Reestablishes the Second Amendment Preservation Act
Summary
HB1175 reestablishes Missouri’s “Second Amendment Preservation Act” by repealing and reenacting a set of statutes that declare certain federal firearms laws, orders, rules, and regulations to be invalid and unenforceable within the state. The bill states that federal actions affecting firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition are infringements if they impose special taxes or fees, require registration or tracking, ban possession or transfer by law-abiding citizens, or authorize confiscation. It also includes broad legislative findings asserting that Missouri retains authority over firearms regulation and that federal power does not extend to restricting gun ownership in the state.
The bill directs state and local officials, courts, and law enforcement agencies not to enforce or attempt to enforce federal firearms restrictions against law-abiding citizens. It creates civil liability and a $50,000 penalty per occurrence for political subdivisions or law enforcement agencies that knowingly violate these provisions, and it allows private individuals to sue for injunctive relief and attorney’s fees. The bill also defines “law-abiding citizen” and “material aid and support,” and it includes exceptions for certain assistance to federal officials in narrow criminal or cross-border situations, as well as a severability clause.
Impact
HB1175 would significantly affect Missouri law by reinstating a state-level framework that rejects enforcement of specified federal firearms laws and limits cooperation by state and local officials on those matters. It would expose political subdivisions and law enforcement agencies to civil penalties and private lawsuits if they knowingly assist in enforcing the covered federal gun restrictions, while also barring sovereign immunity as a defense in those actions. The bill would primarily affect state and local governments, law enforcement agencies, and individuals involved in firearms regulation or enforcement, and it would operate as a strong anti-federal-enforcement measure within Missouri.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill had substantial support in the House, with multiple votes advancing the measure by margins such as 98-48, 101-49, 102-48, and 100-51. That pattern indicates a generally favorable sentiment among supporters, likely reflecting strong pro-Second Amendment backing. At the same time, the repeated no votes show meaningful opposition, consistent with the bill’s controversial approach to federal-state conflict over firearms enforcement.
Contention
The main point of contention is the bill’s assertion that Missouri can declare certain federal firearms laws unenforceable and penalize state or local officials who cooperate with federal enforcement. Opponents are likely to object to the bill’s legal theory, its potential conflict with federal supremacy, and the civil penalties imposed on local governments and law enforcement. Supporters, by contrast, appear to view it as a necessary protection of gun rights and state sovereignty, with the bill’s exceptions for certain criminal investigations suggesting an attempt to narrow the reach of the enforcement ban without changing its core purpose.