When Jackson County, Missouri Executive Frank White vetoed a proposed ordinance raising the age to purchase firearms and ammunition in the county, he warned that the measure was illegal and unenforceable because of the state’s firearm preemption statute. White’s objections didn’t matter to the county lawmakers who overrode his veto and put the ordinance on the books. They know perfectly well that the preemption law precludes them from adopting their own local gun laws. In fact, Jackson County legislator Manny Abarca, who spearheaded the ordinance, says the bill was drafted “knowing that it would be challenged” and he’s “hoping for a court battle.”

Well, Abarca’s going to get his wish, but I don’t think he’s going to be happy with the results. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey says his office will be suing Jackson County over the new ordinance, and it’s not going to be so much a battle as a legal curb stomping. 

County Counselor Bryan Corvinsky warned the legislature in July that passing the ordinance would violate state law and expose the county to legal challenges. Despite the warning, legislators approved the measure, prompting White to veto it, calling the ordinance “performative legislation” that would lead to costly legal battles. On Monday, however, the legislature decisively overrode his veto with a 7-2 vote.

“While I respect the legislative process, this ordinance does not meet legal standards,” White said, expressing his disappointment. “Our resources should be directed toward real, effective public safety measures, not wasted on legal battles over laws that are unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny.”

Abarca defended the ordinance, emphasizing the need to challenge state preemption laws. “We wrote this, knowing that it would be challenged, hoping for a court battle,” he said.

On Thursday, Bailey announced the lawsuit, stating, “I will always protect Missourians’ right to keep and bear arms.” His letter to Legislature Chairperson Jeanie Lauer accused the county of knowingly flouting Missouri law, citing Corvinsky’s warning as evidence.

This case underscores escalating tensions between local and state governments over gun control. The outcome could set a significant precedent for similar disputes across Missouri and beyond.

Abarca and company aren’t the first to challenge firearm preemption laws, which are in place in more than 40 states. Most recently, a lawsuit filed by the gun control group Ceasefire PA was turned away by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which ruled that there’s nothing illegal or unconstitutional about the state legislature having the sole authority to address public safety concerns. 

While that Pennsylvania case won’t have a direct impact in Missouri, the arguments from both sides are essentially the same. Abarca and local lawmakers claim the state of Missouri isn’t doing enough to address gun-involved crime, particularly among youth and young adults, while Bailey and state legislators argue that public safety is a matter of statewide concern and the legislature is the proper body to establish a uniform set of laws and regulations that apply statewide. 

Jackson County’s ordinance bars those under the age of 21 from purchasing pistols and handgun ammunition as well as prohibiting adults under the age of 21 from possessing a “semiautomatic assault rifle” unless they’re at a range, training class, or on the property of their parent or guardian. As the county executive pointed out to Jackson County legislators this week, the ordinance is not only in direct conflict with state statute, but with common sense as well. 

The current law, which went into effect after legislators overrode White’s veto this week, prohibits young adults from hunting with semi-automatic rifles on others’ property, even with permission, while allowing those 17 and younger to do so, White said. 

“Let’s be clear—this is about fairness and common sense,” White said. “Deer season is underway, and young adults who have permission to hunt should not be caught up in legal issues for doing something that’s both safe and important to many people in our community. This amendment won’t fix the deeper problems with the ordinance, but it would reduce the harm of the new county law while also protecting responsible hunters.”

I appreciate White’s concern, but honestly, even if Jackson County adopted his amendment the underlying ordinance is still fundamentally unsound and unserious. Even if Missouri didn’t have a preemption law in place, the ordinance fails to define what a “semiautomatic assault rifle” is, so it would likely be tossed out due to vagueness.

But Missouri does have a preemption law in place, so no matter how fuzzy or specific the ordinance is, it’s still illegal. Jackson County Sheriff Darryl Forte hasn’t said if he plans on enforcing the new ordinance, but if he does then he too should expect to be sued. 

Abarca’s ordinance is nothing more than an expensive and time-consuming stunt that will do nothing at all to curb violent crime. The money that Jackson County will waste defending the illegal measure could be spent on any number of things that could have an impact, such as hiring more deputies, juvenile prosecutors, or community violence prevention efforts. Instead of doing something that works, Abarca and his colleagues have decided to launch a doomed effort to have the judiciary undo preemption, and it’s going to be fun to watch Bailey and the AG’s office annihilate the county’s feeble legal arguments in court.