South Dakota’s HB 1132 and the Limits of Federal Power

What the “Second Amendment Preservation Act” Really Does — and Why It Matters

The South Dakota State Capitol in Pierre, where House Bill 1132 was introduced and debated.Image Source: South Dakota State Capitol exterior photograph (public-domain / government architecture image)

In American politics, some of the most consequential battles are not fought over sweeping new laws, but over a quieter question: who is required to enforce them.

South Dakota House Bill 1132, introduced during the 2026 legislative session, places that question squarely back into public view. Framed as a defense of the Second Amendment, the bill is more accurately understood as a state sovereignty measure, rooted in long-standing constitutional doctrine and aimed at limiting the federal government’s ability to conscript state resources.

The bill does not ban firearms.It does not repeal federal law.It does not declare Washington powerless.

Instead, it draws a line: South Dakota will not be required to use its own people, money, or infrastructure to enforce future federal gun regulations that go beyond state law.

That distinction is critical — and widely misunderstood.

What House Bill 1132 Actually Proposes

HB 1132 prohibits the use of state or local personnel, property, funds, data, or equipment to provide what the bill defines as “material aid” in enforcing certain federal firearm measures that take effect on or after July 1, 2026, if those measures are more restrictive than South Dakota law.

“Material aid” is defined broadly and includes:

• Sharing identifying information

• Using state or local employees or equipment

• Participating in joint federal task forces

• Spending money from any source

• Entering into contracts or agreements that facilitate enforcement

The bill does not attempt to nullify federal law. Federal agencies remain free to enforce federal firearm regulations using federal personnel and federal resources. HB 1132 addresses only the role of state and local government.

The bill also includes several carve-outs:

• State and local law enforcement may continue enforcing South Dakota law

• Joint investigations may proceed if firearms enforcement is not the primary purpose

• Court orders must still be honored

• Individuals prohibited from firearm possession under state law may still be investigated and arrested

• Federal funds may still be accepted if used to enforce state law

In short, HB 1132 is a non-cooperation statute, not an act of rebellion.

The Constitutional Foundation: Anti-Commandeering

Supporters of HB 1132 rely on a constitutional principle that predates modern gun debates: the anti-commandeering doctrine.

Under this doctrine, the federal government may enact laws and enforce them — but it may not compel states to administer or enforce federal regulatory programs.

The Supreme Court made this clear in Printz v. United States (1997), when it ruled that Congress could not require local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The Court emphasized that states are not “mere political subdivisions” of the federal government.

This principle has been reaffirmed across multiple cases. Federal supremacy applies to federal law — but state governments are not obligated to become enforcement arms of Washington.

HB 1132 is built squarely on that constitutional foundation.

Where the Legal Ground Becomes Unstable

That said, constitutional theory and legal reality do not always align neatly.

Missouri passed a similar law — the Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) — which went further than non-cooperation. Missouri’s statute attempted to declare certain federal gun laws invalid within the state and imposed steep penalties for cooperation. Federal courts struck it down.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that while states may refuse to assist federal enforcement, they cannot obstruct it, invalidate federal law, or punish cooperation so severely that it interferes with federal operations. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to revive Missouri’s law.

This precedent matters for South Dakota because South Dakota is in the same federal circuit.

HB 1132 attempts to avoid Missouri’s mistakes by carefully avoiding nullification language. Still, its enforcement mechanisms — including large civil penalties and private lawsuits — raise real legal questions about whether the bill could cross the line from lawful non-cooperation into unconstitutional interference.

Firearms as an Object of Law, Not Politics

A modern firearm pictured as an object regulated by law, not a political symbol.Image Source: LWRC M6A2 PSD rifle photograph by Stephan Hilliard

One of the most striking elements of the debate around HB 1132 is how quickly it becomes emotionally charged.

Firearms are often treated as symbols — of freedom, fear, resistance, or identity — rather than as objects governed by layers of state and federal law. HB 1132 attempts to move the discussion back into the legal realm, focusing not on culture-war rhetoric but on jurisdiction, authority, and enforcement responsibility.

The bill does not argue that federal gun laws are illegitimate. It argues that South Dakota should retain control over how its own government resources are used.

The Real-World Impact: Cooperation and Public Safety

Modern law enforcement rarely operates in isolation.

Federal, state, and local agencies routinely collaborate through:

• Joint task forces

• Shared intelligence databases

• Federal forensic laboratories

• Cross-jurisdictional investigations

HB 1132 explicitly includes participation in joint federal task forces as “material aid” when those task forces are enforcing covered federal firearm measures. While the bill includes exceptions, its broad language may create hesitation among agencies concerned about legal exposure.

That hesitation matters.

After Missouri’s SAPA took effect, law enforcement agencies reported delays and uncertainty in cooperative efforts, as departments sought to avoid potential penalties. Even the perception of risk can chill cooperation, particularly in complex cases involving violent offenders.

The concern is not that South Dakota law enforcement would stop enforcing violent crime. It is that legal ambiguity could disrupt coordination, slowing investigations and prosecutions.

The Constitution, the Courts, and the Second Amendment

The opening words of the U.S. Constitution, which frame the balance between federal authority and state sovereignty.Image Source: United States Constitution manuscript image (public domain)

The Second Amendment is often discussed in isolation, but HB 1132 sits at the intersection of multiple constitutional principles: the right to bear arms, the Tenth Amendment, and the structure of federalism itself.

The Founders did not design a system where all power flowed downward from a central authority. They designed one where divided power would serve as a safeguard against overreach.

HB 1132 reflects that design — imperfectly, perhaps, but intentionally.

Gun Rights or Political Signaling?

Another revealing detail of HB 1132 is its timing.

The bill applies only to federal firearm measures enacted after July 1, 2026. That suggests it is not responding to an immediate enforcement crisis, but to anticipated future federal regulation.

Supporters view this as prudent foresight. Critics see it as symbolic legislation aimed at drawing political lines rather than solving concrete problems.

Both interpretations may be valid.

What is clear is that HB 1132 is as much a statement about who governs as it is about guns.

The Broader Question

At its core, HB 1132 raises a question far larger than firearms:

If states are required to enforce every federal mandate — regardless of local law, priorities, or consent — do they remain sovereign governments, or merely administrative extensions of the federal state?

That question is not partisan. It is structural. And it affects every policy area, from healthcare to education to environmental regulation.

A judge’s gavel and law books, symbolizing the role of courts in resolving state–federal disputes.Image Source: Stock legal imagery (public-domain–style or licensed stock photograph)

Where South Dakota Goes From Here

Whether HB 1132 passes, survives judicial scrutiny, or is revised in future sessions remains uncertain. What is certain is that the bill deserves serious discussion — not slogans, not reflexive outrage, and not performative outrage.

This is not a debate about whether the federal government exists. It is a debate about how power is shared in a constitutional republic.

And those debates, however uncomfortable, are the ones democracies must be willing to have.

ONEnetwork News Team

Independent reporting on civics, culture, and constitutional governance.