The ATF isn't any gun owner's favorite three-letter agency by any stretch of the imagination. It might be one of the smallest federal law enforcement agencies, but it’s also the one most likely to shoot your dog, wife, and anyone else while making a bad arrest, so it’s not winning friends among the gun culture.
That's apparently very true in Arkansas where a bill has been introduced that would hamstring ATF efforts within the state.
In particular, it seeks to prevent state and local law enforcement from helping the ATF conduct operations:
The Anti-ATF Commandeering Act has the intended purpose in its title to “prohibit the provision of material aid and support for enforcement of federal firearms laws.” House Bill 1481 bases its justification on the finding that “the United States Supreme Court has long held that states do not have to participate in the enforcement or effectuation of federal acts or regulatory programs.”
The legislation states that Arkansas or any of its subdivisions may not provide material aid and support for enforcing federal firearms laws. This includes enforcement, regulation or execution of federal firearms laws.
If a public employee violates the proposed law, they will be committing a misdemeanor and their employment terminated. If they are a law enforcement officer, they would also have their certification revoked.
Without local law enforcement support, the ATF won't really be able to do all that much. The agency needs local cops to do at least some of the work and this would prevent that from happening, putting everything on the ATF and its own resources. Yet, it doesn’t have that many resources, really.
A few years back, Missouri tried to outright nullify federal gun control laws within the state. That failed because of the supremacy clause of the Constitution. That was the justification for overturning the measure.
Recommended
This, however, is different. While similar measures have hit obstacles, they have the added benefit of simply challenging an unfunded mandate. While the agencies might get federal money, it's for specific things, and unless those grants come with some kind of associated requirement to cooperate with federal law enforcement when asked, I'm not sure it would fly in court.
At least not the right court.
Then again, I'm not an attorney, so maybe I'm wrong.
Still, the ATF needs to be put in its place. This is an agency that seems determined to see how egregiously it can infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. It's not just enforcing the laws, either. It interprets them in ways that can turn people into felons with the stroke of a pen. Seeing the ATF brought down a peg or 12 is nice, and it's through something that absolutely shouldn't be that controversial.
After all, immigration sanctuary cities and states have effectively done the same thing for years.
There's nothing wrong with using the left’s rules to play our way, especially on something that's preserving people's civil liberties as opposed to just pretending that our borders are really meant to be open to all.
If the lefties don't like it, they can get bent.
