Missouri’s proposal to tie public range access to a small game permit starting in 2027 is being sold as a simple administrative tweak, yet it quietly inserts a new layer of bureaucracy between law-abiding citizens and the very facilities built with their tax dollars. By conditioning range use on a permit originally designed for hunting rabbits and squirrels, state officials risk normalizing the idea that the Second Amendment is a privilege doled out by wildlife agencies rather than a protected right. The move also creates an uneven playing field: hunters already carry the permit, but casual target shooters, families teaching marksmanship, and competitive shooters who never pursue game would suddenly face an extra fee and paperwork hurdle just to stay proficient with their firearms.

For the broader 2A community the danger lies less in the modest cost of a permit and more in the precedent it sets. Once government can require one license to exercise a constitutional right on public land, nothing prevents future expansions—background checks for range time, training mandates, or even caliber restrictions framed as “wildlife management.” Missouri’s range system was funded in part by federal excise taxes on firearms and ammunition under the Pittman-Robertson Act, money contributed by the same gun owners now being asked to pay again for access; turning that contribution into a permission slip feels like double-dipping with a side of mission creep. If the rule survives, expect copy-cat proposals in other states under the banner of “administrative efficiency,” each one eroding the presumption that public ranges exist to serve, not to gatekeep, the people’s right to keep and bear arms.