Proposes a constitutional amendment that authorizes a sales tax exemption for ammunition
Summary
House Joint Resolution 87 proposes a constitutional amendment to Article X of the Missouri Constitution that would prohibit the state from levying or imposing sales tax on sales of firearms or ammunition in Missouri. The resolution places the proposed amendment before voters at the next general election in 2026, or at a special election called by the governor for that purpose.
The measure is framed as a constitutional recognition of the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms, and it would create a new Section 27 in Article X. If approved by voters, the amendment would operate as a statewide sales tax exemption for firearms and ammunition, removing those items from the state sales tax base.
Impact
If adopted, the resolution would amend the Missouri Constitution and directly limit the state’s authority to impose sales tax on firearms and ammunition. It would affect state tax law by creating a categorical exemption for these products, reducing tax revenue from their sale and changing how retailers collect sales tax on gun-related purchases. The proposal would not itself change federal law, but it would alter Missouri’s constitutional tax structure and apply statewide to sellers and purchasers of firearms and ammunition.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be strongly supportive of gun rights and likely aligned with pro-Second Amendment sentiment. The resolution contains explicit constitutional language emphasizing the right to keep and bear arms and presents the tax exemption as a policy expression of that principle. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented opposition or support from hearings or floor action in the available materials.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the policy choice to exempt firearms and ammunition from sales tax, which could be viewed by opponents as a tax preference for gun purchases and a reduction in state revenue. Supporters would likely argue that the exemption protects Second Amendment rights and avoids taxing constitutionally protected activity. Because no committee discussion or vote history is included, specific lawmakers or stakeholder groups cannot be identified from the record provided.