Modifies provisions relating to additional protections to bear arms
SB 23 revises Missouri’s “Second Amendment Preservation Act” by repealing and reenacting the existing statutory framework on firearms-related federal enforcement. The bill declares that certain federal actions concerning firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition are beyond federal authority when applied exclusively within Missouri, and it states that Missouri officials should not enforce or attempt to enforce those federal measures. It also preserves a narrow exception allowing Missouri officials to accept federal assistance when enforcing Missouri law.
The bill creates civil liability and penalties for political subdivisions or law enforcement agencies that knowingly violate the non-enforcement rule or knowingly deprive a person of rights protected by the Second Amendment or the Missouri Constitution. It authorizes private lawsuits for injunctive relief, sets a $50,000 civil penalty per occurrence or per employee hired in certain circumstances, allows attorney’s fees for prevailing parties other than the state or its subdivisions, and removes sovereign immunity as a defense in actions under the act. The bill also defines key terms such as “law-abiding citizen” and “material aid and support,” and includes exceptions for certain medical aid, emergency assistance, and some federal prosecutions involving serious crimes.
In practical terms, the bill would significantly affect state and local law enforcement agencies, political subdivisions, and public officers by restricting their participation in federal firearms enforcement and exposing them to civil penalties if they assist in such enforcement. It would also affect individuals and entities involved in firearms regulation by reinforcing state-level resistance to federal gun control measures. The bill repeals the prior sections and replaces them with updated provisions, including a revised effective date for applicability to offenses occurring on or after August 28, 2025.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly pro–Second Amendment and anti-federal-overreach. The findings section emphasizes constitutional limits on federal power, Missouri’s authority over firearms regulation, and support for responsible gun ownership. No committee transcript or vote record is available in the provided materials, so there is no recorded discussion or voting history to indicate opposition or support beyond the bill’s own framing.
The main points of contention likely concern federal supremacy, state preemption, and the legality of penalizing local officials for cooperating with federal firearms enforcement. The bill appears designed to deter local participation in federal gun regulation and could raise concerns among law enforcement agencies, local governments, and legal observers about conflicts with federal law, enforcement practicality, and potential litigation. Supporters would likely view it as a state sovereignty and gun-rights measure, while critics would likely see it as obstructing federal firearms enforcement and creating legal uncertainty.
SB 23 repeals and replaces multiple sections of Missouri law governing the Second Amendment Preservation Act, updating the state’s statutory position on federal firearms regulation. It would prohibit state and local officers from enforcing or attempting to enforce federal firearms, firearm accessory, or ammunition laws, while creating new civil penalties and private causes of action against political subdivisions and law enforcement agencies that knowingly assist in such enforcement. The bill also defines terms, establishes exceptions, and makes the provisions severable, thereby reshaping the legal duties and liability exposure of Missouri public entities and officials.
The bill’s overall tone is strongly supportive of gun rights and state resistance to federal firearms regulation. Its findings section frames the measure as a defense of constitutional limits on federal power and an affirmation of Missouri’s authority over firearms policy. Because no committee transcript or vote history was provided, there is no direct record of debate, amendments, or bipartisan sentiment; however, the text itself indicates a clear pro-bill posture centered on Second Amendment protections.
The likely controversy centers on whether Missouri can lawfully bar state and local officials from cooperating with federal firearms enforcement and impose penalties for doing so. Opponents would likely argue that the bill conflicts with federal supremacy and could hinder public safety or coordinated law enforcement, while supporters would argue it is a valid exercise of state sovereignty and a necessary safeguard for gun owners. Additional contention may arise from the bill’s broad definitions of prohibited “material aid and support,” the private enforcement mechanism, and the removal of sovereign immunity as a defense.