Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act has been controversial, to say the least. Police chiefs have opposed it from the start, too, which has been used to attack the law from the get-go.

It’s no surprise that the law got challenged. While it doesn’t actually nullify federal law, it does say that no state or local police can enforce federal gun control laws. Any gun control laws.

Now, a group of police chiefs is backing a lawsuit challenging parts of the law.

Multiple attempts to change a new gun law have failed, but now there’s another push from dozens of Missouri police chiefs.

Two groups that represent nearly 60 Missouri police chiefs want to make changes to the Second Amendment Preservation Act. The bill blocks local law enforcement from implementing federal gun laws. Law enforcement agencies have been raising concerns since the law was introduced last year.

“I understand what the purpose of the statute is. We just need clarification and try to fix some things in the language,” said Blue Springs Police Chief Bob Muenz, president of Missouri Police Chiefs Association.

The Missouri law holds police departments responsible for paying $50,000 if someone’s Second Amendment rights are violated.

“We’re just trying to get clarification on some of the confusing parts for us when it comes down to enforcement,” Muenz said.

He said he isn’t against the law, but the language needs some clarification.

Honestly, I think there are better ways to get clarification, myself, than to file a lawsuit that could potentially get the whole law tossed out.

Now, understand that I’m intrigued by the law and I’m interested to see how the challenge goes. Generally, I don’t see how the federal government can compel local and state police to enforce any given set of laws. Especially in light of how little effort was expended to force the issue with immigration sanctuary cities, as an example.

Other states have introduced similar bills, though I think those would be better held off on until we see how things shake out with this law.

Yet for people who say they’re not against the bill to back a lawsuit because they want clarification seems a bit extreme and excessive. I get the desire for clarification. If something is unclear and you’re facing a $50,000 penalty for doing something wrong, wanting clarification makes perfect sense.

I just don’t know that a lawsuit is the ideal mechanism to get that clarification.

Or maybe, just maybe, some of these chiefs really don’t care about clarification and are just hoping things get muddied enough that a court throws the law out. Then they can pretend they weren’t really trying to do that so pro-gun folks don’t start calling for them to be fired.

Frankly, if that’s the case, it’s pathetic.

Yes, I’ll blast an anti-gun police chief until I’m blue in the face. Sometimes, they’re pathetic because they’re just saying what they figure they need to say to keep their jobs, but others really believe that. I can at least respect that they believe what they’re saying and they’re not lying to the public to try and hide their own motivations.

Of course, I don’t know that to be the case here. I hope it’s not that and it’s exactly as it’s presented.

Either way, we’ll have to wait and see how the lawsuit shakes out.