Gun Owners of America is taking another swipe at Attorney General Pam Bondi and the DOJ, this time not for defending the National Firearms Act, but for continuing the Biden administration's lawsuit against Missouri over the state's Second Amendment Preservation Act.
In a video released on Thursday, GOA's Deputy Director of Federal Affairs Ben Sanderson says the DOJ's stance on Missouri's SAPA law "would seem to fly in the face of President Trump's own executive order protecting Second Amendment rights," and accusing Bondi of "killing a state-level Second Amendment protection law."
Missouri's Second Amendment Protection Act is dead at SCOTUS—a tragedy for Missouri gun owners and for gun owners nationwide. pic.twitter.com/9pg2hxrzpn
— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) December 4, 2025
As Sanderson describes it, the Second Amendment Preservation Act (not the Second Amendment Protection Act as Sanderson referred to it) was Missouri's "effort to ensure that its officers and resources would not be used to enforce federal gun control measures that exceeded constitutional limits."
On a basic level, the law prohibited state officials from enforcing certain federal firearms statutes and penalizes agencies that cooperated with them. Basically, the law said that the federal government cannot force state-level employees to carry out federal gun control policy.
That's true, but Sanderson's explanation leaves out a couple of important features of the law, including two that were the basis of the district and appellate courts' decision to invalidate the law.
First, and most importantly, the courts ruled that Missouri's SAPA violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution by attempting to nullify some federal laws. SAPA states that federal acts including, but not limited to, taxes that “might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership” of firearms; "registration or tracking of firearms” or "registration or tracking ofthe ownership of firearms”; any act forbidding the possession” of a firearm “by law-abiding citizens”; and "any act ordering the confiscation of firearms... from law-abiding citizens" “shall be invalid to this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall not be enforced by this state.”
SAPA further declares that it is “the duty of the courts and law enforcement agencies of this state" to protect the Second Amendment rights of its citizens.
There were concerns about this language, even from Second Amendment supporters, during the legislative debate over SAPA. Yes, as Sanderson notes, it has been well established by the Supreme Court in cases like Printz that state and local law enforcement cannot be compelled to enforce federal law. At the same time, attempts by states to nullify federal law have never gone well, dating back to the nullification crisis in Andrew Jackson's presidency.
The Eighth Circuit didn't dispute the fact that Missouri could direct state and local law enforcement from enforcing federal gun laws. It objected, though, to the language that purported to invalidate and de-recognize some federal law, no matter how vague that language may have been.
Another portion of SAPA that Sanderson doesn't mention allowed civil suits to be brought against any state or local law enforcement agency that hired anyone who had previously enforced federal gun laws deemed by the state to be unconstitutional. Missouri had argued that the U.S. government had no standing to sue over SAPA, but this provision allowed both the Biden and Trump administrations to argue that the language "injures the United States by deterring people from accepting federal employment and by discouraging federal employees from enforcing federal law."
A separate section of SAPA also allowed for civil suits to be brought against any state or local officer who did cooperate with enforcing federal law. That, according to the DOJ's response to Missouri's cert petition to the Supreme Court, "injures the United States by interfering with the execution of federal law."
If SAPA had simply mandated that state and local authorities were not allowed to cooperate with federal law enforcement in enforcing specific sections of federal gun law, I think it would have survived a court challenge. But it shouldn't come as a surprise that either the Biden or Trump administration would take a dim view of a state arguing it has the authority to nullify or invalidate federal law.
From Trump and Bondi's perspective, the SAPA lawsuit had far less to do with the Second Amendment than it did with the limits of state power. To say that Donald Trump believes in a strong executive branch and weak state powers is putting it mildly. Trump has challenged state authority throughout his first year in office, from bringing in National Guard troops to police cities over the objections of governors like Gavin Newsom to pushing Bondi to stop the enforcement of state laws involving ‘environmental, social, and governance’ initiatives, ‘environmental justice,’ carbon or ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions, and funds to collect carbon penalties or carbon taxes" that she determines to be illegal.
It would be downright shocking, and entirely inconsistent with Trump's governing philosophy, to go along with SAPA's language, even if he might agree with the general intent of the legislation.
It's also worth pointing out that, under Trump and Bondi, the DOJ did tell the Supreme Court:
After the change in Administration, the United States has reevaluated its position. The United States remains of the view that some provisions of the Act plainly violate the Constitution. But other provisions present more difficult questions in this pre-enforcement posture, albeit for reasons that differ from petitioners’. As to those provisions, the United States plans to release part of its claim, and not to oppose a motion to narrow the judgment in the district court, after that court regains jurisdiction. That is all the more reason why review by this Court is unwarranted at this juncture.
In that same filing, the DOJ also noted that "if the State wishes to withhold assistance in enforcing federal law, it could amend and limit the Act even under the Eighth Circuit’s decision."
Out of all of the DOJ's 2A-related decisions that have confounded and disappointed some Second Amendment advocates during Trump's second term, the continued opposition to SAPA should be the least surprising and easiest to understand. SAPA was well intended, but it tried to do too much, and a state that tries to tell any administration "your laws are null and void here" is going to be met with the legal equivalent of "wanna bet?"
Hopefully Missouri lawmakers will take the DOJ's suggestion and revise SAPA next session. Its scope may be more limited and its language less fiery, but personally, I'd rather have a substantive law that can withstand court challenge than a legislative act of political posturing that's almost certain to be struck down.
Editor's Note: The mainstream media continues to lie about gun owners and the Second Amendment.
Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member