ST. LOUIS — The Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District affirmed a lower court ruling declaring a St. Louis ordinance regulating the storage of firearms in unattended vehicles invalid under state law, finding the ordinance was expressly preempted by Missouri’s firearm preemption statute.
In a decision filed this month, a three-judge panel upheld the circuit court’s judgment in favor of Michael Roth, who challenged the city’s Unattended Vehicle Ordinance after being cited by police when a firearm was stolen from his vehicle while he attended church services in St. Louis in October 2024.
According to the opinion, Roth reported the firearm theft to the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department and was instructed to make the report in person.
After doing so, police issued him a citation for violating the ordinance, which prohibited leaving a firearm in an unattended vehicle unless it was stored in a locked container permanently affixed to the vehicle and not visible from outside.
The city later formally charged Roth with violating the ordinance, but dismissed the case through a nolle prosequi before the court heard Roth’s motion to dismiss. Roth subsequently filed a petition seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the ordinance was invalid because it conflicted with Section 21.750 of Missouri law, which broadly preempts local firearm regulation.
The city admitted it had cited and charged Roth under the ordinance and acknowledged it intended to continue enforcing the measure.
Roth later sought judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to declare the ordinance invalid and bar the city from enforcing it.
The city argued the ordinance regulated firearm “storage,” which it contended was distinct from categories expressly preempted by state law.
The trial court ruled in Roth’s favor, declaring the ordinance invalid and permanently enjoining enforcement.
The court found the General Assembly had “expressly preempted local firearm regulation” through the plain language of Section 21.750 and rejected the city’s argument that firearm storage fell outside the scope of the statute.
On appeal, the city argued the ordinance should survive because the statute does not specifically mention “storage” among the categories of firearm regulation barred to local governments.
The appellate court disagreed, concluding the legislature intended to broadly occupy the field of firearm regulation.
The court pointed to language in Section 21.750 stating the General Assembly “occupies and preempts the entire field of legislation touching in any way firearms” and that local ordinances in that field “shall be null and void” unless they fall within limited statutory exceptions.
The court further held that regulating how firearms are stored in vehicles necessarily concerns the “keeping,” “possession” and “transportation” of firearms, all categories specifically referenced in the statute.
The opinion stated that vehicles are “intrinsically tied to transportation” and that regulating firearm storage in vehicles “concern[s] in any way the … transportation” of firearms under the statute.
The panel also addressed whether the dispute was ripe for review, despite the city having dismissed the underlying municipal charge against Roth.
The court found Roth’s challenge presented a predominantly legal question and that he remained subject to potential future prosecution because the city intended to continue enforcing the ordinance.
The opinion further stated Roth lacked an adequate legal remedy because the city dismissed the prosecution before his constitutional and statutory arguments could be heard.
In rejecting the city’s argument that a broad interpretation of the statute could invalidate many local regulations touching firearms, the court noted the law includes exceptions permitting municipalities to enact ordinances that exactly conform to certain state weapons offenses statutes or regulate the open carrying and discharge of firearms in limited circumstances.
The court cited examples, including local ordinances regulating unlawful firearm discharge and ordinances mirroring state laws against threatening display of weapons.
Presiding Judge Robert M. Clayton III authored the opinion, with Judges Michael E. Gardner and Rebeca Navarro-McKelvey concurring.
The court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, concluding the ordinance was expressly preempted by state law and therefore void.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District case number: ED113811
