Missouri AG Sues Jackson County For Attempting to Go Beyond State Limits With Gun Control Efforts

Last updated on November 21st, 2024 at 06:03 pm

Republican Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed a lawsuit against Jackson County, alleging local officials were attempting to violate the state’s firearm preemption laws.

The lawsuit concerns the Jackson County legislature’s efforts to pass a local ordinance, barring handgun purchases for individuals under 21, and barring individuals between the age of 18 and 21 from possessing a semiautomatic rifle unless they first attend a firearms safety course, or they’re practicing with the firearm at a government-recognized range or under the supervision of an adult over the age of 21, or they are a member of law enforcement or the military.

The county sought to pass this new ordinance following a shooting incident during the Kansas City Chief’s hometown Super Bowl parade in February. Two of the suspects in the shooting were minors under the age of 18. Federal prosecutors also charged three adult men with illegal firearms trafficking and straw purchases of firearms that put the firearms in the hands of the suspects. Police recovered handguns in connection with the shooting incident, in which one person sustained fatal gunshot wounds and 22 others sustained nonfatal gunshot wounds.

As the gun control ordinance came forward for a vote, County Executive Frank White warned that the ordinance appeared to run afoul of state laws which bar municipal governments from passing gun control laws that exceed those already on the books at the state level. White vetoed the ordinance, but the county legislature overrode his veto on Nov. 18.

In a Nov. 21 court filing, Bailey announced he would intervene to stop the ordinance from going into effect.

“The legislature is well aware of the folly of its actions,” he said.

Bailey said the county legislature also showed “flagrant disregard” for the state’s laws.

He issued a notice, telling Jackson County Legislative Chair Jeanie Lauer to preserve records pertaining to efforts to pass the ordinance at issue. The records preservation request covers internal communications, as well as communications with third party organizations, strategizing ways to pass the ordinance.

“Be advised that any failure to preserve documents of probative value to this case, even if inadvertent, will constitute spoliation of evidence and may result in a finding of contempt from the court or sanctions,” Bailey warned.