Repeals provisions that prohibit political subdivisions from adopting orders, ordinances, or regulations relating to firearms
HB1050 repeals section 21.750, RSMo, which is Missouri’s firearms preemption law. As written, that section currently reserves to the state the exclusive authority to regulate firearms, ammunition, and related supplies, and it bars counties, cities, towns, villages, and other political subdivisions from adopting their own ordinances or regulations on topics such as sale, purchase, transfer, ownership, possession, carrying, transportation, licensing, permitting, registration, and most firearm-related taxation or controls. The bill would remove that statewide preemption language entirely.
By repealing the section, the bill would open the door for local governments to enact their own firearm rules unless some other state law limits them. The repealed text also includes provisions protecting lawful firearm manufacturing and sales from nuisance claims and limiting lawsuits by governments against firearm manufacturers and dealers; those protections would also be removed along with the section. In practical terms, the bill would significantly change the balance of authority between the state and local governments on firearms policy and could expose firearm owners, sellers, and manufacturers to a wider range of local regulation and potential litigation depending on future local ordinances and other applicable laws.
The bill would eliminate Missouri’s statutory firearm preemption framework in section 21.750, RSMo, thereby removing the express prohibition on local ordinances regulating firearms, ammunition, and related supplies. It would also repeal the statute’s limits on government nuisance actions and other claims against firearm manufacturers, trade associations, and dealers, while leaving intact any separate state laws that may still govern firearm conduct, criminal offenses, or civil liability.
With no committee transcript or recorded votes available, the bill’s sentiment can only be inferred from its substance and caption. The measure appears to be a significant policy shift away from state-level uniformity toward local control over firearms, which would likely be viewed positively by supporters of local gun regulation and negatively by advocates of statewide firearm preemption and gun-rights uniformity. The bill text itself does not show compromise language or implementation details, suggesting a straightforward and potentially polarizing repeal.
The main point of contention is likely the repeal of state preemption, because it would allow cities, counties, and other political subdivisions to regulate firearms differently from one another. Supporters of local control would favor the ability to address community-specific gun issues, while opponents would argue that a patchwork of local rules would burden lawful gun owners, hunters, and firearm businesses. A second likely flashpoint is the removal of protections against nuisance and related lawsuits involving firearm manufacturers and dealers, which industry groups and gun-rights advocates would likely oppose, while local governments and gun-safety advocates may support greater legal accountability.