A Missouri appeals court is weighing whether the city of St. Louis can require gun owners to lock up their firearms if they want to leave them in an unattended parked vehicle.

The city passed its lock-up requirement in 2017, in response to a rash of cases in which guns stolen from cars were later used in crimes. In 2024, St. Louis resident Michael Roth had his gun stolen from the middle console of his locked car while he attended Mass at the Cathedral Basilica in the Central West End. When he reported the theft to police, he was cited for failing to keep the weapon in a locked box.

Though city prosecutors dropped the case, Roth sued. He argued they could issue the charges again and had also filed similar cases against other gun owners, in violation of a state law that strips cities of most of their power to regulate firearms.

Circuit Judge Joseph Whyte ruled in favor of Roth last July. The city appealed. Oral arguments were Thursday.

Attorneys for the city and for Roth agree that state law places limits on local gun regulations. But they disagree about the extent of those limits.

The state law in question has two key subsections. The first says the General Assembly “occupies and pre-empts the entire field of legislation touching in any way firearms, components, ammunition and supplies to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by any political subdivision of this state.”

A second subsection says local political subdivisions cannot pass any regulations on “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.”

Roth’s attorney, Matt Vianello, told the court it was the broader first subsection that set the limits on what’s legally known as preemption — where a higher level of government sets limits on a lower level of government. Judges, he said, have to look at the plain language of the law to determine how far the General Assembly intended it to go.

“Their intent is clear: uniform firearm legislation throughout the state, so that you don’t have a hodgepodge of regulation just because you cross Skinker Boulevard coming into the city of St Louis,” Vianello said.

Nathan Puckett, an attorney for the city, told the court that the second subsection — which lists specific categories — was where the judges should look to decide the validity of the ordinance.

“The problem with looking to subsection one is that legislation ‘touching in any way firearms’ is not a specific area of legislation at all,” he said. “It is so general as to be nearly unlimited,” he said. Therefore, the court needs to look to subsection 2, which outlines specific areas like transportation and taxation.”

The city’s ordinance, Puckett said, dealt solely with the storage of firearms, which is not something on the list. Therefore, he said, it remains valid and the city should be allowed to enforce it.

Vianello disagreed with that analysis. Requiring someone to lock up a gun if they want to leave it in their car in the city, he said, regulates the transportation and possession of guns by making a person choose whether or not they bring their gun into the city if they don’t have a lock box.

The court will rule at a later date.

Copyright 2026 St. Louis Public Radio

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — If Missouri voters get to decide whether to adopt new U.S. House districts backed by President Donald Trump, the ballot proposal presented to them won’t say a word about gerrymandering.

A state judge on Friday ordered a new, toned-down description of the redistricting plan after Missouri’s Republican secretary of state acknowledged that he had crafted an unfair summary likely to create bias for the new districts by describing the old ones as “gerrymandered.”

The ruling marked at least a partial victory for opponents of the new map, who previously submitted more than 300,000 petition signatures seeking to force a statewide referendum. But it remains to be seen whether the referendum actually will occur this November.

Election officials are still in the process of verifying whether opponents gathered enough valid petition signatures. And the state Supreme Court is considering a separate lawsuit seeking to invalidate the new map based on assertions that mid-decade redistricting isn’t allowed under the state constitution.

Missouri lawmakers approved new congressional districts last September — the second Republican-led state after Texas to respond to Trump’s call to redraw districts to try to give the GOP an advantage in this year’s midterm elections.

That triggered an unusual tit-for-tat redistricting battle that also spread to Republican-led North Carolina and Ohio and Democratic-led California and Virginia. Republican-led Florida is set to join the congressional redistricting debate with a special legislative session in April.

Missouri currently is represented in the U.S. House by six Republicans and two Democrats under a map passed in 2022 after the most recent census. The new map is intended to help Republicans win a Kansas City-area seat currently held by Democratic U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver by reassigning portions to two neighboring districts and stretching the remainder into Republican-heavy rural areas.

Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, who supports the new districts, has until Aug. 4 — the date of the state’s primary elections — to determine whether the referendum petition met constitutional muster and got enough valid signatures. If so, then the new districts could be suspended until decided by voters.

As originally drafted by Hoskins, the ballot summary for the potential referendum would have asked voters whether to repeal “Missouri’s existing gerrymandered congressional plan that protects incumbent politicians” and replace it with new boundaries “that keep more cities and counties intact, are more compact, and better reflects statewide voting patterns.”

The opposition group People Not Politicians, which backed the petition drive, filed suit alleging Hoskins’ wording was biased and likely to lead people to vote for the new districts, which opponents contend are the true gerrymander.

Attorneys for Hoskins conceded during court proceedings it was unfair to describe Missouri’s current districts as gerrymandered and protecting incumbents. But Hoskins insisted the remaining description of the new districts was fine.

Cole County Circuit Judge Brian Stumpe struck much of the original wording but agreed with Hoskins that it was accurate to say the new districts are more compact and keep more counties and cities intact. He left those phrases in the new version that he ordered to be used.

Both sides took some satisfaction from the revised wording.

“If the referendum does eventually qualify for the ballot, Missourians will benefit from a fair ballot summary thanks to today’s ruling,” said Stephanie Whitaker, a spokesperson for Attorney General Catherine Hanaway, whose office represented Hoskins.

Chuck Hatfield, an attorney for People Not Politicians, described it as “a solid victory, and important victory.” But he said the group still objects to some of the remaining wording and would consider whether to appeal.