A federal judge in Missouri has partially dismissed a high-profile Second Amendment lawsuit challenging a now-repealed Jackson County ordinance that restricted firearm sales and possession for young adults under 21, allowing only a narrow claim for nominal damages to proceed.
In an order issued February 10, 2026, U.S. District Judge Beth Phillips granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the case brought by 18-year-old Leonard Wilson Jr., Gun Owners of America (GOA), Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), and the State of Missouri against Jackson County, the county sheriff, and prosecutor (in their official capacities). The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
The lawsuit, filed in June 2025, targeted Jackson County Ordinance No. 5865 (the “Prior Ordinance”), enacted in November 2024 after the county legislature overrode County Executive Frank White Jr.’s veto. That measure prohibited sales of handguns and handgun ammunition to anyone under 21 and generally barred those under 21 from possessing semiautomatic long guns with certain features, with limited exceptions such as safety courses or military service. Violations carried potential criminal penalties.
Plaintiffs argued the ordinance violated the Second Amendment, was unconstitutionally vague, and was preempted by Missouri state law (§ 21.750, RSMo), which reserves firearm regulation to the state and prohibits stricter local rules. The suit highlighted Wilson, an 18-year-old GOA member from Miller County, who alleged he was blocked from buying a handgun and ammunition from his uncle in Jackson County during family visits, despite an agreed-upon price and legal status under state and federal law. Wilson also expressed intent to acquire and possess a semiautomatic rifle in the county.
Former Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey joined the litigation alongside GOA and GOF, framing the ordinance as an unconstitutional overreach that criminalized protected conduct for adults aged 18-20. Bailey’s office emphasized state preemption and characterized the measure as “lawfare” intended to provoke a legal challenge.
The county repealed the Prior Ordinance about three and a half weeks after the preliminary injunction motion was filed, replacing it with Ordinance No. 6002 (the “Current Ordinance”). The new version applies only to minors under 18, regulating firearm sales to and possession by minors, while leaving adults 18 and older unrestricted. Plaintiffs did not amend their complaint to challenge the replacement ordinance.
Judge Phillips ruled that Wilson established initial standing for his handgun purchase claim, citing concrete plans for a specific transaction with his uncle, which the Prior Ordinance directly prohibited. This satisfied the injury-in-fact requirement under precedents like Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, as Wilson faced a credible threat of prosecution. His injury was traceable to the ordinance, and nominal damage could redress the past violation.
However, the court found requests for injunctive and declaratory relief (equitable remedies) moot because the Prior Ordinance no longer exists, and the Current Ordinance does not affect Wilson (over 18) or anyone else in the same way. The judge rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the “voluntary cessation” doctrine required the county to prove it would never reenact the old rule. Citing Eighth Circuit precedents like Phelps-Roper v. City of Manchester, Teague v. Cooper, and Roth v. Austin, Phillips held that repeal or amendment of challenged legislation generally moots equitable claims unless reenactment is “virtually certain,” a high bar not met here according to the judge.
GOA established associational standing to seek equitable relief based on Wilson’s membership and injury, but lacked standing for damages claims on his behalf, as § 1983 does not abrogate the prudential rule requiring individual participation for monetary relief.
The judge said that GOF, a nonprofit without traditional members, failed to show “indicia of membership” akin to Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission or identify any specific supporter with standing. The court dismissed GOF without prejudice.
The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state preemption claim (Count III), citing novel or complex Missouri law issues that are better suited to state courts.
The State of Missouri’s standing was left unresolved for now, as its equitable claims are moot and nominal damages overlap with Wilson’s claim. Wilson’s nominal damages claim proceeds, with the State’s similar claim potentially subject to later review.
The ruling underscores ongoing tensions between local gun-control efforts and Missouri’s strong state preemption statute, as well as the post-Bruen Second Amendment litigation dynamics. The case’s narrowing to nominal damage reflects how repeal can limit remedies even when initial claims appear strong.
New York Times Returns to Old Playbook in Attack on Lake City Ammunition
Newsom Opposes Voter ID Laws, but Ignores Far Worse Abuses in California for CCW Permits
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
from https://ift.tt/qmn8V7b
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment