MO. hands over CCW list to Feds. Twice.

[Lmbass14]

Originally found this on Blaze.com, then on Columbia Tribune.  I knew this would happen.

Story by Rudi Keller

There’s an investigation unfolding in Missouri after it was revealed that the Missouri State Highway Patrol handed over concealed carry data to federal authorities. On at least two occasions – the latest of which was January — weapons data was delivered to the feds, according to an article published in the Columbia Daily Tribune.

In looking into the matter, officials noted that in Nov. 2011 and this past January, the patrol asked for the entire list of 185,000 concealed carry residents from the state’s Division of Motor Vehicle and Driver Licensing. Then, this information was apparently shared beyond the state’s boundaries.

Full article here:

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/highway-patrol-gave-feds-missouri-weapon-permits-data/article_266b644e-a235-11e2-a8e7-0019bb30f31a.html

[Bucket]

Just wondering, is there something that prevents them from doing this?  Don't get me wrong, I don't like the precedent at all, but the fact is that the state has a list of CCW holders, so I assume that sort of information will be shared unless there is some sort of explicit prohibition against it.

[FarmerRick]

http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,8798.msg62141/topicseen.html#msg62141

[GreyGeek]

http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,8799.0/topicseen.html

[Bucket]

Interesting -- still not clear to me that there was any prohibition.  The details in the article are sketchy.  It says the lists are "confidential" but goes on to say they can be turned over to law enforcement.  What does "confidential" mean in the context of MO state law?  It has a very clear meaning at the Federal level, but it might not mean anything at the state level.  Are there specific restrictions on the handling of information designated as "confidential?" 

If anything, this just goes to show that what the politicians claim when they pass a law doesn't stand up to the test when it comes to reality.  Not like many here need convincing.

[GreyGeek]

Interesting -- still not clear to me that there was any prohibition.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926, section "(a)":

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

That section of the law  that is  highlighted is what they are working on to repeal so they can "legally" establish a national gun register from the NICS data at the point of purchase.  Still won't do much for guns criminals obtain illegally, and they know that.  And, IMO, they don't care because the end result is confiscation, and their motto is "the end justifies the means".

or,

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/923
18 USC 923(g)(1)(d):

The inspection and examination authorized by this paragraph shall not be construed as authorizing the Attorney General to seize any records or other documents other than those records or documents constituting material evidence of a violation of law.

Another interesting law is this one:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

18 USC § 241 - Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

What does this say about ATF or other government agents who pretend to be someone they are not with the intent of entrapping?

Wikipedia has a rather complete summary  of the rules and regs surrounding the handling of 4473 forms.