Missouri gun bill called speech risk

The Missouri Legislature will attempt this week to override Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon’s veto of a contentious gun bill passed earlier this year by state lawmakers.

The bill makes federal gun-control laws invalid in the state, allows for the open carry of weapons up to 16 inches long by concealed-weapon license holders, lowers the minimum age of concealed-weapon permit applicants from 21 to 19 and gives school districts authority to arm teachers and staff members. Also tucked within House Bill 436 is a provision prohibiting the publication of the names of Missouri gun owners.

The bill, known as the Second Amendment Preservation Act states, “No person or entity shall publish the names, address, or other identifying information of any individual who owns a firearm or who is an applicant for or holder of any license, certificate, permit, or endorsement which allows such individual to own, acquire, possess, or carry a firearm.”

Anyone who violates the provision is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

Nixon, in a letter explaining the reasons for his veto, writes that the bill’s publication provision violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution along with free speech protected by federal and state constitutions.

“A reporter who prints a photo of a local rally being held in support of gun rights could face up to a year in jail or a thousand dollar fine, or both,” Nixon said in the letter.

“In addition, a reporter would be precluded from writing or tweeting the name of a burglary victim who had his or her firearm stolen, or even from doing a story on a candidate in an upcoming General Assembly election if that candidate owns a firearm.”

Nixon said the bill’s broad language could restrict the publishing of names in police reports and court records or on social networking sites.

HB436 makes it a criminal offense to print gun owners’ names in the phone book or political candidates’ names on a ballot, said Jean Maneke, an attorney representing the Missouri Press Association.

Maneke said the association approved the filing of an injunction to stop the enforcement of HB436 if it is enacted.

The bill was passed by the Senate on May 2 with a 26-6 vote. It passed the House with a 116-38 vote on May 8. Nixon vetoed the bill July 5. A sponsor of the bill said lawmakers have the votes to override the veto when the Legislature convenes Wednesday. If successful, the act would become effective immediately.

Maneke said the Missouri Press Association is only concerned about portions of the bill that limit free speech.

Missouri Rep. Doug Funderburk, a Republican from St. Charles, is the sponsor of the bill. He said his legal counsel does not believe the bill would limit the publication of gun owners’ names in the circumstances listed by Maneke.

“I don’t think their concerns are valid,” Funderburk said.

Funderburk said the bill seeks to keep private a firearm owner’s information regarding licensing and certificates.

“That was an amendment put on my bill,” Funderburk said. “It is in response to two situations. The situation that arose out of the tragedy of Sandy Hook, where a newspaper published the names of concealed-carry holders of an entire county and two, to keep the Department of Revenue from sharing that information with agencies outside of Missouri.”

Funderburk said the Missouri Department of Revenue is the keeper of concealed-carry information and shares it with “anyone who asks for it.”

Missouri Statute 571 already states that information regarding someone’s status as a concealed-carry holder is not public information, Maneke said.

Funderburk said he was not aware of that.

“If that is the case, then the Missouri Department of Revenue has violated the law,” Funderburk said, and should be prosecuted.

A letter recently released by Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster did not address the section of the bill regarding the publication of gun-owner information. However, Koster did address concerns about other provisions of the bill.

Koster, a Democrat, said a portion of the bill that restricts how state law enforcement works with federal law enforcement agencies is “flawed public policy.”

The bill states, “All federal acts, laws, orders, rules and regulations, whether past present, or future, which infringe on the people’s rights to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.”

The bill prohibits federal and state law enforcement officers from enforcing federal gun laws and restrictions. Violators will be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

“What is a state trooper to do if he or she comes across a felon who has sold guns to a group of illegal immigrants?” Koster writes in the letter. “As you are aware, the sale of guns to illegal immigrants is not addressed by Missouri statues, but is unlawful under federal law.”

Koster said the law will create an “obvious risk to public safety.”

“Subsection 5 will also cause Missouri agencies to sacrifice any federal funding they receive as a part of their previously lawful joint enforcement efforts,” Koster said.

Funderburk said Koster’s letter is a failed attempt to scare lawmakers before the session to override the veto.

“It is unfortunate that our governor and the attorney general are willing to turn their back on the Second Amendment,” Funderburk said. “The Missouri Legislature will move forward without them.”

Koster has had a copy of the bill since January, Funderburk said.

“If he wanted to work constructively with me on this bill, he would have started last January,” Funderburk said. “He decided to stand back and stay mute and at the 11th hour jump out and voice his concerns.”

Funderburk said the bill has the lawmaker support to overturn the veto.

“We have a comfortable margin,” Funderburk said.

Maneke said the bill could affect publishers in Arkansas. She said publications delivered to subscribers in Missouri could fall under Missouri jurisdiction.

However, Tres Williams, a lobbyist and communications director for the Arkansas Press Association, said he doesn’t believe the bill would affect actions taken in Arkansas.

“I’m not really sure and I haven’t had a chance to read the bill,” Williams said. “Missouri would be subject to jurisdictional confines, in my understanding.”

Williams said a journalist from Arkansas who tweeted or published an electronic blog while in Missouri could be subject to Missouri jurisdiction.

The Arkansas Legislature passed a law limiting the release of information regarding concealed-carry licenses earlier this year. Act 145 amended the Freedom of Information Act, 25-19-105, and made concealed-handgun records exempt from being released as public information. It restricted the release of the name and ZIP code of someone who applied, received or previously received a concealed-carry license.

“It is found and determined by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas that the release of records to the general public concerning persons licensed to carry a concealed handgun is an unwarranted invasion of privacy and threatens the safety and property of the persons identified,” the act states.