Attorney General Bailey Announces Lawsuit Against Jackson County for Second Amendment Violations

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey notified Jackson County of anticipated litigation over their newly-passed ordinance that violates Missourians’ right to keep and bear arms. The illegal ordinance prohibits anyone under the age of 21 from possessing firearms or ammunition.

“The right to keep and bear arms is inalienable,” said Attorney General Bailey. “To that end, I will be filing suit against Jackson County for their illegal attempt to violate Missourians’ Second Amendment rights.”

Attorney General Bailey directed a litigation hold notice to Jackson County regarding the veto override of Ordinance 5865.

In the litigation hold notice, Attorney General Bailey puts Jackson County on notice, “This letter serves as a formal document hold notice under federal and Missouri law. We have reason to believe that the Jackson County Legislature’s recent override of County Executive Frank White’s veto of Ordinance 5865 violated Missouri law… and are an attempt to undermine State authority. Despite the sound legal advice of the county counselor, and Executive White’s veto, the legislature enacted Ordinance 5865 on November 18, 2024.”

In Executive White’s veto letter to the legislature, he stated, “The County Counselor’s Office has issued an opinion stating that Ordinance 5865 violates state law, is unenforceable and exposes the County to potential lawsuits, namely by the Attorney General’s Office, which has history of suing municipalities over such gun restrictions.”

Because of the flagrant disregard to Missouri law, General Bailey instructs Jackson County to “preserve all records that may relate to communication between legislators who have or may have conspired to pass an unlawful and dangerous ordinance for mere political gain.”

Attorney General Bailey is demanding Jackson County preserve all records related to:

• Internal communications regarding your strategy to draft, pass and ultimately override the veto of unlawful Ordinance 5865.
• Communications with third parties regarding your strategy to draft, pass and ultimately override the veto of unlawful Ordinance 5865.
• Communications with members of any 401(c)(3) organizations regarding your strategy to draft, pass and ultimately override the veto of unlawful Ordinance 5865.
• All public records, as defined in § 610.010, RSMo, related to the drafting, passage and veto override of unlawful Ordinance 5865.

He concludes the litigation hold notice, “Be advised that any failure to preserve documents of probative value to this case, even if inadvertent, will constitute spoliation of evidence and may result in a finding of contempt from the court or sanctions.”

Original source can be found here.