New bill lowering age for concealed carry permit passes Missouri House
MISSOURI — The Missouri House of Representatives passed a bill in early April that could lower the age requirement for a person to obtain a concealed carry permit.
According to House Bill 328, the age requirement to possess a concealed carry firearm would be lowered from 19 to 18 years of age.
The bill will additionally allow any person with a permit to legally carry a firearm on public transportation, excluding Amtrak. Those with a concealed carry permit will also be allowed to carry in churches, according to the bill.
Woman dead, 5 suspects arrested after fatal crash in north St. Louis
Currently in Missouri, it is prohibited for those with a concealed carry permit to possess a firearm for self-defense on public transit or places of worship. If passed, the bill will reverse both and will take effect on Aug. 28.
A similar bill made rounds in the Missouri House last year, though it ultimately failed to clear the chamber.
The bill was sponsored by Republican Representative Tim Taylor of District 48 in Missouri. The House voted 'Do Pass' on the bill on March 27, and the bill was reported to the Senate on April 10 for consideration.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Gen Z's stunning partisan split
America's youngest voters are far likelier to vote Republican than their older siblings. Why it matters: Generation Z may be better understood as two distinct sub-generations — divided, in large part, by how they experienced the shock of COVID-19. Stunning stat: The latest iteration of the Yale Youth Poll found extraordinary 18-point partisan gap between younger and older members of Generation Z. When asked whether they'd pick a Democratic or Republican candidate in the midterm elections, voters age 22–29 favored Democrats by 6.4 points, while those age 18–21 favored Republicans by 11.7 points. Zoom in: Rachel Janfaza — a youth political analyst and writer of The Up and Up, a newsletter about Gen Z — breaks down"Gen Z 1.0" and "Gen Z 2.0" based on how old they were during pandemic lockdowns and the rise of TikTok. Gen Z 1.0 graduated high school before COVID. They quarantined in college dorms or apartments with friends and came of age during President Trump's first term — shaped by the Women's March, gun control rallies, and the Black Lives Matter movement. Gen Z 2.0 was in high school or middle school during lockdowns, isolating at home with family and cut off from peers. The backlash to COVID-era policies pushed many younger voters right. And because they entered adulthood under President Biden, "counter-culture" often meant aligning with MAGA, Janfaza says. Between the lines: Older Gen Z-ers came of age on platforms like Instagram and Twitter. Younger Gen Z-ers are native to TikTok. 9% of young adults said they got their news from TikTok in 2020, according to Pew Research. By 2024, that figure had surged to 39%. Trump's campaign seized on that shift early, reaching young voters on TikTok months before Biden or then–Vice President Harris. Many younger men were already plugged into content from MAGA-friendly figures like Theo Von, Joe Rogan and Dave Portnoy, who went on to host Trump on their platforms. Zoom out: As a whole, Americans under 30 still lean Democratic. But the partisan split within Gen Z came into sharp focus during the 2024 election. White men under 20 voted for Trump at higher rates than their late-20s counterparts — and even more than white Baby Boomer men, according to research from Democratic polling group Blue Rose Research. What to watch: Since taking power, Trump has lost significant ground with 18 to 29-year-olds in particular, according to an analysis of polls by data journalists G. Elliott Morris.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Supreme Court ruling scrambles battle for transgender care
The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a substantial blow to transgender-rights advocates in upholding a 2023 Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors, a decision that could have far-reaching consequences for the future of transgender health in the U.S. but whose impact won't be felt right away. 'The immediate outcome is that it doesn't change anything,' said Kellan Baker, executive director of the Institute for Health Research and Policy at Whitman-Walker, a Washington-based nonprofit. 'It doesn't affect the availability or legality of care in states that do not have bans, and it simply says that states that have decided to ban this care can do so if they survive other challenges.' Twenty-seven Republican-led states since 2021 have adopted laws that ban transition-related care, including puberty blockers, hormone therapy and rare surgeries for minors. Laws passed in Arizona and New Hampshire — the first Northeastern state to have restricted gender dysphoria treatments for youth — only prohibit minors from accessing surgeries, a provision that was not at issue before the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 decision, the high court upheld a lower court ruling that found Tennessee's restrictions do not violate the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. The state's law, which allows cisgender children and teens to access medications that it bans for trans minors, makes distinctions based on age and diagnosis, the courts ruled, rather than sex and transgender status. Three Tennessee families, a doctor and the Biden administration, along with attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Lambda Legal, argued the measure amounts to illegal sex discrimination, warranting heightened review. 'Having concluded it does not,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority on Wednesday, 'we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' At least 10 legal challenges to state laws prohibiting health professionals from administering gender-affirming care to minors argue the restrictions discriminate based on sex in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday could potentially weaken, in some cases, that line of attack, but it is not the only approach opponents of the laws have pursued. More than a dozen other lawsuits, including ones arguing equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, claim bans on transition-related health care for minors violate the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, federal disability law or provisions of a state's constitution. In May, a federal judge struck Montana's ban on gender-affirming care for youth on grounds it violated privacy, equal protection and free speech rights guaranteed by its constitution. 'This ruling allows challenges to other state bans to continue,' said Baker, of Whitman-Walker, 'and they will.' Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of Lambda Legal's constitutional law practice, told reporters on a Zoom call following Wednesday's ruling that the civil rights organization and others challenging state bans on gender-affirming care have other options at their disposal. 'The Supreme Court did not endorse the entirety of the lower court's ruling; it did not mandate or even greenlight other bans on gender-affirming medical care, even for young people, or other forms of discrimination,' she said. 'It really is about how it viewed Tennessee's in this specific way, and left us plenty of tools to fight other bans on health care and other discriminatory actions that target transgender people, including other equal protection arguments about transgender status discrimination, about the animus-based targeting of trans people.' Loewy added that the court's ruling also left the door open to arguments based on state and federal sex discrimination statutes and parental rights, which the justices did not address Wednesday. Nearly all of the cases brought against youth gender-affirming care bans argue those laws infringe on the rights of parents to make medical decisions on behalf of their children. 'As a parent, I know my child better than any government official ever will,' Samantha Williams, the mother of L.W., a transgender teenager who was at the center of the case before the Supreme Court, wrote in a New York Times op-ed after Wednesday's ruling. The Supreme Court's determination that Tennessee's law does not discriminate based on sex also raises questions about how opponents of transition-related health care for minors will use the ruling to inform their own legal strategies. In Arkansas, the ACLU successfully argued in 2023 that the first-in-the-nation ban on gender-affirming care for minors violated the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, as well as its Due Process Clause and the First Amendment's protections of free speech. 'We'll have to see, but it's possible that that ban could stand because the court made that decision on equal protection, as well as on other grounds,' said Lindsey Dawson, director for LGBTQ health policy at KFF, a nonprofit health policy research, polling and news organization. 'This is likely to be an area that's going to face continued litigation and is not settled at this point in time.' In a statement Wednesday, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R) said he is 'preparing an official notification' for an appeals court detailing the implications of Wednesday's Supreme Court decision on the state's ban, which the Legislature passed — and former Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson initially vetoed — in 2021. 'Because our law is similar to Tennessee's law, today's decision has positive implications for our case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit,' he said. Montana and Arkansas are the only states whose bans on gender-affirming care for youth remain blocked by court orders, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit group that tracks LGBTQ laws. The Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday also declined, as some court watchers had anticipated, to apply the reasoning of its earlier decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shields employees from discrimination based on their sex or gender identity. Some lawsuits challenging state bans on care for minors have said the ruling should apply to contexts other than workplace discrimination. Former President Biden's administration similarly sought to use the court's reasoning in Bostock to back new nondiscrimination policies protecting transgender people in health care and sports, arguments largely rejected by conservative political leaders and courts. 'We still don't have a sole understanding of where Bostock might apply outside of Title VII, and it's going to be something that's important to watch,' Dawson said. 'It's certainly something that the Bostock court warned us about,' she said. 'In that decision, the court said, this court is making its ruling and it's quite narrow, but it's going to be for future courts to decide how this applies outside of Title VII. That remains a question mark.'
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
The Memo: Trump pumps brakes, lightly, on joining Israel's assault on Iran
President Trump is pumping the brakes, at least for the moment, on direct U.S. engagement in Israel's assault on Iran. On Thursday, Trump determined that he would make a 'decision on whether or not to go within the next two weeks,' according to a statement read by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. Trump had also determined there was 'a chance for substantial negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future,' Leavitt said. But that pause could be unpaused at any moment, given Trump's mercurial nature, the volatility of the situation in the Middle East and the voices within American politics arguing that the time is ripe for the U.S. to deliver a decisive blow on Israel's behalf. Trump on Friday said the two-week period was the 'maximum' period that would elapse before he decided on the question. That left the overall positive muddy — but it also gave Trump some room to maneuver. And even his current equivocal stance shows him edging back toward his more anti-interventionist 'America First' instincts. That is a turn from earlier in the week, when Trump had seemed right on the brink of sending American forces in some capacity to back Israel's assault. At that point, he had bragged on social media that 'we' had control of the skies over Iran and, in a separate all-caps post, appeared to demand Iran's 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!' Trump's fuzzy position since then reflects several different facts. First, for all his aggressiveness on the domestic stage, Trump has long been skeptical of foreign adventuring. In his first run for the presidency — a campaign that began a decade ago — he was critical of former President George W. Bush's war in Iraq, to an extent that was highly unusual for a Republican candidate. Relatedly, Trump's apparent flirting with war provoked significant pushback from influential figures within his Make America Great Again (MAGA) base. The most prominent of these is Tucker Carlson, whose skeptical questioning of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) during a long interview went viral in recent days. Carlson, former chief strategist Steve Bannon and widely-watched influencers on the online right such as Theo Von have all argued that the dangers of getting sucked into a new Middle East war are acute. Then there is broader American public opinion to consider. There seems remarkably little appetite among the public for direct U.S. involvement in an attack on Iran. A Washington Post poll released on Wednesday found 45 percent opposed to U.S. airstrikes on Iran, just 25 percent supporting such action and 30 percent undecided. So, it's no surprise that Trump is returning to a long-established tactic of playing for time. As some sardonic media reports have noted since Thursday's 'two weeks' pronouncement, this is a timescale he has cited in the past for things that have never ultimately happened. One example was a promise to produce a detailed health plan that would purportedly replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) passed under President Obama. He has also cited 'two weeks' as a timeframe by which various facets of his views on the war in Ukraine would become clear. On Iran, the president is to be sure under some pressure from those who believe this is a rare opportunity to strike at Iran, debilitate its uranium enrichment capacity for good and perhaps topple the nation's theocratic leadership. This school of thought holds that Iranian proxies and allies like Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and the former regime of Bashar Assad in Syria have been so worn down (in the case of the first two) or removed (in the case of Assad) that stronger action is possible today than would have been the case even a couple of years ago. The Trump administration has its fair share of vehement supporters of expansive Israeli power. For example, Trump's ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, has in the past been supportive of Israel's decades-long occupation of the West Bank, despite that occupation being deemed illegal by numerous interpretations of international law. Huckabee also wrote Trump a message in recent days — which Trump duly published on social media — in which the ambassador suggested that Trump was positioned to act as a vehicle of divine will regarding Israel. Yet another wrinkle in Trump's approach is his seeming split with his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, on the question of whether Iran is actively seeking a nuclear weapon. Gabbard's belief flies in the face of the purported Israeli rationale for the attack on Iran. But on Friday, Trump was confronted by a reporter on the question. The reporter asked what evidence Trump had that Iran is building a nuclear weapon and said U.S. intelligence had reported that it had not seen such evidence. 'Well then, my intelligence community is wrong,' Mr. Trump insisted. 'Who in the intelligence community said that?' When the reporter named Gabbard, Trump shot back, 'She's wrong.' Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman, is renowned for her general skepticism of American interventionism. Trump appears to yet hold out some hope of a breakthrough in talks with Iran. His envoy Steve Witkoff remains engaged on the issue. Any major Iranian concessions at this point would allow Trump to claim — as he often likes to do — that his high-risk approach to diplomatic negotiation had paid off. On the other hand, it's hard to see how any deal between the U.S. and Iran would placate the Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu. Indeed, the possibility of such a deal in the first place is seen by some as one of the reasons Netanyahu launched the assault on Iran in the first place. For now, Trump has bought himself some time. But there are risks in every direction. The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.
