SB 1102 would revise Missouri law governing the restoration of civil rights after felony convictions, with a particular focus on firearm rights. The bill repeals and reenacts provisions in sections 561.021, 561.026, and 571.070, and adds a new section 571.074 to create a process for restoring the civil right to ship, transport, possess, or receive a firearm. Under the bill, that right would be automatically restored when a person is discharged from confinement, probation, or parole, whichever occurs later, unless the person falls into specified excluded categories.
The bill also ties firearm-rights restoration to other civil-rights consequences of conviction. It amends voting and office-holding provisions so that certain disqualifications would not apply to people whose civil rights have been restored under the new section. At the same time, it preserves restrictions for people convicted of certain offenses, including sex offenses requiring registration, offenses listed in section 566.147, and a long list of violent felonies. For those convicted of violent felonies, the bill creates a petition process in circuit court to seek restoration after at least three years, upon a showing of good cause and satisfaction of other eligibility requirements.
SB 1102 would change Missouri’s firearms disability and restoration framework by creating an automatic restoration mechanism for many people with felony convictions once supervision ends, while preserving categorical exclusions for specified serious offenses. It would also amend related statutes on public office eligibility, voting, and jury service to recognize restoration of civil rights under the new section. The bill would affect convicted felons, courts handling restoration petitions, and law enforcement and prosecutors enforcing unlawful possession laws, while leaving intact firearm restrictions for excluded offenders and antique firearms.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the overall sentiment appears to be reform-oriented and permissive toward restoring rights after completion of sentence. The measure is framed as a restoration bill rather than a broad expansion of firearm access, and its structure suggests an attempt to balance reintegration with public-safety exclusions. Because no discussion transcripts or vote history are provided, there is no documented opposition or support to characterize beyond the bill’s apparent policy direction.
The main points of contention likely concern the scope of automatic restoration and which offenses should remain excluded. Supporters would likely emphasize reentry, second chances, and consistency in restoring civil rights after a sentence is completed, while opponents may focus on public safety, especially the automatic restoration for some felons and the breadth of offenses covered by the violent-felony exclusions. Additional debate could center on whether the petition process for violent felonies is sufficiently strict, whether the three-year waiting period is appropriate, and how the bill interacts with existing voting, office-holding, and firearm-possession prohibitions.