No state permit is required for the purchase of rifles, shotguns or handguns.
It is unlawful to knowingly sell, lease, loan, give away or deliver a firearm or ammunition to any person who is not lawfully entitled to possess one. It is unlawful to recklessly sell, lease, loan, give away or deliver a firearm or ammunition to a person who is intoxicated. It is unlawful to knowingly sell, lease, loan, give away or deliver any firearm to a person who is not eighteen years old without the consent of the custodial parent or guardian.
I am confused. It requires no state permit to buy the darn things so why say in the law "...not lawfully entitled to possess one."
The Missouri gun laws are virtually non-existent. And I found this pre-emption statute absolutely amazing.
2. No county, city, town, village, municipality, or other political subdivision of this state shall adopt any order, ordinance or regulation concerning in any way the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permit, registration, taxation other than sales and compensating use taxes or other controls on firearms, components, ammunition, and supplies except as provided in subsection 3 of this section.
So, basically, if St. Louis has a gun problem; let's say similar to Washington, DC; it could not legislate anything different than the state legislates. Is that constitutional? Can a state impose lack of law legislation on a city? Snyder is trying that with state conservation laws. There cannot be any stricter laws on the books than what the federal laws provide. It is very similar to North Carolina baloney. It doesn't matter if the state bird is failing in Michigan, unless it is endangered or threatened on a federal level.
Amazing.
But, I believe there is a real challenge to the constitutionality of such limiting laws on cities.