Missouri House Bill 436, the Second Amendment Preservation Act, has received scrutiny from a number of groups and faces a veto override vote in the Statehouse this week.

The bill was passed by the Missouri Legislature during the last session of congress but was vetoed by Gov. Jay Nixon.

The Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster, the Missouri Press Association and others have spoken out against this bill and advocated sustaining the veto.

This piece of legislation, “establishes the Second Amendment Preservation Act which rejects all federal acts that infringe on a Missouri citizens’ rights under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution,” according to the text of the bill.

Koster wrote a letter to Timothy Jones, the Speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives, discussing the bill. Koster said in the letter that parts of the bill will be declared unconstitutional.

Constitutional parts that could remain in effect would end cooperation between local and federal law enforcement, grant criminals the right to sue police officers for enforcing law and create confusion in Missouri’s concealed weapons laws, Koster said in the letter.

Koster also discussed subsection 5 of HB436 in his letter to Jones. This portion of the bill makes it illegal for state and local law enforcement from assisting in any federal or state task forces attempting to enforce federal gun laws, Koster said in the letter.

“Needless to say, legislatively restricting state law enforcement’s ability to work cooperatively with federal law enforcement is flawed public policy,” Koster said in the letter.

Koster also raised concerns over a section of the bill that would allow a Missouri citizen to sue anyone attempting to enforce the federal gun laws.

“The vast majority of defendants in these cases will be police officers and police departments,” Koster said in the letter.

Koster’s letter also raised concerns with the concept of nullification.

“While state legislatures have occasionally sought to nullify various federal laws through history, the U.S. Supreme Court has shown no patience for these exercises,” Koster said in the letter.

Ron Calzone, a director at Missouri First, said he disagrees with the arguments made by Koster.

“The Missouri law enforcement lobby is more worried about how HB436 affects the money they get through civil forfeiture than protecting constitutional rights,” Calzone said. “The single most important aspect of the bill is the statutory framework for the denial of cooperation with federal officials who seek to infringe on Missourian’s right to keep and bear arms.”

The press association is only concerned with the portion of the bill that makes it illegal to publish the name of a gun owner, said press association executive director Doug Crew.

The association has warned that it will file an injunction to stop HB436’s effects if the veto is overridden.

“Maybe when they were passing the bill in Jefferson City, they didn’t realize what the results might be of this bill going into law,” Crew said.

If the bill does go into law, the association plans on suing, Crew said.

“We’re fairly confident after talking to attorneys that this portion of the bill will be thrown out,” He said. “It just flies in the face of the First Amendment and flies in the face of the Missouri Constitution also.”