Firearms Offenses

No. Since 1 January 2017 Missouri has permitless carry, achieved by SB 656’s rewrite of § 571.030.1(1) — concealed carry is unlawful only in the places listed in § 571.107. The age is 19, or 18 for a member or honorably discharged member of the armed forces, and you must not otherwise be prohibited.

A permit is still worth obtaining. It gives reciprocity in other states, and the difference matters enormously — Illinois in particular does not recognize Missouri permitless carry, and the Mississippi River is not a legal formality.

Permitless carry also does not touch the prohibited places in § 571.107, federal prohibitions, or the disqualifications in § 571.070. “I can carry in Missouri” and “I can carry here, right now, lawfully” are different statements.

An additional charge that attaches whenever a felony is committed “by, with, or through the use, assistance, or aid of a dangerous instrument or deadly weapon” under § 571.015. It is not a separate crime standing alone, and each qualifying felony can support its own ACA count — which is how a two-count case becomes a four-count case.

Minimums: three years first offense, five second, ten third or subsequent — and five, fifteen, fifteen where the firearm was unlawfully possessed. Those years carry no parole, probation, conditional release, or suspended sentence.

And it runs “in addition to and consecutive to” the underlying felony sentence. A class D felony with a five-year sentence plus an ACA count is not five years — it is five plus three, served after. This is why ACA counts dominate plea negotiations in any case where a weapon was present.

Under Missouri law, possession by a person convicted of a felony is a class C felony under § 571.070 — class B with a prior dangerous felony or prior unlawful possession conviction. Federal law prohibits it independently under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Antique firearms are excepted under the Missouri statute.

Restoration is genuinely difficult. A Missouri expungement does not automatically cure a federal disability, and § 610.140.10 still requires disclosure of an expunged offense on a chapter 571 permit application. A gubernatorial pardon is a separate route with its own process.

As to constitutional challenges: courts are split on whether § 922(g)(1) can be attacked as applied to a specific person after Bruen and Rahimi. The Eighth Circuit, which governs Missouri, has held that felony-by-felony litigation is not required. Do not act on a favorable decision from another circuit — it does not control here, and the consequence of being wrong is a new felony.

§ 571.107 lists them: law enforcement offices without consent; within 25 feet of a polling place on election day; detention and correctional facilities; courthouses and court offices; meetings of governing bodies and the General Assembly; government buildings where prohibited by rule; bars and establishments serving alcohol without consent; controlled-access airport areas; anywhere federal law prohibits; schools and higher education institutions without consent; child care facilities; riverboat gaming operations; gated amusement park areas; churches and religious facilities without consent; posted private property; sports arenas and stadiums seating 5,000 or more; and hospitals open to the public.

For a permit holder, the penalties are notably mild and require being asked to leave first — a citation and up to $100 on a first offense, rising with repetition.

For someone carrying without a permit under permitless carry, the exposure is different: a violation of § 571.030.1(1) is a class B misdemeanor. That asymmetry is one of the better practical arguments for holding a permit even though Missouri does not require one.

Serious, and it depends which subdivision. Exhibiting a weapon “in an angry or threatening manner” under § 571.030.1(4) is a class E felony. Discharging from or at a motor vehicle under subdivision (9) is a class B felony — and a class A felony if anyone is injured or killed.

These cases turn on what “exhibiting” means on the particular facts, whether the display was defensive, whether the other driver’s account is corroborated, and what any video actually shows. Self-defense is a genuine issue in a number of them.

One piece of good news that surprises people: subdivision (4) — the exhibiting offense — is one of the two carve-outs that remains expungeable notwithstanding the general § 571.030 exclusion in § 610.140.3(11).

Under Missouri law, § 571.030.1(11) makes it a class E felony to possess a firearm while in felony possession of a controlled substance. Marijuana within Missouri’s constitutional personal-use allowance is not felony possession, so that subdivision does not reach it.

Federal law is a different and much harder problem. Marijuana remains a federally controlled substance regardless of Missouri law, and the ATF Form 4473 asks whether you are an unlawful user of a controlled substance — answering that question falsely is a federal felony in itself.

This is one of the sharpest state-federal conflicts in current law, and it is not resolved by pointing to Article XIV. If you use marijuana lawfully under Missouri law and also own firearms, that combination deserves specific advice rather than a general reassurance.

A full order generally does; an ex parte order generally does not. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) applies only to an order “issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate,” restraining conduct toward an intimate partner, and either finding a credible threat to physical safety or explicitly prohibiting the use or threatened use of physical force. An ex parte order is issued without that notice and hearing.

Missouri’s full order form is drafted to carry the finding and cites § 922(g)(8) in its notice provisions. Two qualifications: the order must protect an intimate partner, so one protecting a roommate or adult sibling may not trigger it — and the Supreme Court upheld § 922(g)(8) in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024).

Which makes the protective order hearing the moment your firearm rights are decided. Appearing, with counsel, is not optional if firearms matter to you. See domestic violence and orders of protection.

Those are National Firearms Act items under 26 U.S.C. ch. 53, and possession is lawful only for the registered owner. That is why NFA trusts exist — a trust as registered owner allows every trustee to possess lawfully, and passes the items at death without a probate gap in which someone commits a felony by handling them.

Since ATF Rule 41F, effective 13 July 2016, every “responsible person” of a trust files a Form 5320.23 with a photograph and two fingerprint cards per application. That rule also eliminated the CLEO sign-off and replaced it with notification — there is no longer any official who can refuse.

A criminal charge changes all of this immediately. A felony conviction or a qualifying protective order makes continued possession unlawful, and a trust does not cure a prohibited person’s disability. See NFA trusts explained and specialty trusts.

It depends which one. § 610.140.3(11) excludes § 571.030 unlawful use of weapons — but with two carve-outs that remain eligible: an offense under § 571.030.1(1) where the conviction predates 1 January 2017, and any offense under § 571.030.1(4), exhibiting.

Other exclusions bite hard here too. Any class A felony and any dangerous felony are permanently excluded, which reaches the serious end of § 571.030 and armed criminal action attached to a serious underlying offense.

And even a successful expungement does not restore federal firearm rights automatically — and § 610.140.10 requires disclosure of an expunged offense on a chapter 571 permit application. If the goal is getting your rights back rather than clearing a record, say so, because the analysis is different.

It can be a complete one. Missouri recognizes self-defense, defense of others, and defense of premises, and the State bears the burden of disproving justification once it is properly raised.

What decides these cases is detail: who was the initial aggressor, whether the force used was proportionate, what a reasonable person would have believed in the moment, whether retreat was required in that location, and — frequently decisive — whether the physical evidence and video corroborate your account or the other person’s.

The practical warning is that self-defense claims are made worse by explanation. People give lengthy statements believing that describing the justification will end the matter, and instead fix an account before anyone knows what the evidence shows. Assert it through counsel, after the evidence is in hand.

Yes, on a constructive possession theory. The State must prove you knowingly possessed the firearm and had the power and intention to control it — and it will ask a jury to infer that from where it was found and what you did.

The inferences are contestable. Proximity is not possession. In a car with multiple occupants or a shared residence, the State has to tie the firearm to you specifically — ownership, fingerprints, DNA, admissions, or exclusive access.

Which returns to the same point that governs this entire area: the most damaging evidence in a constructive possession case is almost always something the defendant said. Say you want a lawyer, and stop.

Say nothing. Firearms cases are frequently built on statements about ownership, knowledge and intent that would otherwise be very hard to prove.

Do not touch the firearms. If you are subject to a protective order or a bond condition requiring surrender, comply exactly and document it. Transferring guns to a friend or family member to “hold” can itself be an offense, and constructive possession does not end at the property line.

Get the exposure mapped early. Armed criminal action counts, enhancement under § 558.016, federal referral risk, and whether the disposition would end your rights permanently — those are decided in the first weeks, and they are what a firearms case is actually about. See felonies.