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[1].
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.
[1] 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.
Scott and his office were so helpful, thorough and professional during a very adversarial divorce. He offers good solid advice. He does not pursue options which will more than likely not yield a good result ( unless the client insists). He strives to give his clients the best results for their money. He's personable but professional. He answers inquiries quickly and clearly. Highly recommend!
Mr. Hamblin is one of the best attorneys we have ever had the privilege to use. He is courteous and to the point. I would recommend him to anyone and we will continue to use his services.
Scott Hamblin is simply put - the best! Scott deserves 10 stars! He has all the qualities a person could ask for with legal representation and more. I even had a lawyer from another county tell me, Mr. Hamblin is an excellent lawyer. That remark alone told me how respected he is, by his peers. He's highly professional, extremely knowledgeable, respectful and courteous, does his due diligence to understand and know his case, has excellent communication skills with his staff and client. His performance in the court room arena was exciting to watch. Dynamic! I knew when I walked into…
Scott Hamblin is the best lawyer that I have ever met. He really cares about his clients and does not sugar coat anything. He works very hard to help his clients, and knows the law very well, and he will work with you on your tab if he can. The staff there is very helpful too. I would recommend Scott and that law firm to anyone that needs a lawyer. They are the best. And you get what you pay for, so give them a call.
I am very pleased with Mr. Hamblin. I needed an attorney for my custody case and I did not know who to use. I found Mr. Hamblin on the internet. All the reviews I read and now my experiences with him and his team are spot on. I was being denied reasonable time with my daughter. Her mother attempted to continue to limit my time but Mr. Hamblin's hard work and dedication to my case resulted in equal custody of my daughter. I highly recommend Mr. Hamblin!
I was thoroughly impressed with Scott Hamblin and his team, Madasyn and Cameo, as they represented me in a very difficult case, involving multiple businesses and complexities. Scotts knowledge and expertise was invaluable. He and his team involved me every step of the way throughout the entire process. I was included in email correspondences, as well as, phone and video calls with witnesses and experts. What stood out, and set Scott and his team apart from my previous counsel, was their authenticity and genuineness. They truly cared about me as an individual and truly cared about my case Scott and…
Finding an attorney is not easy, and in my case I was in a child custody modification that was being dragged out and messy. This went on for a full 3.5 years. I had other representation at the time that I didn’t feel was doing what was best for me and my kids. I reached out to Scott after taking time to review others reviews and asking around in the community for a collective opinion. Scott is hands down the most honest, direct, family law attorney I could have asked for. If I had a question or needed advise him…
My divorce was with a difficult person, Mr.Hamblin handled every aspect of the divorce, professionally and quickly, his experience and knowledge was extremely helpful. thank you, Mr.Hamblin for your support.
Scott helped us with a very difficult situation with utmost professionalism and expertise. He was at all times very professional and considerate of our needs. He provided excelent advise.
Scott will forever be regarded by myself as the best divorce lawyer in Jefferson City bar none. His service, expertise, knowledge and dedication to all of his clients is top notch. I hope that no one ever finds themselves in a position of his services, but if you do, you cannot make a wrong choice with him at your side. Scott was able to get a fair and equitable decision in my case and he will most certainly do the same for you if necessary. His knowledge of the law and experience from every case he has ever tried were…
For accessible and experienced representation, contact attorney Scott Hamblin today.
NUVEW | Copyright 2025 All Rights Reserved | Accessibility Notice | Privacy Policy
The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising. This information is designed for general information only. The information presented should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Past results and testimonials are not a guarantee, warranty, or prediction of the outcome of your case, and should not be construed as such. Past results cannot guarantee future performance. Any result in a single case is not meant to create an expectation of similar results in future matters because each case involves many different factors, therefore, results will differ on a case-by-case basis. By providing contact information, users acknowledge and give explicit consent to be contacted via the methods of communication provided, including SMS. Message and data rates may apply. Message frequency may vary. Reply STOP to opt out.
