Prohibits homeowners' associations and other similar associations from infringing on the rights of concealed carry permit holders
HB 1665 revises Missouri’s concealed carry statutes by repealing and reenacting sections 571.107 and 571.215. The bill keeps the basic rule that a valid concealed carry permit or endorsement authorizes a person to carry concealed firearms statewide, but it restates and organizes a long list of places where concealed carry is restricted or limited. Those locations include police stations, polling places, detention facilities, courthouses, government meetings, liquor establishments, airports, schools, child care facilities, riverboat gambling operations, amusement parks, places of worship, private property posted against firearms, sports arenas, and hospitals.
A major feature of the bill is that it treats carrying in many prohibited locations as a noncriminal offense for permit holders, subject instead to denial of entry, removal from the premises, and escalating citations and permit suspension or revocation for repeat violations. It also preserves exceptions for certain officials, law enforcement, school protection officers, and members of the General Assembly in specified settings. The bill further bars homeowners’ associations, condominium associations, property owners’ associations, and similar entities from using rules or private agreements to block concealed carry by lawful permit holders in homes, condominiums, common areas, parking areas, and access routes under their control.
The bill would amend Missouri’s concealed carry framework by replacing existing statutory language in sections 571.107 and 571.215 with updated provisions that expand and clarify where concealed firearms may and may not be carried, and how violations are handled. It would strengthen protections for permit holders against private restrictions imposed by homeowners’ associations and similar entities, while preserving property-owner posting rights and government authority to restrict firearms in designated portions of buildings. It also changes enforcement from criminal penalties to civil-style citations for many location-based violations, with permit suspension or revocation for repeat offenses, affecting permit holders, property owners, employers, schools, religious institutions, and public facilities.
The bill appears generally supportive of concealed carry rights and is framed as a pro-permit-holder measure, especially because it limits the ability of associations and certain property owners to restrict lawful carry. The available context shows no recorded committee testimony or votes, so there is no documented opposition or support from debate. Based on the bill text and caption, the overall sentiment is likely favorable among gun-rights supporters and more cautious among entities that manage private property or sensitive public spaces.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s preemption of homeowners’ association and similar private rules, and its broad treatment of many sensitive locations as places where concealed carry is restricted only by notice, removal, or citation rather than criminal prosecution. Potentially controversial provisions include the ability of permit holders to carry in or around government meetings, schools under limited exceptions, places of worship, hospitals, and entertainment venues, as well as the bill’s limits on what private associations can regulate. Supporters would likely emphasize uniform statewide carry rights and protection of lawful permit holders, while opponents would likely focus on property rights, safety in sensitive locations, and the reduced criminal enforcement consequences.