HB 121, titled the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” would add a new part to Georgia law declaring that the state rejects federal actions it views as infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. The bill’s findings section states that federal statutes, executive orders, administrative orders, rules, regulations, court orders, and similar actions that collect data on or restrict firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition are beyond federal authority when applied solely within Georgia, except in limited military-related contexts. It also frames the measure as a defense of state sovereignty and the Second Amendment, while affirming support for responsible gun ownership, reporting stolen firearms, and enforcement of state gun laws.
Operationally, the bill would prohibit state and local officers and employees from enforcing, attempting to enforce, or assisting in the enforcement of federal firearms-related laws, orders, or regulations. It would also bar state and local entities from providing “material aid” to such federal enforcement efforts, with “material aid” broadly defined to include lodging, communications, facilities, weapons, personnel, transportation, clothing, and other physical assets. The bill creates private causes of action, allows injunctive relief, requires expedited hearings on temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions, authorizes attorney’s fees and costs, and expressly waives sovereign, official, and qualified immunity in actions brought under the act.
The bill would further impose a $50,000 civil penalty on political subdivisions or law enforcement agencies that knowingly employ individuals who enforce or assist in enforcing federal firearms measures, or who previously acted under color of federal law and do so after July 1, 2025. It also gives residents and people doing business in a jurisdiction standing to sue for damages or injunctive relief. At the same time, the bill includes exceptions allowing state officials to accept federal aid for enforcing state law, to assist federal officials in certain cross-border fugitive situations, and to provide material aid for federal prosecutions involving comparable felony drug offenses where firearms violations are ancillary.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text is strongly pro-gun-rights and anti-federal-preemption, with the legislation presented as a constitutional and state-sovereignty measure. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided materials, there is no documented public debate or vote history to indicate broader legislative support or opposition. The bill’s structure suggests it is intended to be assertive and enforcement-oriented rather than merely symbolic.
The main points of contention likely concern federal supremacy, state and local law-enforcement cooperation with federal agencies, and the bill’s broad penalties and private-enforcement mechanism. Opponents would likely argue that the measure interferes with federal firearms enforcement, creates legal uncertainty for local governments and police agencies, and may conflict with federal law under the Supremacy Clause. Supporters would likely emphasize the Tenth Amendment, state autonomy, and the protection of gun ownership rights from federal regulation.
HB 121 would amend Title 16 of the Georgia Code by adding a new “Second Amendment Preservation Act” that restricts state and local participation in federal firearms enforcement. It would create new prohibitions, civil penalties, standing for private lawsuits, expedited court procedures, and immunity waivers, while carving out limited exceptions for certain law-enforcement and federal-prosecution circumstances. The bill would directly affect public officers, employees, political subdivisions, and law-enforcement agencies, and it would likely alter how Georgia and its local governments interact with federal firearms-related investigations and enforcement actions.
The bill’s tone and findings are strongly supportive of gun rights and state sovereignty, and the measure is framed as a defense against federal overreach. No committee discussion or voting record was provided, so there is no documented bipartisan debate or recorded legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s text itself. Based on the language used, the bill appears designed to appeal to supporters of the Second Amendment and opponents of federal firearms regulation.
The likely central dispute is whether Georgia can lawfully prohibit its officers and agencies from assisting federal firearms enforcement, given federal supremacy concerns. Another major point of contention is the bill’s broad definition of prohibited “material aid,” which could reach a wide range of government resources and personnel support. Critics would also likely object to the private right of action, the $50,000 penalties, and the waiver of sovereign and qualified immunity, while supporters would view those provisions as necessary enforcement tools to ensure compliance with the act.