Sponsor trims language, defends Second Amendment Preservation Act in House hearing; advocates and gun‑violence groups clash

Representative Bill Hardwick, sponsor of House Bill 3,070, told the House Committee on General Laws the bill is a narrowed successor to an earlier statute that the Eighth Circuit struck down. Hardwick said he removed language that purported to declare federal law invalid and instead kept a focused list of actions the state would treat as violations — for example, taxes or stamps on firearms, registration or tracking of firearms or ammunition, and confiscation of firearms from law‑abiding citizens — and proposed a $50,000 civil penalty for violations.

Hardwick repeatedly framed the bill as an anti‑commandeering measure and cited federal precedent including Prince (anti‑commandeering jurisprudence) and the Eighth Circuit's reasoning that the previous statute’s declaratory language had led to its invalidation. He told members the bill preserves Missouri police authority to enforce state law and does not change prohibitions on carrying weapons into courthouses, schools or other locations under existing Missouri law.

Committee members pressed Hardwick on several points: whether the bill could place retailers or individuals with Federal Firearms Licenses in conflict with federal requirements; how the civil‑penalty remedy would be enforced and who would have standing to sue; and whether the measure would impede task forces that cooperate with federal agencies on interstate crime. Hardwick said the bill is narrower than earlier versions, preserves individual police officers’ qualified immunity, and targets political subdivisions or agencies as the entities exposed to civil remedy rather than line officers.

Witnesses reflected the split. Aaron Doerr of the Missouri Firearms Coalition testified in support, urging the committee to preserve the governor’s recommended definitions and to include deterrent penalties to hold jurisdictions accountable. Susan Myers, who previously advocated for the earlier statute, testified in favor, saying penalties are necessary to prevent local jurisdictions from circumventing state preemption. In opposition, Cynthia Chang at Levin, a volunteer with Moms Demand Action, said the bill would “handcuff police officers” and undermine cooperation between local, state and federal authorities needed to track gun trafficking and address organized crime. Chang and other opponents warned the civil‑penalty and hiring restrictions could shrink the pool of qualified law‑enforcement candidates.

Representatives also discussed practical enforcement scenarios — for example, whether a local officer sharing information with federal agents about a suspect would amount to unlawful "material aid." Committee members asked for clearer drafting on those points and raised concerns about insurer and task‑force participation. Hardwick and supporters urged members to view the bill as a tool for political accountability and a measured response to federal encroachments they say could be imposed by future administrations.

The hearing closed after roughly an hour-and-a-half of testimony and questioning. Committee members did not take a final vote on HB 3,070 at this meeting.