Call to arms: Firearms law would have public safety, free speech consequences

Dear editor:

The Second Amend-ment Preservation Act -- vetoed by Missouri Governor Jay Nixon for its unconstitutionality, among other things -- may be taken up by legislators in the upcoming veto session; but if a veto override is successful, the ramifications will be far-reaching; and not in a good way.

I'm wholeheartedly for the right to bear arms; I own a firearm. But if this measure becomes law, then technically, this newspaper would be committing a crime when, at the end of this letter, my name is published.

This bill includes a wide range of gun control-related rules; but essentially renounces a broad range federal firearms laws, modifies concealed/carry rules and makes it a crime to publish the name of anyone who owns a gun, period. No exceptions to the publishing provision are provided. Strictly interpreted, one could even be prosecuted for publishing one's own name.

No kidding.

Here's what it says about that:

"571.011. 1. No person or entity shall publish the name, 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.

"2. For purposes of this section, "publish" means to issue information or material in printed or electronic form for distribution or sale to the public.

"3. Any person or entity who violates the provisions of this section by publishing identifying information protected under this section is guilty of a class A misdemeanor." That's ridiculous.

Wouldn't this mean news outlets would be committing a crime by publishing the names of their own employees, if they happen to be gun owners?

Doesn't item 2 indicate that the Missouri General Assembly would be committing a misdemeanor itself by mentioning the names of legislators who happen to be gun owners? Would newspapers, or public or private websites -- anyone who disseminates information available to the public -- have to ask everyone they encounter whether they own a firearm, to protect themselves from prosecution under this law? No one who owns a firearm could be named in advertising, public records, public relations campaigns or even, say, in endorsing a candidate for public office, in writing or online. That's pretty blatantly quashing the free speech of all those people, who could then not publicly comment about anything, in writing.

Furthermore, in a Sept. 3 letter to Speaker of the House Tim Jones, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster said that, while courts would likely strike down some provisions as unconstitutional -- he didn't say which ones, but I hope it would be the making-publishing-a-crime part -- "Other portions of the law will likely remain in effect after the federal court's review.

"Included ... are provisions that 1) call for an end to cooperative efforts between state and federal law enforcement officials, 2) grant criminals a right to sue police officers for enforcing the law, and 3) create confusion in Missouri's concealed carry law." Koster says in the letter that "Subsection 5, read strictly, requires Highway Patrol troopers, deputy sheriffs and police officers across Missouri to immediately remove themselves from any federal/state joint task forces dealing in whole or part with the enforcement of federal gun laws." Koster calls the restrictions on law enforcement "flawed public policy." In addition, people would be able to sue officers for doing their jobs, Koster said; and the measure conflicts with SB 75, which relates to concealed carry permitting, confusing the process.

I staunchly believe in the importance of protecting our Second Amendment rights, but this simply isn't the right way to go about it.

Legislators should vote against any attempt to override Nixon's veto of HB436. Legislators take a solemn oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution -- all of it.

Sincerely,

Lynn A. Wade

Raymore, Mo.

Read the full text of HB 436 at http://www.-house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/perf/HB0436P.htm

Read Koster's letter in full at http://ago.mo.-gov/HB436_AGLetter_09032012.pdf

Lynn A. Wade is the former editor of the Nevada Daily Mail.