Despite those findings from Jackson County Attorney Bryan Covinsky, county legislator Manny Abarca says the county, which includes large portions of Kansas City, should move forward with his proposed ordinance. 

Abarca introduced the ordinance at a legislature meeting July 22 in the wake of a mass shooting at the 2024 Chiefs Super Bowl victory rally in February. The ordinance would ban firearm possession for minors except in certain circumstances.

In its introductory statement, the ordinance outlines events of the shooting Feb. 14, when Lisa Lopez-Galvan, 43, was killed and 22 others were injured in gunfire. The preamble also cites three of the alleged shooters being juveniles as cause for a new ordinance with age restrictions on firearm possession. 

The ordinance was drafted after consulting national violence prevention organizations, Abarca said, including the Giffords Center for Violence Intervention, Everytown for Gun Safety and the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention to find “common-sense solutions.”

Abarca said he also consulted county attorneys and local law enforcement before introducing the legislation.

“We all knew and agreed that under state law, currently, that this was likely not going to stand, but it could create an opportunity for us to challenge the very law itself,” Abarca said.

That's interesting. If Abarca is telling the truth about his consultations, that raises serious questions about the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention's involvement in drafting an ordinance that clearly violates Missouri's firearm preemption law, and arguably the Second Amendment as well. 

While the Supreme Court has not specifically weighed in on the issue, multiple federal courts around the country have concluded that 18, 19, and 20-year-olds possess the same right to keep and bear arms as adults over the age of 21; most recently the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which agreed with a district court judge that Minnesota's carry ban for under-21s violates the Second Amendment. 

So what role did the White House play in helping Abarca come up with his ordinance? Did Kamala Harris, who's ostensibly in charge of the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, sign off on the office's consultation with Abarca? Does Harris herself support prohibiting young adults from possessing or purchasing some of the most commonly-owned firearms for self-defense? 

As Abarca indicated, everyone he consulted "knew and agreed" that what he's calling for doesn't stand a chance of being upheld in court if it's adopted. But the ordinance itself is somewhat of a red herring. While I'm sure Abarca would love to curtail the Second Amendment rights of young adults, what he and gun control activists (including those in the White House) are really after is the undoing of Missouri's preemption law altogether. 

But as the county attorney noted in his legal opinion of Abarca's proposal, the Missouri Attorney General's office has a "history of filing lawsuits against any local government that passes or attempts to pass restrictions on firearms outside parameters of state statutes," which means that the Missouri courts have already had multiple opportunities to examine the law in question and have allowed it to remain in place. 

The gun control lobby has been attacking preemption laws for the past several years, but has seen no success whatsoever in the courts. They haven't had a lot of luck in state legislatures either; in 2021 Colorado became the first state in the nation to repeal its preemption statute, but other efforts have fallen short, including an attempt to get Minnesota to do the same this past session. 

Jackson County Executive Frank White is urging county lawmakers to reject Abarca's proposal, which would be the smartest course of action to take. But given the support of the gun control lobby, including the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, we may very well see similar ordinances introduced in other local jurisdictions going forward.