House Committee hears legislation expanding gun access

by Fletcher Mantooth, Missouri News Network

Efforts to expand concealed carry provisions got a hearing in the Missouri House’s General Laws Committee late Tuesday as gun rights advocates continue efforts to remove gun ownership restrictions.

House Bill 328, introduced by Rep. Tim Taylor, R-Bunceton, would make several changes for concealed carry laws. Changes could include reducing the minimum age for a permit from 19 to 18 years old, requiring places of worship and public transportation to allow concealed carry, allowing individuals with certain violent criminal records to have a permit and giving exemptions to some concealed carry permit requirements to lawmakers, prosecutors and other government officials.

Supporters of the law, including members of various gun-rights groups, argued that giving people in traditionally “gun-free” zones opportunities to arm themselves would lead to a lower chance of mass shootings.

“If you’re a concealed carry permit holder — not any Tom, Dick or Harry — you’ve had some training,” said Carl Smart, vice president of the Western Missouri Shooters Association. “You walk to the bus stop: you’re legal. You get on the bus: you’re a criminal.”

But representatives of various public transportation authorities argued that their riders did not want more guns on public transportation.

Another argument against the bill was one of religious freedom. By Missouri law, churches and other places of worship may choose to allow concealed carry, whereas the bill would require them to allow it. Opponents voiced their concerns that this law would override religious liberties.

“By targeting houses of worship, we’re saying that houses of worship will now have less say over their own facilities, their own first amendment rights, than liquor stores, riverboat gambling operations and amusement parks,” said Brian Kaylor, a Baptist minister. “What are we doing?”

Rep. David Tyson Smith, D-Columbia, a committee member, argued that the legislation was tone-deaf, considering the number of mass shootings in the country in recent years.

“It’s kind of like sports analogies,” said Smith, in reference to the idea that a good guy is the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun. “If you have a prolific scorer, the best way to stop him is not to wait for him to get the ball, but to keep him from getting the ball.”

A similar bill has been proposed in years by a former representative and current Sen. Adam Schnelting, R-St. Charles.

The committee also took testimony on HB 434 and HB 459 authored by Rep. Bill Hardwick, R-Dixon, and Rep. Mazzie Christensen, R-Bethany. Their aim is to stop seizure of firearms based on red flag laws unless there is a court proceeding with the individual present and a finding of probable cause that the individual is engaged or has engaged in criminal activity.

This is a preemptive measure, because Missouri has no red flag laws that would seek to seize firearms or prohibit firearm access because of red flags, such as a credible threat of violence.

Supporters of the bill argued that seizure of firearms has been historically used against various marginalized groups, and that seizure would be a violation of Second Amendment rights.

Opponents of the bill cited the shooting at the Central Visual and Performing Arts High School in St. Louis where three students were killed. Despite the shooter’s parents requesting police take his guns prior to the shooting, he was still able to access them and commit a mass shooting.

“These two bills will not reduce gun violence,” said Kristin Bowen, a Columbia volunteer for Moms Demand Action. “Extreme risk protection orders or red flag laws are critical lifesaving tools that help keep firearms out of the hands of people who should not have them.”

The bill met some concerns from both committee Democrats and Republicans. A possible concern is the process to seize a firearm would be too lengthy.

“I am really torn wherever my final vote will go on this,” said Rep. Mark Matthiesen, R-O’Fallon. “I just need to know that we still have a process in place if this bill passes to stop real harm with real information.”