Why it matters: Missouri's SAPA was the template statehouses copied — Wyoming passed a near-identical law — and whatever replaces it will be copied too. The video also puts one of gun YouTube's main legal channels on record charging the Trump DOJ with sitting on a concession it made to the Supreme Court while the full injunction stays in force.
The Second Amendment legal-news channel Armed Scholar published a video July 20 arguing that Missouri's "SAPA 2.0" push exists because the Trump Justice Department never delivered on a representation it made to the Supreme Court. In the channel's telling, the DOJ told the justices it would move to narrow the injunction blocking the state's Second Amendment Preservation Act if the Court denied review — the Court denied review last October, the motion never came, and state legislators responded by drafting successor bills. The video casts two of them, Senate Bill 858 and Senate Bill 955, as the frontrunners.
The history the video recounts checks out against the court record. Missouri passed SAPA in 2021; it barred state and local officials from assisting enforcement of federal gun laws the statute deemed infringements, and exposed political subdivisions and law-enforcement agencies to $50,000-per-occurrence civil penalties enforceable by private lawsuit. The Justice Department sued, and in March 2023 a federal district judge struck down the entire law. The Supreme Court declined to reinstate it that October — the 8-1 order of the video's title, with only Justice Thomas noting he would have granted Missouri's request — and the Eighth Circuit affirmed in August 2024, holding the law invalid under the Supremacy Clause. Even in 2023 the injunction's breadth was contested ground: Justices Alito and Gorsuch, who joined the denial, wrote separately that they read the order as reaching "only the enforcement of the law by state officials and employees and those actively working with them."
What the DOJ told the Supreme Court before the October denial
By the time Missouri's second petition was briefed, the Solicitor General's office belonged to the Trump administration. Its brief opposing review, as summarized by Duke's Center for Firearms Law, acknowledged concerns that the judgment below "extends too far" where it enjoins applications of the act that amount to "mere non-enforcement" of federal law — conduct the anti-commandeering doctrine protects — and indicated the government would consent to narrowing the ruling's scope, reserving only SAPA's "plainly unconstitutional provisions." The Supreme Court denied review on October 6, 2025, without comment, as is standard.
Armed Scholar's charge concerns what the channel says happened next: nothing. Months on, per the video, the DOJ has filed no motion to narrow or modify the injunction — it has, in the channel's words, "completely ghosted on their promise" — and the original case has stalled with the full injunction in place. The video also says Missouri warned the justices during briefing not to trust the concession, calling it a stall tactic aimed at making review look unnecessary. Whether the Court in fact relied on the government's representation is the video's inference; denials of certiorari come with no stated reasons.
SB 858 and SB 955: two drafts of a SAPA successor
The video sorts the Senate's two lead bills using the labels "hardline" and "compromise-friendly." Senate Bill 858 is presented as the true successor, and the bill as introduced tracks that description: it revives the $50,000-per-occurrence penalty against political subdivisions and law-enforcement agencies whose employees assist federal enforcement, defines the "law-abiding citizen" the act protects, carves out cooperation windows for matters like out-of-state fugitives and serious felonies, and is written to apply to offenses occurring on or after August 28, 2026. Senate Bill 955, in the video's telling, is the softer instrument: fewer restrictions, more room for federal cooperation, and the civil-liability exposure stripped out or sharply limited — a change the channel says has earned it the backing of Missouri law-enforcement associations. The published bill summary supports the structural difference: SB 955's mechanism runs through mandatory internal investigations and discipline, up to termination, for officers found to have deprived Missourians of the right to bear arms, rather than through civil penalties.
“Both drafts abandon the words that killed the original law and keep the refusal that survived it.”
Coleman Reyes, The ReticleThe common thread, in the video's account, is what both drafts leave out: the original SAPA's declarations that specified federal laws were invalid in Missouri, the language at the center of the courts' rulings. The new bills rest instead on the state's refusal to participate in federal enforcement — the ground the anti-commandeering doctrine protects, and the same ground the government's own brief conceded. That reading of the drafting shift matches how Missouri outlets have described the broader revival effort.
The legislative calendar the video doesn't mention
SB 858 and SB 955 are bills of Missouri's 2026 regular session, and that session is over. By KBIA's count in early March, roughly ten SAPA revival bills were in play and two Senate bills had been scheduled for floor debate; a House committee voted down that chamber's latest version in late March, a year after the House had passed a 2025 revival that never cleared the Senate. The General Assembly adjourned on May 15, and Missouri bills that have not passed by adjournment die with the session; end-of-session coverage of the 101 bills that passed makes no mention of a SAPA measure. The video, published two months after adjournment, presents the contest in the present tense and closes by promising an update "as soon as either SB 858 or SB 955 clears the final vote."
Two questions do remain open, on the video's own framing. One sits with the Justice Department: a motion to narrow the injunction in the district court would restore some of the state's non-enforcement latitude without any new statute. The other sits with the legislature: pre-filing for the next session opens December 1. The channel says it will cover both.
For context
- Under the anti-commandeering doctrine of Printz v. United States, the federal government cannot compel state officers to enforce federal law — but the Supremacy Clause bars states from declaring federal law invalid, the line courts said the original SAPA crossed.
- A federal district court struck down SAPA in March 2023, the Supreme Court declined to reinstate it that October with only Justice Thomas noting dissent, the Eighth Circuit affirmed in August 2024, and the Supreme Court denied final review on October 6, 2025.
- A denial of certiorari is not a merits ruling and comes with no stated reasons, so the votes and rationale behind the October 2025 denial are not public.
- Missouri's 2026 regular session adjourned May 15; bills not passed by adjournment die with the session, and pre-filing for the next session opens December 1.
Sourced from
Supreme Court Issues 8-1 Denial Order Changing Second Amendment Preservation Fight!
Watch the original
