouri is attempting to insulate itself from federal gun laws, undermining federal supremacy and the balance of federalism. Her court filings assert that Missouri’s SAPA could lead to a scenario where states nullify or defy federal laws at will, a scenario that she decries as unconstitutional. Additionally, Bondi’s DOJ emphasizes the importance of upholding federal laws and ensures that states comply with them. The opposition to SAPA asserts that the law could undermine years of established case law protecting states' roles in supporting federal efforts. Bondi’s actions have sparked criticism from gun rights advocates, who argue her DOJ is failing to align with President Trump’s promise of being the most pro–Second Amendment administration in history.

Historical context: Second Amendment and federalism

The historical context of this current legal conflict is deeply rooted in the broader debates over federalism and individual rights. The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, was designed to protect the rights of citizens to bear arms, reflecting both personal liberties and a check on federal power. Over the years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the principle that federal control over state officers is limited, particularly in areas where states prefer to maintain autonomy. For instance, the Supreme Court’s rulings in New York v. United States and Printz v. United States have established that federal authorities cannot compel state or local officials to enforce federal regulations. These decisions underscore the tension between federal supremacy and states' rights, a tension that continues to shape modern legal arguments. Missouri’s SAPA, while specific to firearms, draws on this historical framework to assert its sovereignty in the realm of gun regulation. It reflects a broader movement among states to protect their citizens from what they perceive as federal overreach. The contest over SAPA is not just about firearms; it’s about the future of federalism itself. The stakes are high for both the integrity of the Constitution and the sovereignty of states.

A test of federalism and Second Amendment rights

As the legal battle over Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act unfolds, the implications for both gun rights and state autonomy are significant. Missouri’s SAPA represents a critical assertion of state authority in a constitutional system built on balance and checks. Attorney General Bondi’s DOJ has decided to challenge this effort, arguing that Missouri cannot insulate itself from federal law. However, the opposition of the DOJ to SAPA is more than just a legal disagreement; it symbolizes a broader shift in policy that could strain the delicate balance between federal and state authority. If the DOJ’s arguments prevail, the result could set a dangerous precedent allowing Washington to impose its will on the states, further encroaching on the rights they hold under the Constitution. For supporters of the Second Amendment, this is a stark reminder that the battle for individual freedoms is an ongoing one, requiring vigilant defense even within a pro–Second Amendment administration. Missouri’s SAPA highlights the need for careful stewardship of constitutional principles. The Trump administration’s pledge to protect Second Amendment rights demands actions, not just words. The resolution of this case will test whether the federal government truly supports states in their efforts to protect individual liberties or if it will continue the legacy of overreach perpetuated by predecessors. The outcome will not only affect Missouri but could shape the path for states' rights in the future. Sources for this article include: ZeroHedge.com X.com Senate.mo.gov
Copy