It's troubling that a state would feel the need to pass a law preserving a constitutional amendment. Not that the state feels that way, so much as the fact that there's a reason for them to feel that way.
A few years ago, Missouri passed the Second Amendment Preservation Act. Unfortunately, the courts struck it down as unconstitutional. It was worth a try, and considering the way it was written, I think it probably deserved a much kinder take than the courts gave it, but the ruling was the ruling.
Missouri lawmakers, not to be deterred, gave it another go.
As we now know, it did not turn out well.
Both Republicans and Democrats voted against a bill aimed at reviving Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act, which would ban the enforcement of federal gun restrictions. The U.S. Supreme Court denied Missouri's attempt to revive the law.
Missouri lawmakers’ latest attempt to bar state and local officials from helping enforce certain federal gun laws collapsed Wednesday in a House committee, defeated not only by Democrats but by Republicans who said the bill would hurt gun dealers, invite costly litigation and ignore the concerns of law enforcement.
The House General Laws Committee voted 9-3 against a bill aimed at reviving Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act. The committee has 16 members — 11 Republicans and five Democrats — meaning the bill would have failed even if all four absent members had shown up.
The vote was a setback for a measure that has become a recurring cause for Missouri gun-rights activists. Since the original law passed in 2021, supporters have cast it as a bulwark against federal overreach, while opponents — including police chiefs, sheriffs, federal prosecutors and local officials — have argued it undermined cooperation with federal authorities and exposed local governments to costly lawsuits.
What made Wednesday’s defeat stand out was where the resistance came from.
State Rep. Mike Costlow, a Republican from Dardenne Prairie and a firearms dealer, said the bill was “absolutely not second amendment friendly,” despite its title.
In remarks before the vote, Costlow said the measure would create a conflict between state and federal law for gun dealers forced to choose between complying with federal law and risking liability under state law, or vice versa. He also took aim at the bill’s $50,000 civil penalty, arguing it would create a framework for people to exploit the Second Amendment for payouts at taxpayer expense.
Yeah, it exposed local governments to costly lawsuits, but that was kind of the point. If you work with the feds on gun control, you get sued. That's what it was meant to do.
That was a feature, not a bug.
However, looking at the text of the bill, I think I see where Costlow is coming from here, and he's probably not wrong. Especially this part:
This bill further states that no entity or person, including anyone employed by state or local government, has the authority to enforce any of the following Federal laws or regulations:
(1) Any tax imposed on firearms or any related product that might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of such goods;
(2) Any registration or tracking of firearms;
(3) Any registration or tracking of the ownership of firearms or any related product;
(4) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, use, or transfer of a firearm or any related product; and (5) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms or any related products from law-abiding citizens.
Nothing will prohibit Missouri officials from accepting aid from Federal officials in an effort to enforce Missouri laws.
The key there is that "no entity or person, including," and not just limited to those employed by state or local governments. That could be interpreted by the courts as including gun dealers and gun store employees. The fact that it also nullifies federal law enforcement of ATF regulations is kind of beside the point, because they're the ones who issue FFLs, and without one of those, no one is shipping a gun to Missouri, like it or not.
Look, I like the idea of SAPA as a bill. However, that was not the best wording in the world, to say the least.
I was ready to blast Costlow for his position on this, but when I looked, I think he was right. It looks like it would have opened lawful gun dealers up to lawsuits because they performed background checks, which could be argued to be not just them following federal law, but enforcing federal law when it comes to barring the sale of firearms to prohibited persons.
That wasn't the intention, but if we've learned one thing about guns, gun laws, and lawsuits over gun laws, the intentions of a law's crafter don't always seem to concern the judges.
I think this bill should get a revisit, but it needs to include a bit more than a line about officials can accept help for the feds to enforce state law, and actually protect private parties who literally have no choice but to follow federal law if they want to stay in business.
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member