Proposes a constitutional amendment relating to firearms
HJR 37 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would revise Missouri’s right-to-bear-arms provision. It would replace the current Section 23 of Article I with language stating that the right to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of firearms is unalienable, and that any restriction on those rights must satisfy strict scrutiny. The proposal also states that Missouri has an obligation to protect those rights and includes an express allowance for the General Assembly to enact laws limiting firearm rights for convicted violent felons and for people adjudicated by a court to be dangerous to themselves or others because of mental disorder or mental infirmity.
The resolution further authorizes counties, and the cities of St. Louis and Kansas City, to regulate the possession, carrying, or transfer of firearms within their jurisdictions, subject to federal law and U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Local ordinances could include permit or certificate systems, background checks, and fees limited to the cost of administration, with permits valid for no more than five years. The measure also allows local ordinances to apply to nonresidents, requires recognition of certain permits issued by a person’s county of residence, and exempts several categories of people such as active-duty or retired law enforcement officers, full-time judges, certain armed security personnel, and military members.
The proposal would also permit local ordinances to impose penalties for violations, capped at a $1,000 fine, up to one year in county jail, or both. It would additionally allow law enforcement, upon probable cause, to seize firearms possessed by someone who is legally prohibited from possessing them. Because this is a joint resolution, it does not itself change statutory law; instead, it would submit the constitutional amendment to Missouri voters for approval at the 2026 general election or a special election called by the governor.
Overall, the bill’s framing suggests strong support for an expanded constitutional protection for gun ownership, while also preserving a limited role for local firearm regulation. No committee transcript or recorded vote information was provided, so there is no documented legislative debate in the materials supplied. The main policy tension apparent from the text is between strengthening individual gun rights through strict scrutiny and explicit constitutional protection, and allowing local governments to regulate firearms in certain circumstances, especially through permitting and enforcement provisions.
If adopted by voters, HJR 37 would amend the Missouri Constitution by repealing and replacing Article I, Section 23, changing the legal standard for firearm restrictions to strict scrutiny and expressly protecting firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories. It would also preserve state authority to restrict firearm rights for violent felons and certain individuals adjudicated dangerous due to mental illness, while authorizing limited local regulation in counties and the cities of St. Louis and Kansas City. As a joint resolution, it would not directly enact statutory changes unless and until the constitutional amendment is approved by voters.
No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative support or opposition in the supplied materials. Based on the text alone, the measure appears designed to appeal to supporters of gun rights by elevating constitutional protections, while also addressing public-safety concerns by allowing targeted restrictions and local permitting systems. The overall tone is pro-Second Amendment with a structured allowance for limited regulation.
The central point of contention is likely the balance between constitutional gun-rights protections and local regulatory authority. Supporters of stronger firearm rights may favor the strict-scrutiny standard and the declaration that the right is unalienable, while opponents may object that the amendment could make firearm regulations harder to defend in court. At the same time, local governments and gun-control advocates may support the ordinance authority for counties, St. Louis, and Kansas City, but could disagree over the scope of exemptions, permit requirements, and the limits on penalties. The bill text itself does not identify named opponents or supporters, and no recorded debate was provided.