[Jeff White]

No, this isn't some whacked out conspiracy theory. At least one state, Missouri, is sharing CCW holder information with DHS:

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/03/07/kinder-says-nixon-adminstration-helping-feds-compile-a-gun-list/

Kinder Says Nixon Administration Helping Feds Compile a Gun List
Kevin Killeen
March 7, 2013 4:05 PM

ST. LOUIS–(KMOX)– Lt. Governor Peter Kinder says the Missouri Department of Revenue is illegally sharing information on concealed gun permit applicants with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

“We’re trying to get answers from the Governor and he’s stonewalling us,” Kinder said, “Missourians have a right to know where this policy came from.”

KMOX is awaiting calls back from both Governor Jay Nixon’s office. The Department of Revenue issued a statement saying its operations are “consistent with the protocols of state law.”

The allegation first surfaced Monday in a lawsuit filed by Eric Griffin of Stoddard County, Missouri. Griffin’s suit claims he was seeking a concealed carry gun licence at a local fee office, when he was told his personal information would be forwarded to other government agencies. A judge has issued a temporary restraining order against the alleged data sharing, and a hearing is scheduled for Tuesday.

Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers say such data sharing would be a violation of Missouri law.................rest of the story at the link

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/elizabeth-crisp/mo-revenue-department-faces-questions/article_93bcd344-3eae-5c18-a26b-5369c71207ec.html

Mo. Revenue Department faces questions
Print Email
1 hour ago • By Elizabeth Crisp ecrisp@post-dispatch.com ​573-635-6178

Is Missouri tracking personal info through drivers licenses, gun permits?

The Missouri Department of Revenue faced a first round of questioning today over whether private information is being tracked through the state’s new drivers’ license system.

A Missouri House committee is preparing to hold a hearing next Monday regarding allegations that the Revenue Department and local license fee offices have been scanning documents that contain personal data, including that related to concealed carry permits, and sharing those documents with a third party and the federal government.

In a House Budget Committee hearing today, DOR Deputy Director John Mollenkamp said the department is still working on gathering data for Monday’s meeting but assured members that documents are scanned, encrypted and sent only to the state data center in Jefferson City.

“It stops there – the scanned documents go no further,” he said.

The Revenue Department recently rolled out new drivers’ licenses with enhanced security features that are supposed to curb the risk of identity theft and fraud. Because of the new security features, the licenses are mailed to recipients from a third-party vendor that prints them.

Mollenkamp said the printers are high-tech and too expensive for the state to own its own.

“They are the printer – the printer for the new-style license,” he said.

He said the outside company never receives copies of the original source documents and instead gets basic information from a data file, including the driver’s license photo, name, address and descriptive details, like height and weight, which appear on the front of the license.

The equipment used in local fee offices to collect the documents – scanners and computers – is owned by the third-party vendor, Mollenkamp said. Routers that have been used to transmit the data were purchased through a Homeland Security Department grant, he said.

“It is my understanding that there is not any information being sent to the federal government,” Mollenkamp said.

Rep. Jay Barnes, a Republican from Jefferson City who chairs the House Government and Accountability Oversight Committee, has sent a letter to the Revenue Department, the state Office of Administration and other agencies, requesting copies of all rules and procedures related to the copying and transfer of personal information of Missouri residents applying for drivers’ licenses or concealed carry permits. According to the letter, Barnes’ committee is planning a hearing for Monday, and he wants the information before then.

A Stoddard County man filed a lawsuit this week claiming that the new state system for issuing those violates privacy rights because it allows personal and private information to be collected and then disseminated to a private party and the federal government.

In the suit, Eric Griffin claims he was trying to complete the process of having a concealed carry permit added to his driver's license when he was told digital copies of his documents would be saved in the Department of Revenue's system..........Rest of the story at the link

If this is true it's very scary. Existing law prohibits the federal government from registering guns. Are they registering people who have permits to carry them? How many states besides Missouri are participating?

What is the Department of Homeland Security going to do with a list of CCW holders?

[gbran]

I can think of other potential mechanisms thru which Homeland Security could obtain CCW data. My question is why do they need or want it. What do they wish to do with the data?

[jimmyraythomason]

It is against state law in Alabama to release this information to anyone(with few exceptions)"To knowingly publish or release to the public in any form any information or records related to the licensing process, or the current validity of any license, except as authorized in this subsection or in response to a court order or subpoena, is a Class A misdemeanor." Code of Alabama 1975 Section 13a-11-75.

[Twiki357]

The more I hear about some of the stuff DHS pulling and the more "Authority" they are assuming for themselves, the more they are starting to look like the start of Hitler's SS in the 1930's.

[bamajoey]

They need this info so they will know where to send their MRAP's with their soldiers armed with the 6000 weapons they recently accquired, loaded with part of the billion + rounds of ammo they have. DHS will become obamas "army " when he decides to take over.

[OilyPablo]

DHS views all gun owners as (potential) criminals.

[ccsniper]

this is interesting

[bikerdoc]

Scary actions by scary people, working under the cover of alleged
Homeland Security makes me think my homeland is not secure from them.

[dmckean44]

This is why I'm a proponent of constitutional carry, you don't end up on some list.

[dfsixstring]

I've always been told they didn't have this info, but it is all stored in a database. Sharing this information is relatively trivial. I figured they could have ready access when they wanted it.


Dfsixstring
SR9c
LCP
RST4S

[CoRoMo]

This is incredibly disturbing.

I have to imagine that my state is cooperating (illegally) as much as they are able.

[Carl N. Brown]

...the more they are starting to look like the start of Hitler's SS in the 1930's.

They are looking like a headless SS; these policies perpetuate themselves in the culture of federal law enforcement agencies increasingly militarized since the reaction to the race riots and war protests in the 1960s and growing uncontrolled as a shared mindset.

[Zoogster]

Once the data is stored sharing it is a trivial matter.
Blocking it from being shared if in an easily accessed data base will be unlikely to accomplish a lot unofficially, though it could make using that information officially more difficult.

If something is stored in a database the feds can often gain access to the database during some investigation using subpoenas or warrants on an individual within the database. Once they have access to the database what stops them from taking copying everything they have access to instead of just researching the one individual they are officially dealing with?

You cannt have such databases and prevent them from eventually going to centralized government. The only thing such formalities as placing a hold on formally transfering the data may do is prevent the federal government from using it as legitimately obtained evidence or information in the meantime (though they may still be able to show they obtained it validly in some other investigation etc). So at most they can know they just cannot officially know.



Similarly some chain retail stores keep sales records of customers, including gun stores that make firearm sales. Occasionally agents may access or have access to a database of such records of many thousands of customers during an investigation on an individual. Do you think they stick to only copying the information on that single customer, or maybe just grabbing a copy of the database itself, both copied almost as quickly with modern technology?

We do have legislation in place with FOPA though that makes it a crime to collect or contribute to or maintain information in a database on who owns what guns at the federal level beyond NFA items. So officially they cannot have such things.

[murphys_law]

That's scary being a citizen of Missouri. I think I may have to write to the gov. and reps about this. Thanks for the information.

[zorro45]

How about records of firearms serial numbers taken when LEOs are notified in a "shall notify" state such as Alaska?

[jp_over]

Those clowns can't secure the border but more and more I hear about "domestic threat groups." Unbelievable what our nation is coming to.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51082152/

I've also read that some veterans are getting letters from the VA telling them they have to turn in their firearms. Here's the link:

http://redflagnews.com/headlines/disarming-americas-heros-veterans-receiving-official-letters-prohibiting-them-from-purchasing-possessing-receiving-or-transporting-a-firearm-or-ammunition

[316SS]

Each time the federal government infringes on constitutional rights with impunity, it gets easier to do.

[garymc]

It looks like maybe the guy in Stoddard County who filed suit spoke with a clerical worker at a fee office (an office which contracts with the state to issue license plates and drivers licenses - not a state employee) and proceeded with that information to court. I hope that's all it is. But I'll be glad to see a legislative inquiry into the matter.
How many posts on here have we seen where somebody calls the Sheriff's office and talks to a secretary about ccw permits and then posts about how the Sheriff is against private gun ownership?

[ontarget]

When is Big Brother going to get too big????????? How long before we've enough?????

[PlaneJain]

"My question is why do they need or want it. What do they wish to do with the data?"

"The more I hear about some of the stuff DHS pulling and the more "Authority" they are assuming for themselves, the more they are starting to look like the start of Hitler's SS in the 1930's."

Here is why:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

[breakingcontact]

What is going on with Missouri lately?

[abajaj11]

The more I hear about some of the stuff DHS pulling and the more "Authority" they are assuming for themselves, the more they are starting to look like the start of Hitler's SS in the 1930's.
+ 1 on this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
1.6 billion ammo rounds plus> 2500 light armored vehicles.....
:)

[Arbo]

I live in a place where I have never felt the need to get a CCW... and I'm glad, because I always knew that sort of stuff would end up putting you on some government list.

[murphys_law]

Your probably on a list from being on this website. The posts are public. You don't think the govt is collecting information on everyone? I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but lets face the facts here. They are doing more information gathering than anyone could ever imagine in preparation for EVER having to use it.... Sad that they collect the data before they have a real cause. If you think your speaking out about liberties publicly on the internet and your not some how tracked or part of data collection then think again my friend. FWIW I'm still writing my legislators :D

[Deanimator]

I live in a place where I have never felt the need to get a CCW...
You live behind an impenetrable force field?

I'll bet that doctor in Connecticut felt the same way... when his wife and daughters were still alive...

[Davek1977]

"I never drove in a place where I thought I would need a spare tire. Good thing too, cuz I'd end up on a list of people who had spare tires" While paraphrasing, thats essentially what I read in post #23. I'd bet the vast majority of people who have used their ccw never planned on doing so the day they were forced to. "Bad things don't happen here" is becoming less and less of an excuse, as crime can happen anywhere to anyone...rural or city, poor neighborhoods or rich, crime doesn't discriminate.

[Arbo]

Yeah, sure, everyone should carry 100% of the time... perhaps there's a reason why some use the term 'gun nut' so often. Where's that little roll your eye's smilie??

[Blakenzy]

Archiving The Information?? All of it? :uhoh:

Well yes! You can all rest assured that massive data collection is going on at all times. Petraeus said it, the military is no longer the place to be at, where the power is at is in the intelligence services... and he moved! With modern information technology organized, indexed storage is essentially of infinite capacity. With more of our lives online than ever before, data collection is a breeze. Not just printed data, but ALL media. How will they ever organize all that raw data into something coherent? I don't know... but they have all of it on record and you can bet that if an interest is taken in you extensive dossiers will be hashed out of every thing they can find that is related to your "footprint", physical and virtual.

All of this is an attempt to categorize people into risk groups. Risk... as in RISK of being beyond their ability to impose on you. Policing the thoughts of 300 million + is a daunting task... you need to be able to put people into groups to make it more manageable. Obviously, getting lists of CCW holders, being KNOWN to have weapons, are a way to prioritize surveillance resources. If you are a person attempting to retain absolute power over a population, would you spend more time listening in on people involved in motor sports or people involved in improving high velocity projectile group sizes?

One of the things that highlights a police state... the generalized collection of personal, seemingly "private" information on the population. Unfortunately, it seems more and more that the threshold for becoming a "person of interest" is being lowered to encompass anyone that MAY at some point be in disagreement with the Federal Government's wishes, and specially those that have the means to do something about it.

[Geno]

I disagree with .fed being able to make intelligent use of the massive data. That is the very reason that .fed militarized local law enforcement. All of the data is there at the centralized location, and accessible by any local DHS office. I see no difference whatsoever, between what Hitler pulled off, and what is being pulled off right now in the former USA. Big brother has gone full-blown paranoid, and Uncle Sam has been outed has Uncle Pervie.

We still have not, or I have not yet, heard much about this new intelligence building (something like 500,000 square feet) that was being constructed in where was it, Nevada?! I don't recall. That story seemed to dry-up.

That more and more information is being "shared" is no shock to me. In fact, I suspect that it is the mere tip of an ugly iceberg. Why did the FBI need the screen names of thousands of Apple users? There is so much stupid going on that I fear Amerika will never again become intelligent. And .gov intelligence should never be confused with possessing and exercising "intelligence".

[huntsman]

They are looking like a headless SS; these policies perpetuate themselves in the culture of federal law enforcement agencies increasingly militarized since the reaction to the race riots and war protests in the 1960s and growing uncontrolled as a shared mindset.
+1
the militarization has filtered down to the local LEO thanks to .gov and I find that the most disturbing.

[1911Tuner]

Yeah, sure, everyone should carry 100% of the time... perhaps there's a reason why some use the term 'gun nut' so often. Where's that little roll your eye's smilie??

Arbo, I...I really don't know where to start.

Let's start with the spirit of 2A. "The right of the people...to keep and bear arms...shall not be infringed."

Let that sink in for a minute.

"Keep and Bear" meaning to own and carry. Of course, as with anything else, it boils down to a matter of choice...a concept that you seem to be struggling with.

Who are you...speaking generically, of course...to try and determine what someone else chooses to do or attach a negative label to it? And who are you...again generically...to ridicule my choice or anyone else's? It costs you nothing, and it has no effect on the quality of your life whatsoever.


Outside of law enforcement, there are few people who have a real or defined need to carry a gun, but "need" has nothing to do with the question. You state that you don't feel the need. You have your own personal reasons, and we respect that. Your choice.

But it's not just about you and where you live. Not everybody has the good fortune to reside in such secure surroundings.

We carry one because:

A. We can
B. Because trouble doesn't phone ahead for an appointment.
C. Because it's better to have and not need than vice-versa.

A wise old gunman once told me that a pistol is like an ambulance. "You don't need one often, but when you do, you need it badly and you need it immediately."

[Arbo]

Arbo, I...I really don't know where to start.

Let's start with the spirit of 2A. "The right of the people...to keep and bear arms...shall not be infringed."

Let that sink in for a minute.

"Keep and Bear" meaning to own and carry. Of course, as with anything else, it boils down to a matter of choice...a concept that you seem to be struggling with.

Who are you...speaking generically, of course...to try and determine what someone else chooses to do or attach a negative label to it? And who are you...again generically...to ridicule my choice or anyone else's? It costs you nothing, and it has no effect on the quality of your life whatsoever.


Outside of law enforcement, there are few people who have a real or defined need to carry a gun, but "need" has nothing to do with the question. You state that you don't feel the need. You have your own personal reasons, and we respect that. Your choice.

But it's not just about you and where you live. Not everybody has the good fortune to reside in such secure surroundings.

We carry one because:

A. We can
B. Because trouble doesn't phone ahead for an appointment.
C. Because it's better to have and not need than vice-versa.

A wise old gunman once told me that a pistol is like an ambulance. "You don't need one often, but when you do, you need it badly and you need it immediately."
You are off the mark in all of your comments. I have no problem with CC. A permit shouldn't be needed and you should be able to do it in any state you want and cross borders without issue. I merely stated I do not feel the need to, and part of that is due to the reality that government is keeping a list... i don't feel the need to 'stand out' considering the direction we are headed. I do not live in a big city, and the vast majority of people out here are gun owners, and a good number of them carry, so in general I do not feel the need. If I felt the need, it's an open carry state, and you can carry in your car, so I think I'd be covered at times I felt I need to be covered.

The issue is people that read my statement and went on the 'you are safe nowhere' rant. Yeah, crap can happen anywhere... just as someone that is carrying can be shot dead before they even have time to think to go for their gun... No need for those that feel the need to carry 110% of the time to push it on others.

While CC is a good thing and can save lives and prevent or reduce crime, the overwhelming majority of people will make it through their lives just fine without it.

[X-Rap]

If it hasn't happened yet we are very close to the time in which each of us will have a file into which all our data will go and sit quietly until someone needs it. That includes banking, memberships, purchases, licenses/permits, internet, phone/text messages you name it.
I doubt that there is a force in place yet that could/would be able to act on it in enough secrecy to gather us all up into cattle cars but we may well be heading in that direction.
I just think it is a little nieve for us to not think that there is a massive amount of personal info being collected and there is really not much that we can do about it.

[1911Tuner]

You are off the mark in all of your comments.

Really? I don't think so. It was the snark that got my attention.

To wit:

perhaps there's a reason why some use the term 'gun nut' so often. Where's that little rolleyes simile?

Whenever that enters the discussion, I know that I'm about be insulted for my choices/beliefs, or I'm about to hear a lecture on what I need and don't need.



The issue is people that read my statement and went on the 'you are safe nowhere' rant.

Well...you really aren't if you think about it...not even in your own home, and "safe, low-crime" areas are no guarantee of security. In fact, the more isolated you are, the greater the risk of a successful home invasion. Not only are your cries for help less likely to be heard, the response time for law enforcement can be up to an hour. Not long ago, a local elderly country gentleman was forced into his house and murdered...and his wife attacked and left for dead...in broad daylight while he was raking leaves. The killer stopped to ask for directions. Maybe a small revolver on his belt would have thwarted that little party. We'll never know.

Yeah, crap can happen anywhere... just as someone that is carrying can be shot dead before they even have time to think to go for their gun.

Sure. The gun on your belt isn't a magic talisman, and there are no guarantees. There are only ways to stack the deck in your favor, and lethal attacks don't always come by way of 2-legged animals. I live way out in the sticks. Half the time, I don't even bother to lock my doors at night. I've seen Coyotes near my property. I've seen Red Wolf packs within 5 statute miles of my home, as well as the errant dog that wanders up for a look-see. Most are friendly. Some aren't. I carry a gun on me whenever I'm out and about on my property. Trouble doesn't make an appointment. The course of your life can turn on a dime.

Do you keep a fire extinguisher in your kitchen? An inflated spare tire in your vehicle? Yes? No? Low-risk is no reason to be unprepared, nor is it an excuse.

[Arbo]

It was the snark that got my attention. Whenever that enters the discussion, I know that I'm about to hear a lecture on what I need and don't need.

And the 'snark' was the smart ass comments that came when I said I live somewhere that I do not feel the need to have a CCW. Perhaps you missed that part, or perhaps you simply agree with THAT snark thus didn't see it as 'snark'.

Or perhaps it's just a desire to argue for the sake of arguing. I don't begrudge those that feel the need (and desire to end up on governmental watch lists as the first that will be visited) to CC... they don't need to begrudge the fact that I do not feel the need. When they do, they are no better than bible thumpers shoving their religious beliefs down the throats of others, and they are no different than those on the left that work to pass legislation that controls how we live and what we can and can not do.

Liberty, live and let live, that's what the founding principles are about, and it appears that often even those that claim to be 'all about that' forget it. I will call out anyone that forgets it, or goes against it, no matter what 'side' they are on.

[Sol]

This is disturbing almost as disturbing as the Narus database in Utah. 20 trillion recorded phone calls, emails and texts.

[Geno]

I love all of .fed's pragmatic-sounding talk about national security, while the borders stand wide-open.

As I said to my former graduate students, it makes as much sense to me as buying shotguns and pitbulls claiming that you need security, then moving to the worst part of town, knocking down your property's fence and removing your house's doors. It seems to me that if .fed really were concerned about security, we would have had a closed border by now. But wait, if we leave it open, we can claim a need for security, use drones and spy tactics, and see what everyone is doing.

I used to think that politicians and officials who supported such tactics and laws were just uninformed, and well-intentioned. Not any longer. I see through the veil, to the ugly that lies below. It has nothing to do with actual security, and everything to do with illegitimately ceasing control over an otherwise free nation. Now a massive spy center, drones, machinegun-armed LEOs in New York, perverts at the TSA fondling men, women and children. Now, "intelligence" can be stored on people for 5 years, no longer just 6 months?! What's next? Tattoos of 666 on our foreheads?! A national firearms registry?

Hell, I didn't see this much abuse of power when I lived under a military dictatorship in Chile back in the early 80s. Like I said earlier, I suspect we don't know the half-of-it! What we see and hear is the mere tip-of-the-iceberg. Is any of it legitimately needed? Or is it all concocted? I have my own answer, and I will never be convinced to the contrary. My own solution is simplistic: from here to the end of my natural life, I will cast a vote straight Libertarian. I refuse to believe any more lies.

In closing, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. The Great Oz is speaking. :D

Geno

[tomrkba]

Many states have less than 1,000,000 issued permits. So, assuming 50 million permits ever issued (with many fewer currently active), the software and hardware requirements are not that big of a deal. Add some EMC storage to a five node Oracle RAC and a few front end web servers behind a load balancer and you're done. Figure maybe $600,000 in gear plus DBA and developer time. Double that if they build out another site for high availability. I'd budget a few million to cover the "goobermint" contractor waste and add five years ;) All this could be setup in three months or less at my company. The dev time would take the longest.

[X-Rap]

Think of the advances in surveilance, and defensive/offensive measures that have been made in the last dozen or so years of war and how they have been implemented for the good of our troops. I am thankful for them all and what they have done for those important to me in harms way but am very fearful that they have fallen into the hands of those who may wish to turn them on their own countrymen.
The Patriot act and all the other infringements that we allowed are coming back to bite us in the butt, anyone seen the latest on the TSA and what some of them are claiming?

[breakingcontact]

So this same group is buying 1.6 billion rounds and we aren't supposed to be concerned right?

[huntsman]

^ they must need a lot of range work :)

[dirtengineer]

How about records of firearms serial numbers taken when LEOs are notified in a "shall notify" state such as Alaska?
I have been pulled over once since living in Alaska. I notified, the gun stayed on my hip. Would have been really hard for them to archive the serial number.

I didn't even get a ticket.. ;)