A local lawmaker disputes the Missouri Press Association’s charge that a gun bill that narrowly survived an override of the governor’s veto would have had a devastating impact on newspapers. Rep. Bart Korman, R-High Hill said opponents of House Bill 436, which Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed last summer, had an “extremely loose” interpretation of the bill. The Missouri Senate came within one vote of the override during last week’s veto session in Jefferson City.The vote was 22-12, with 23 votes needed for the override.Buried in the bill was a provision that would have made it a misdemeanor for anyone, including newspapers, to publish the name of a gun owner. “If your legislator wants you to run his column in your newspaper and if he is a gun owner, you could be prosecuted,” said Jean Maneke, The Missouri Press Association’s legal hotline counselor.The legislation would also have made it a misdemeanor for federal agents to attempt to enforce any federal gun regulations that “infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.”“My interpretation was that you would have to print ‘Bart Korman owns a .30-06 with such and such a serial number,” he said. “In other words there would have to be real proof.”Korman said the overall bill was the same as those passed in Colorado and Washington state except it pertained to guns instead of marijuana legalization. “It was about reducing the role of federal law enforcement in the states,” he said.Maneke suggested the bill speaks for itself and cited language in it which states: “No person or entity shall publish the name, address or other identifying information of any individual who owns a firearm…”The bill does not say that you had to specifically say a person owns a firearm, Maneke said. “It says you cannot publish the name of a person who owns a firearm,” she said. “I think those words are pretty clear. I cannot read that to say you have to publish a name plus a serial number.”Maneke said the key word in the bill is “or” which means “any of the above.”Maneke added: “If (the bill) had said ‘and’, then I would understand you had to publish all that information. But it says only that it is illegal if they own a firearm. It doesn’t say you have to say they own a firearm — that is not in the language.”The Missouri House of Representatives had cast 109 votes (the minimum required) to override the governor’s veto. However, the Senate killed it when President Pro Tem Tom Dempsey (R-St. Charles) and Senate Majority Floor Leader Ron Richard (R-Joplin), and all 10 Senate Democrats voted against the override.The week before the override vote, Attorney General Chris Koster (D) issued a letter citing constitutional problems with the legislation.Nixon cited First Amendment concerns when he vetoed the bill. The Missouri Press Association promised to file a lawsuit on First Amendment grounds if HB 436 became law.The Missouri Press Association’s opposition to the bill was narrowly focused on the “publishing” point. “This language said ‘no person shall publish names,’” said Maneke. “How would any election authority publish a ballot of names of folks if gun owners were on that ballot? That’s literally what could have happened on this.”Other opponents of the bill included various Missouri law enforcement organizations concerned the bill would nullify federal firearms laws and would interfere with law enforcement operations.The National Rifle Association was neutral on the bill.After the House vote, HB 436 was taken up by Sen. Brian Nieves (R-Washington), who had handled the bill this year in the Senate. Sen. Nieves criticized Attorney General Koster and his opinion of the bill during floor debate, calling Koster a “liar” numerous times.Korman Defends Override Vote on Gun Bill