Modifies provisions relating to machine guns
HB697 revises Missouri’s criminal code provisions governing machine guns and related weapons. The bill repeals and reenacts sections 571.010 and 571.020 to update definitions and prohibited conduct involving machine guns, silencers, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, switchblade knives, explosive weapons, gas guns, knuckles, and other dangerous devices. A key change is the expanded definition of “machine gun,” which would include not only firearms that fire automatically with a single trigger function, but also firearms that can achieve that firing rate through devices or modifications such as Glock switches, auto sears, bump stocks, trigger cranks, or similar manufactured or homemade components.
The bill also reorganizes the offense section to make it unlawful to knowingly possess, manufacture, transport, repair, or sell the listed weapons and devices, with certain conduct tied to federal law. It preserves exceptions for official duties, lawful commercial transactions with authorized organizations, industrial or commercial uses, museum display, and dramatic performances. Penalties remain in place, with most violations classified as class D felonies and possession of knuckles or certain projectile weapons treated as class A misdemeanors.
The bill’s impact would be to broaden and clarify Missouri law on machine guns and related weapons, especially by capturing modern conversion devices and homemade parts that enable rapid-fire capability. It would affect firearm owners, sellers, manufacturers, law enforcement, prosecutors, and individuals possessing regulated weapons or accessories, while also reinforcing the relationship between state restrictions and applicable federal law.
Because no committee transcript or vote record is provided, there is no documented debate or recorded sentiment in the materials beyond the bill’s caption and text. Based on the substance of the proposal, the bill appears aimed at tightening weapons restrictions and closing perceived loopholes, but the available record does not show support, opposition, or amendments from legislators or stakeholders.
The main point of contention likely concerns the scope of the expanded machine gun definition and whether it could reach common firearm accessories or modified weapons beyond traditional automatic firearms. Another likely issue is the interaction with federal law and whether the bill’s incorporation of devices such as bump stocks and homemade conversion parts is sufficiently precise for enforcement.
HB697 would amend Missouri’s weapons statutes by replacing the existing definitions and offense provisions in sections 571.010 and 571.020, RSMo. The bill expands the statutory definition of “machine gun” to include firearms modified or equipped to fire at automatic-like rates through devices such as Glock switches, auto sears, bump stocks, trigger cranks, and similar components. It also continues to criminalize possession, manufacture, transport, repair, or sale of explosive weapons, gas guns, knuckles, silencers, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and switchblade knives in violation of federal law, while preserving enumerated exceptions and maintaining felony/misdemeanor penalties.
No committee discussion or vote history is included, so there is no direct evidence of legislative sentiment in the record provided. The bill’s caption and text suggest a public-safety-oriented approach focused on restricting machine guns and conversion devices, which typically draws support from lawmakers seeking stronger weapons controls. However, the absence of transcripts or votes means the level of support or opposition cannot be determined from the supplied materials.
The likely areas of contention are the broadened machine gun definition and the inclusion of modern conversion devices and homemade components, which could raise concerns about overbreadth, enforcement, and impacts on lawful firearm owners or accessory sellers. Another possible dispute is the bill’s reliance on federal-law conformity for some prohibited items, which may create questions about clarity, preemption, and how state and federal enforcement would interact. No specific objections or endorsements are documented in the provided record.