Missouri used to be one of those places where you needed a permit before you could buy a gun. Now, it's a state where they literally tried to nullify all federal gun control laws across the board.

Talk about a change.

However, there are some measures that are apparently still in place that lawmakers are trying to address. The goal is clearly an expansion and restoration of the right to keep and bear arms.

But some people are outright hysterical about the subject.

One of the measures, Senate Bill 74, would bar cities and counties from imposing their own open carry firearm restrictions. Another includes a provision that someone who kills another person with a gun in self-defense would be presumed to be acting reasonably, removing the burden of proof.

A Missouri Senate committee is considering two bills that would repeal limitations on the carry and use of firearms.

Senate Bill 74, sponsored by Stone County Republican Sen. Brad Hudson, would bar cities and counties from imposing their own open carry restrictions.

Basically, this just removes a preemption exemption from the law. As it stands, they can bar open carry, and this ends local governments having that authority. That's it.

But the interesting one is the next bill.

The other measure, Senate Bill 147, contains a wide array of changes, including making someone who uses a gun in self-defense immune to prosecution or civil action.

The bill also includes a provision that someone who kills another person with a gun in self-defense would be presumed to be acting reasonably, removing the burden of proof.

...

Members of law enforcement and the justice system voiced opposition, saying that the bill would amount to allowing people to kill without consequence.

“All you have to do is say, someone threatened me, and now I can kill them,” said Parke Stevens from the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys. “This is not the state or the method to make murder legal.”

Murder is still illegal, though. Legalizing murder would require you to, you know, explicitly legalize murder.

All this measure seems to do is just take the approach of someone being innocent until proven guilty. The presumption is that they acted appropriately--you know, innocently--unless there's evidence showing they didn't. They don't have to prove their innocence in court, which is kind of the foundational principle for our entire justice system.

This shouldn't be controversial. 

What prosecutors dislike about it is that it means they actually have to do work if they want to prosecute people in cases where they claim self-defense. They like it better when all they have to do is knock holes in the defense's case. Now, they can't do that and have to prove it's murder rather than someone defending their life.

Wild, I know.

It should be noted that this is the law in multiple states and it has not, in fact, legalized murder.

Florida, for example, has this standard in place, which didn't stop prosecutors from sending someone to prison for killing a man in a store parking lot. That was just one example. There are others.

This is really the most ridiculous argument one could make for a law that isn't appreciably different from how every other crime is prosecuted. People don't have to prove their innocence if they're accused of robbery, for example. The state has to prove their guilt. Why should anyone have to prove their innocence in a self-defense shooting?

They shouldn't, and this measure would fix that, should it pass.