SB 1216 amends Missouri’s personal flotation device law, known as “Hannah’s Law,” by expanding the age of children required to wear a Coast Guard-approved life jacket from under 7 to under 12. The bill applies both to children on board watercraft on the waters of the state and to children wading or swimming in navigable public waters more than three feet deep. It also keeps the existing exceptions for children in fully enclosed parts of a watercraft and for children supervised by a lifeguard.
The bill would repeal and replace section 306.220, RSMo, updating the statutory age threshold and preserving the penalty structure. A person who allows a child under 12 to be on a watercraft or in deeper public waters without a personal flotation device would be guilty of a class C misdemeanor. In practical terms, the measure broadens the scope of the current safety requirement and increases the number of children and supervising adults subject to the law.
Impact
SB 1216 would directly amend Missouri boating and water-safety law by changing section 306.220, RSMo, and expanding mandatory life jacket requirements for minors. It would affect parents, guardians, boat operators, and others responsible for children on Missouri waters, as well as enforcement of boating safety rules. The bill does not create a new regulatory scheme, but it enlarges the existing one by raising the protected age group from 7 to 12 while retaining exemptions for enclosed compartments and lifeguard supervision.
Sentiment
Based on the bill caption and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to have been presented as a child-safety and boating-safety bill with a straightforward protective purpose. The available context suggests a generally favorable framing, emphasizing expanded protection for children in and around water. No recorded opposition, amendments, or divided vote history is provided here, so there is no evidence of significant public controversy in the supplied record.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the expanded age threshold, which would require life jackets for older children than current law and could be viewed by some as increasing obligations on families, boaters, and water recreation users. Another possible issue is enforcement, since the bill imposes a class C misdemeanor for allowing noncompliance. Supporters would likely focus on drowning prevention and child safety, while any critics would likely question whether the broader mandate is necessary or burdensome. No specific opposing arguments or named stakeholders appear in the provided transcripts or vote history.