Arizona Senate Committe Passes Bill to Nullify Federal Gun Laws


by Gina Cassini | Top Right News

Today, an Arizona state Senate committee approved a bill that would effectively block any new federal gun control measures in the state by withdrawing all state participation and enforcement.

Introduced by Sen. Kelli Ward, Senate Bill 1330 (SB1330) would prohibit state agencies and employees from enforcing – or even assisting in the enforcement of – any new “federal act, law, order, rule or regulation” that restricts ownership of a personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition within Arizona. As ShallNot reported:

Today, the Senate Committee on Federalism, Mandates, and Fiscal Responsibility passed it by a vote of 4-2, with 1 member not voting. 

This language puts the bill in harmony with recently amended Article 2, Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution, also known as Proposition 122, which voters approved last fall to enshrine a process to refuse state cooperation with unconstitutional federal acts in the state constitution.

SB1330 is similar to a bill that was signed into law in Idaho last year, and was passed by the Montana House this week. It has received support from Gun Owners of America and Arizona Citizens Defense League, the state’s preeminent pro-gun lobby.


Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” is an extremely effectively method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership in the states.

Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said that a single state refusing to enforce federal gun laws would make themnearly impossible to enforce.” Napolitano praised Arizona’s effort in the current session.

Refusing to participate with federal enforcement is not just an effective method, it has also been sanctioned by the Supreme Court in a number of major cases, dating from 1842. 

The 1997 case, Printz v. US serves as the cornerstone. In it, Justice Scalia held:

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. 

As noted Georgetown Law Constitutional Scholar Randy Barnett has said, “This line of cases is now 20 years old and considered well settled.”


Sen. Ward introduced a similar bill in 2014. Unfortunately it drew fierce opposition from some other powerful gun groups who believe that some federal gun laws actually help advance gun rights – and ended being blocked from getting a vote in the state Senate.

Similar opposition to SB1330 is already rising behind the scenes, so inside sources expect Ward to take a strategic move to limit the effect of the bill to any new federal restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, rather than banning the state from participating in all federal gun laws.

“This is really a smart strategic move,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “We know that trying to stop all federal gun laws with just one bill is doomed in the Arizona Senate, so taking it one step at a time will set the foundation for more action in the futre,” he said. “Passage of SB1330 will draw a line in the sand and ensure that the feds will have an extremely difficult time trying to get any new gun control measures enforced in Arizona. From there, Arizona gun rights activists will have something to build on until all federal gun control is where it belong – dead and gone.”


Introduction comes at a time when several other states are considering similar bills, building momentum and support for the effort to block federal gun control at the state level. Similar bills have already been filed for 2015 in Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Minnesota, Montana, and New Hampshire and several more states are expected to do the same. Since 2013, Idaho, Alaska and Kansas have already passed into law legislation that pushes back at federal gun control measures with this same strategy.

“We know from experience that when ten or more states pass laws that seek to block federal acts, the federal government has an extremely difficult time with enforcement,” said Michael Gibbs of

SB1330 now moves to the Senate Public Safety, Military and Technology Committee, where it will need to be passed before going before the full Senate for a vote.


In Arizona: Follow the steps to support this bill at THIS LINK

Way to go, Senator Ward!

  • Heather Vance-Nelson

    Well done ARIZONA! …Can’t wait for Texas to achieve this AWESOME status protecting our 2nd Amendment rights!

    • Barbara Rich

      I’ve been freelancing online for some time now, by doing some simple jobs that only required a computer and internet access and I couldn’t be happier… It’s been 6 months since i started this and i earned total of $36,000… Basicly i earn about $80/hour and work for 3-4 hours a day.And the best part about it is that you get to choose yourself when to work and for how long and you get paid weekly. -> —->>>Learn more here… <-

    • Guest

      I’ve been freelancing from comfort of my home for quite some time now, by working some basic jobs which only require desktop or laptop computer and access to internet and I am happier than ever… It’s been six months since i started this and i made so far in total $36,000… Basicly i profit close to 80 dollars/h and work for three to four h a day.And great thing about this is that you can manage time when you work and for how long as you like and the payments are weekly. -> LeARn MoRE hERE <-

  • Rizzan


  • americanscott

    I love my State!

  • Tim

    Any new laws. So it doesn’t apply to the unconstitutional federal laws that already exist such as the lautenberg ammendment…

    • Tim R.

      I think that anyone CONVICTED of domestic violence should NOT be able to get a fire arm, So I guess you can say I am PRO Lautenberg!!

      • Mark

        Tim, that is a law already. Anyone that is convicted of Domestic violence is a prohibited to possess a firearm. Ask my exwife. Lol

      • philip jay rushton

        People CHANGE, Tim. I’ve seen ppl go from being irrational impulsive young men to being intelligent and mild mannered adults. As such I say all these “life sentence” type gun bans for ex convicts are blatantly antithetical to reality. Further they only offer false sense of security at the expense of ppl who may really need a firearm to protect their property and family, despite what may have happened, say, in a 20 year old domestic violence case, for example.

  • blutooth

    any state law that opposes a federal a GOOD LAW..

  • Marc Schwabinger


  • Politicallypatriotic

    great move… the only better move… is for the peasants and serbs to vote OUT the filth in Washington… and replace it with Patriots… then add… the Convention of States that is in the works… might be nice if the voters got their heads out of their arses so all of this isn’t necessary… the last 6 years have been self inflicted… really people… YOU can fix all of this at the ballot box…

  • followurownadvice

    OK so what this means if every state were to do this is, if the federal government passes national reciprocity the states don’t have to abide by that. So States like Illinois, California, Connecticut etc etc etc will still not let you cross their state lines with your weapon. It’s a slippery slope. I don’t want to lose my rights. What needs to be done is to change whats wrong on a federal level. Which means eliminating those unconstitutional, anti-second amendment laws they’re making.

    • Anadara

      National reciprocity could not be impacted by a State’s NON-enforcement.

      • Travis Hansen

        And how do you get to the logic? It absolutely could. If states don’t have to follow federal rulings then they can out right ban laws. The constitution is federal law. By supporting this you are saying any law or power that does not reside in the state can not have influence in the state.

        • Lost in translation

          “prohibit state agencies and employees from enforcing”
          National reciprocity would be a non-enforcement all they have to do is let it happen. IE this law would not effect it.

        • Mike Frank

          The constitution is not federal law, it is THE LAW of the land, it applies to everyone equally, and the fed has to follow it just like the states do. If the states feel that a federal law is unconstitutional then it has no obligation to follow it. The fed cannot do whatever it wants.

          As far as national reciprocity, we already have that, its called the second amendment.

  • Mark Muylaert

    More States need to do this with all federal laws that contradict the will of the people of that state.

    • Travis Hansen

      Whether or not you are for or against gun control, this isn’t legal. This is pre-civil war thinking and we know where that led. It is the same bullshit that Roy Moore is trying to pull in Alabama, and no different than Governor Walker’s actions during the civil rights act. States are not allowed, should not be allowed, and will never be allowed to pick and choose what federal laws they want to agree with.
      Just now · Like

      • Mike Frank

        The States were intended to have more power then the Fed. All powers not enumerated to the fed are then reserved for the states or people. Nullification has a long history in this country as a way to reign in the fed, and ultimately the only for states to block the fed.

        The states have no obligation to abide by everything the fed does. The majority of what the fed does is unconstitutional, and states/people have no obligation to follow unconstitutional laws. The fed knowing this uses taxes to coerce states into compliance.

        This is not pre-civil war thinking but how the founders intended our system to run in the first place, but the fed and the progressives that run it have indoctrinated the populace to believe that the fed is omnipotent.

  • John M Blaszczyk

    I wish Texas was actually as gun friendly as everyone pretends it is. AZ is where it’s at.

    • Texan1st

      Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is moving us in that direction. We just need to be patient.

      • Mike Frank

        He has said he would but he hasn’t actually backed any specific legislation, but considering that the GOP leadership in the legislature are progressives and have blocked gun bills for years dont hold your breath.

  • Aryan_Pride

    Good job Arizona!

  • Loren Ironman


  • Texan1st

    The federal government wants it both ways. On the one hand, the federal government wants states such as Arizona to help enforce federal gun laws. On the other hand, the federal government will sue these same states if they help enforce federal immigration laws. So Arizona is saying, “If you don’t want us enforcing certain federal laws, so be it. We won’t enforce ANY federal laws”! Good for Arizona!!!

    • Travis Hansen


      • JustLurkin

        Travis, you are an ‘effin’ retard. You have no ability to think, you have no logic. Pre civil war? Well, so is the constitution, dum bass. Just because Lincoln acted like a king during the duration of the war doesn’t mean that’s how we now conduct ourselves.

        That picture is someone looking at your posts. I just cannot get over your stupidity. Sorry, but that’s the truth of it.

        • Tony

          Well regulated.

  • philip jay rushton

    I was convicted of felony “assault” after defending myself of a gang attack of several male youths when I was 18 years old. I’m not 40 full time tractor trailer operator and home owner. I also own a firearm to protect my home and family from potential break in, but I risk prison time if ever prosecuted. The laws to safeguard the 2nd amendment must to go FURTHER so that reformed ex prisoners like me, whom have turned our lives around, are allowed to live our lives without fear of the gov’t throwing us in prison, with rapists and actual criminals, for exercising OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS which should never have been abridged to begin with.

    • Mike Frank

      The 2A says “shall not be infringed’. So every gun law on the books is unconstitutional.

      If you lose your rights while you are incarcerated then they should be returned when you are freed, paid your debt to society.

      Liberty is dangerous.

      • Tony

        it also says “well regulated.”

        • Mike Frank

          Regulated refers to training, not to government creating laws.

          • Tony

            that is merely your opinion. no federal, state or circuit court has ruled that “regulated” means well trained. nice try, now please go clean a loaded weapon.

          • Mike Frank

            No Tony its not my opinion, it is the opinion of the Founding Fathers, you know, the authors of the constitution. Maybe if you pulled your head out of your ass and did some research you might know this, but then again, when was the last time a liberal troll let facts get in the way.

          • Bob Wilkins

            No dumbass, it’s the opinion of the Supreme Court. You know, that third branch of the federal government whose entire job is to interpret the Constitution? You really aren’t as smart as you think you are.

          • Tony

            and IF we take your biased opinion of the word…then should not those who purchase weapons be trained in operating them? this is not the current case. you’re wrong on BOTH accounts. love your gun, it’s your only sympathizer.

    • Zachary Reed

      I agree. The assault charges for defending yourself…almost sounds like you lived in Illinois. I’m pretty sure IL has regulated legal self defense to the point where it doesn’t really exist anymore.

      Mike Frank: right on.

  • Travis Hansen

    Whether or not you are for or against gun control, this isn’t legal. This is pre-civil war thinking and we know were that led. It is the same bullshit that Roy Moore is trying to pull in Alabama, and no different than Governor Walker’s actions during the civil rights act. States are not allowed, should not be allowed, and will never be allowed to pick and choose what federal laws they want to agree with.
    Just now · Like

    • Bob Wilkins

      Did you even read the article? Can you read? SCOTUS declared this perfectly legal: 1997 Printz v US majority opinion: “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.”

  • Gene Grode

    Look how many cities call themselves “safe cities” and harbor illegals…is that not saying we make our own laws???

  • Tony

    you guys should get a dictionary and look up the words “well” and “regulated”. freaking ammosexuals.

    • Bob Wilkins

      You should pick up a history book and read what the “militia” meant in 1776. It meant ALL able-bodied adults. The Supreme Court has affirmed this – the 2nd Amendment protects an INDIVIDUALS right to own a firearm, regardless of militia connections. Heller v DC.

      • Tony

        you have yet to explain that a militia was intended to be regulated, as stated by the 2nd amendment.


Send this to friend