The 103rd General Assembly of Missouri has seen the introduction of two significant legislative proposals—Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 23 (SCS SB 23) and House Committee Substitute for House Bill 1175 (HCS HB 1175)—both designed to bolster the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Dubbed the “Second Amendment Preservation Act” (Section 1.411, Page 1 of both bills), these measures share a common goal but differ in scope, structure, and emphasis. This article compares and contrasts the two bills, focusing on how they protect this fundamental right, with references to key provisions.
Shared Foundations: Affirming State Sovereignty and Individual Rights
Both SCS SB 23 and HCS HB 1175 begin with a robust declaration of state sovereignty and the Second Amendment, rooted in the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Section 1.411, subsection 2(3) (Page 2 of both bills) asserts that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people, a principle central to their defense of gun rights. The bills reject federal overreach, particularly statutes, executive orders, or regulations that restrict the manufacture, ownership, or use of firearms within Missouri (Section 1.411, subsection 2(5), Page 2 of both). This shared stance underscores their commitment to limiting federal authority over local firearm policies, aligning with the constitutional right to bear arms.
Additionally, both bills emphasize Missouri’s authority to regulate firearms within its borders, subject only to the Second Amendment and the Missouri Constitution (Section 1.411, subsection 2(9), Page 3 of both). They also promote responsible gun ownership, condemning unlawful transfers and criminal use while encouraging parental supervision and reporting of stolen firearms (Section 1.411, subsection 2(10), Page 3 of both). These common threads establish a unified intent to protect gun rights while maintaining public safety.
Diverging Approaches: Legislative Findings and Declarations
A key difference lies in the treatment of legislative findings. SCS SB 23 retains detailed findings and declarations in Section 1.411, subsections 2(1) through 2(10) (Pages 1-4), outlining the historical and constitutional basis for resisting federal overreach, including limits on taxing powers (subsection 2(7), Page 4) and the lack of a chilling effect from the federal excise tax on arms (subsection 2(8), Page 4, referencing January 1, 2025). In contrast, HCS HB 1175 includes these findings but marks them for omission (Pages 1-3, 7-11 in brackets), suggesting an intent to reenact only the substantive provisions while removing the narrative justification. This shift in HCS HB 1175 (noted in its purpose statement, Page 1) reflects a streamlined approach, focusing on legal mechanisms rather than philosophical underpinnings.
Core Protections: Prohibiting Federal Enforcement
Both bills prohibit state and local officials from enforcing federal firearm laws or regulations. Section 1.451 (Page 4 of SCS SB 23, Page 3 of HCS HB 1175) explicitly bars public officers and employees from enforcing federal acts, laws, executive orders, or ordinances related to firearms, with an exception allowing aid to enforce Missouri laws. This provision shields Missourians from federal policies like registration, tracking, or confiscation, reinforcing the Second Amendment by nullifying unauthorized federal actions within the state.
Accountability Mechanisms: Penalties and Legal Recourse
Both bills impose stringent penalties to ensure compliance. Section 1.461 (Page 5 of SCS SB 23, Page 3-4 of HCS HB 1175) holds political subdivisions or law enforcement agencies liable for $50,000 per occurrence when officers knowingly violate Section 1.451 or deprive citizens of Second Amendment rights. Injured parties can seek injunctive relief in circuit court, with hearings within 30 days (subsection 1), and may receive attorney’s fees, with sovereign immunity waived (subsections 2-3). This creates a robust deterrent against state-level enforcement of federal overreach.
Similarly, Section 1.471 (Page 5-6 of SCS SB 23, Page 4-5 of HCS HB 1175) imposes a $50,000 penalty per employee on agencies hiring individuals who have enforced federal firearm restrictions or provided material aid to such efforts (subsections (1)-(2)). Residents can pursue actions for injunctive relief (subsection 2), with the same provisions for fees and immunity waivers (subsections 3-4). HCS HB 1175 adds a cap, limiting total penalties to $50,000 per employee per course of conduct (Section 1.471, subsection 1, Page 4), offering a slight refinement to prevent excessive fines, which SCS SB 23 lacks.
Definitions and Exemptions: Clarifying Scope
Section 1.481 (Pages 6-7 of SCS SB 23, Page 5 of HCS HB 1175) defines “law-abiding citizen” as someone not precluded from firearm possession under state law and legally present in the U.S. and Missouri (subsection 1), ensuring protections apply only to eligible individuals. “Material aid and support” includes tangible assistance like lodging or transportation, with exceptions for medical aid or help escaping life-threatening risks (subsection 2). Both bills exempt aid to federal officials pursuing out-of-state suspects or prosecuting certain felonies with ancillary weapons violations (subsections 3-4), balancing gun rights with public safety.
Severability: Ensuring Durability
Both bills include severability clauses—Section 1.484 (Page 8 of SCS SB 23, Page 5 of HCS HB 1175)—ensuring that if any provision is invalidated, the remainder remains enforceable. This safeguard protects the core of each bill’s Second Amendment protections against judicial scrutiny.
Conclusion: Complementary Yet Distinct Approaches
SCS SB 23 and HCS HB 1175 both fortify Second Amendment rights by rejecting federal overreach, imposing penalties, and defining protections, with shared provisions in Sections 1.451, 1.461, 1.471, 1.481, and 1.484. However, SCS SB 23’s inclusion of specific infringement definitions (Sections 1.420 and 1.430) offers a more detailed shield, while HCS HB 1175’s removal of findings and delayed effective date suggest a pragmatic, streamlined focus. Together, they reflect Missouri’s multifaceted effort to preserve gun rights, with SCS SB 23 providing a broader constitutional narrative and HCS HB 1175 refining enforcement mechanisms. As these bills advance, their interplay could shape a robust, state-led defense of the right to bear arms.