Missouri bill that nixed fed gun laws vetoed
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed legislation Friday that would have made it a crime for federal agents to attempt to enforce federal gun laws in Missouri and could have landed journalists in jail for publishing the names of gun owners in the state.
The Democratic governor said the bill passed by the Republican-led Legislature violated the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which gives preference to federal laws over conflicting state ones. He said it also infringed on the First Amendment rights of free speech and press.
Some supporters of the legislation had proclaimed it one of the most gun-friendly bills ever passed by a state legislature. Nixon, however, said it could have had extreme consequences.
“Under this bill, newspaper editors around the state that annually publish photos of proud young Missourians who harvest their first turkey or deer could be charged with a crime,” the governor said in a written statement announcing the veto.
Legislators would need a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to override Nixon's veto when they return to session in September. The bill passed in May with bipartisan support. For an override to succeed in the House, Republicans would need to secure 109 votes, the exact number of Republican lawmakers in that chamber.
House Speaker Tim Jones said Friday that he was “shocked and astounded” by the veto.
“I believe a supermajority of Missourians want us to override this bill,” said Jones, R-Eureka, but he added that a decision on whether to try won't be made before next month.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Judge orders W.Va. agency to release pollution data
- Mamet writes Broadway role for Pacino
- Alleged trooper killer may have been seen Friday
- Security at Capitol questioned
- 4 private security guards convicted
- Captive freed by North Korea enjoys tearful reunion in Ohio
- Coburn’s final ‘Wastebook’ tallies $25B in what he considers ‘pork’
- Social Security recipients to get increase in benefits
- Coast Guard to seek billions to protect Arctic interests
- Personal use of Secret Service agents on staffer’s behalf draws investigaton
- Academic scandal at University of North Carolina bigger than previously reported