House Bills 85 & 310 known as the “Second Amendment Preservation Act” were signed into law by Missouri Governor Mike Parsons through the Emergency Clause on June 12, 2021, and is codified at Sections 1.410 to 1.485 RSMo. This Act declares certain “federal acts, law, orders rules and regulations to be an infringement on the people’s rights to bear arms, as guaranteed by Amendment II of the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Section 23 of the Constitution of Missouri. The Act makes any such federal act, law, etc., forbidding the possession, ownership, use, or transfer of a firearm or firearm accessory by a law-abiding citizen unconstitutional. This law is recently enacted so there are currently no appellate opinions addressing the Act. The Attorney General for the State of Missouri has filed a petition for declaratory judgment and request for an injunction requesting the Act be declared unconstitutional.
The following analysis is an interpretation of the provisions of the Act by the author.
Even though the Act was signed into law on June 12, 2001, the provision of the Second Amendment Preservation Act appears to be limited to offenses occurring on or after August 28, 2021. Therefore, the Act does not apply to criminal offenses committed before August 28, 2021.
The Act seemingly applies only to law-abiding citizens. Section 1.480 RSMo defines the term “law-abiding citizen” as “a person who is not otherwise precluded under state law from possessing a firearm. . . .” Who is precluded under Missouri law from possessing a firearm? In Missouri, possession of a firearm is unlawful if a person has been convicted of a felony under the laws of this state or another state or a crime under the laws of another state that would have been a felony in this state.
Felonies are criminal offenses that carry a range of imprisonment in excess of one year. The Act appears to protect people who have no prior felony offense but provides no direct protection to defendants who have a prior felony conviction. Therefore, the Act provides no defense to individuals charged with the offense of felon in possession of a firearm.
While the Act does not provide a direct defense to the crime of felon in possession of a firearm, the Act may have a deterrent effect on the enforcement of federal firearm laws. Section 1.450 RSMo prohibits “any public officer or employee of this state or any political subdivision of this state from enforcing or attempting to enforce any federal acts, laws, executive orders, rules, regulations, statutes or ordinances infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.” This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, the highway patrol, a sheriff’s department, and municipal police departments. Law enforcement can provide “material aid” to federal agents and federal prosecutors for certain felony crimes involving firearms, but only “so long as such weapons are ancillary to such prosecution” or class A or class B drug related felonies.
The term “material aid” is broadly defined.
Material aid is not limited to providing equipment. Material aid includes providing personnel to assist federal agents such as agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The material aid exception may limit the risk a law enforcement agency assumes in assisting federal agents or federal prosecutors, but the highway patrol, a sheriff’s department, or police department will assume all the risk in enforcing or attempting to enforce a federal firearms law in the absence of cooperating with federal agents or federal prosecutors. This means that state and local law enforcement cannot enforce or even attempt to enforce federal firearms laws unless they are working with federal agents or federal prosecutors.
There are comparatively fewer federal agents investigating potential federal firearms crimes compared to the number of law enforcement officers employed at the state, county, and municipal levels of government. Common sense suggests that federal firearms agents will not be able to investigate every possible federal firearms offense. For example, the 1968 Gun Control Crime Act, prohibits the possession of any firearm or ammunition by individuals convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence and subject to a domestic violence protective order. 18 U.S.C. 922(g). However, not all crimes of domestic violence in Missouri are felonies. A person can have been convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense. Under the Second Amendment Preservation Act, state and local law enforcement officers would be unable to enforce the federal crime of possession of a firearm or ammunition by a person in possession of a firearm or ammunition following a conviction for domestic assault or violation of an order of protection unless acting with a federal agent or federal prosecutor. So while the Act does not create a defense to these misdemeanor crimes, the Act certainly creates an enforcement problem. The Missouri State Highway Patrol, sheriff’s departments, and police departments are each going to have to make their own determination of how to proceed with enforcing federal firearms offenses.
The financial risk to state and law enforcement departments from one or more officers enforcing or attempting to enforce a federal firearms offense is significant. The Second Amendment Preservation Act makes the political subdivision or law enforcement agency that employs the officer that knowing violates the Act liable for damages and subjects the state, county, or city to a civil penalty of $50,000.00 per occurrence. The Act also eliminates the defense of sovereign immunity.
 Eric Schmitt, Attorney General for the State of Missouri has filed a petition for declaratory judgment and injunction in the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, case number 21AC-CC00237, which is still pending. The petition requests that the court find HB 85 and Section 1.410 RSMo to be unconstitutional.
If you have additional questions about the laws discussed above or are looking for counsel, contact Scott Hamblin today.
A Jefferson City man faced DUI charges following a field sobriety test. Charges against the defendant were dropped after Scott successfully maintained the client’s claims that the test results were inaccurate. While the client initially appeared to be in a difficult situation, Scott was able to push investigators to determine the sobriety test results as invalid, so the charges were dismissed.
A mother was seeking sole custody of her children following a divorce. The father refused to cooperate, leaving the client in a difficult situation as she felt as though her children didn’t have a voice. Scott recognized her need for an advocate and carefully listened to the children’s wishes, which conclusively helped the client achieve sole custody of her children and protected their best interests.
A client from Fulton was accused of drug possession as a result of a home search. While drug charges may potentially be filed as a Class C felony involving severe consequences, Scott was able to help the client receive a reduced sentence. Ultimately, the client faced significantly smaller penalties compared to the initial charges.
Scott assisted a defendant in a particularly challenging divorce case in which the other spouse was not cooperating. Scott was able to help the client avoid court through an aggressive legal approach to resolve all outstanding disagreements while maintaining the client’s long-term needs.
One client sought legal assistance after an altercation with another individual in Jefferson City. The client was arrested on assault charges despite allegedly not starting the fight. Since an arrest can lead to life-altering penalties such as being terminated from employment and serving jail time, Scott was able to build a solid legal defense in the client’s favor and argued in favor of the client’s innocence.
A grandparent sought visitation rights to his grandchild after the parent tried to block him. Scott takes grandparents’ rights very seriously, and so he devised a strategy to help the grandparent set a visitation schedule. Scott developed a strategy to show that the child’s best interests were fulfilled through the grandparent’s ability to visit the child, helping push the case towards a resolution in the client’s favor.
Scott assisted a client who was injured in a car accident due to another driver’s negligence. The defendant claimed that the opposing party using their phone at the time of the crash, and Scott emphasized this claim to show that the other driver was at fault for the client’s injuries. The case concluded with the client receiving the necessary compensation for medical bills following a long hospital stay due to injuries.
I have been working with Mr. Hamblin for almost one and a half years and consider him to be one of the finest Lawyers I have ever done business with. Mr. Hamblin’s understanding of Missouri law is to say the least encyclopedic. His areas of expertise are broad and far-reaching. While working with Mr. Hamblin I found that he has an innate gift for what he does. His availability, presence in the courtroom, and demeanor with prosecutors, plaintiffs, witnesses and defendants are unparalleled in Missouri’s capital. Jefferson City is the epicenter of all legislation in this great state of Missouri,…
Scott was efficient and knew his stuff. Very thorough and committed to our family. He had worked on two different cases for us and did an excellent job. No regrets!
I called Mr. Hamblin to represent my family member. When we went in to have a meeting, Mr. Hamblin was very honest said he felt that he could represent him and help with the matter that he had been charged with. I was so glad that I had contacted Mr. Hamblin on this matter, because he did just what he said that he would do. He did so in a timely and professional matter, and the expense was very minimal considering that this could have been a life-changing matter. I want to say a big Thank you Mr. Hamblin for…
Very upfront and honest about the potential outcomes of my case.
Scott Hamblin represented my son in a high-profile case. Scott was highly professional throughout the course of the proceedings, prompt and thorough in answering all of our questions and, most importantly, was very prepared when he represented my son in the courtroom, which resulted in a very favorable outcome. Our family cannot thank Scott enough for a job well done and 5 stars is really not enough. He truly did a phenomenal job. I would have no reservations in recommending Scott should you ever need a criminal defense attorney.
Mr. Hamblin succeeded in winning a child custody modification case for me that most lawyers I spoke with wouldn't even take on. Many told me that modifying a child custody agreement was nearly impossible. Due to the changes at my children's Father's house and the toll it was taking on their mental health, my children needed this modification and were begging for a change. Mr. Hamblin helped give my children a voice and get what they call "A Christmas Miracle" when we won full custody of them a few days before Christmas. I would recommend his counsel to anyone needing…
I am so grateful that I hired him, he gave me hope to overcome my fear and anxiety. Now my case was dismissed because of his hard work. Thank you so much Attorney Scott. May God bless you, and keep continuing to save people's lives!!!
There are no words to express how grateful I am for the opportunity to be represented by Mr. Hamblin. I have enjoyed working with him and his assistant, especially through some of the most challenging moments of my life. Selecting someone to handle your case can be a very difficult decision to make, but even from the moment I arrived at the office for my consultation, I knew I had found the right attorney. Thank you so much for a positive outcome, Mr. Hamblin!
I got stuck between a rock and a hard place in my situation as was in need of help. Scott was appointed to be via public defender for a federal case and I could not have wished for a better lawyer and overall individual. He would show up for me while I was incarcerated on the weekend when he had time and would also work around my work schedule to meet while I was not incarcerated. He extensively researched my case and talked to me like a human rather than another client. He's very kind and will tell you the…
Scott is a very compassionate but honest man. I have known Scott for 10+ years. I met him while fostering children with Cole County Children's Division. When he became the adoption lawyer for Cole County Children's Division in 2007 my husband and I were one of the first to use him to become adoptive parents to our then two-year-old foster son. Our son just turned 13 years old this year. In 2013, he represented my husband and me to get guardianship for our foster daughter. We are beyond blessed to have such a great guy like Scott to represent us.…
For accessible and experienced representation, contact attorney Scott Hamblin today.