Missouri Secretly Shares Entire CCW List With Feds Against State Law

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

By: Dana Loesch April 10th, 2013 at 09:13 PM

Missouri State Senator Kurt Schaefer confirmed today that the Missouri Highway Department did in fact share confidential CCW lists with the federal government in violation of Missouri law.

The Missouri State Highway Patrol has twice turned over the entire list of Missouri concealed weapon permit holders to federal authorities, most recently in January, Sen. Kurt Schaefer said Wednesday.

Questioning in the Senate Appropriations Committee revealed that on two occasions, in November 2011 and again in January, the patrol asked for and received the full list from the state Division of Motor Vehicle and Driver Licensing. Schaefer later met in his office with Col. Ron Replogle, superintendent of the patrol.

After the meeting, he said Replogle had given him sketchy details about turning over the list, enough to raise many more questions. Testimony from Department of Revenue officials revealed that the list of 185,000 names had been put online in one instance and given to the patrol on a disc in January.

I’ve been following this story for weeks and today spoke with Sen. Schaefer on my program about this issue. Earlier he stripped the Department of Revenue of their budget, around $3.5 million.

Additionally:

“Apparently from what I understand, they wanted to match up anyone who had a mental diagnosis or disability with also having a concealed carry license,” Schaefer said. “What I am told is there is no written request for that information.”

How is it that agencies who answer directly to Governor Jay Nixon were allowed to repeatedly break Missouri law unless sanctioned by the governor himself? Missouri state law prohibits the full compliance with the Real ID act, so who gave these departments the go-ahead and will Attorney General Chris Koster uphold Missouri law and take action?

Previously on this topic:

MO Department Of Revenue Delivers On Subpoenas

BREAKING: MO Senator Subpoenas Department Of Revenue

Missouri Department Of Revenue Saving Biometric Data In Violation O...

Missouri House To Investigate DOR, DHS, Backdoor Gun Registration

EXCLUSIVE: DHS Plans Backdoor Gun Registration? *UPDATES

*UPDATE:
This just in from Senator Schaefer’s office:

Sen. Kurt Schaefer to Hold Press Conference on Department of Revenue Investigation JEFFERSON CITY—State Sen. Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, will host a press conference tomorrow (4-11) to discuss recent developments in the ongoing investigation of the Department of Revenue regarding the collecting and scanning of private documents. Senator Schaefer has spearheaded the inquiry into allegations concerning the department’s unauthorized collection and sharing of protected personal information. Press Conference Who: Sen. Kurt Schaefer What: Department of Revenue investigation When: Thursday, April 11, 2013, at 9:45 a.m. Where: Sen. Schaefer’s Capitol Office, Rm. 221 Questions regarding this press conference may be directed to Sen. Schaefer’s office at [phone].

*REMINDER: Missouri is the same state that issued a report naming tea partiers, libertarians, and anyone who flew the military authorized Gadsden Flag as potential domestic terrorists.

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

Taxes, Guns, and Chuck Schumer as GOP Leader

By: Daniel Horowitz  April 10th, 2013 at 01:59 PM

Until recently, taxes and guns were the two issues that served as the glue to bind together Republicans of all stripes.  They were the two issues that even feckless elected-Republicans could be counted on to hold the line and stand with conservatives.  But over the past few years, Obama and the Democrats have gotten Republicans to break their impervious opposition to tax increases by supporting “increased revenue” and closing “loopholes.”  Now they are doing the same thing with guns.

Democrats know that they have lost the policy debate on these two issues over the past two decades.  That’s why they will never directly push for sweeping tax hikes on everyone (at least not in a way people will notice) or for complete confiscation of guns.  Instead they are trying to cut around the edges in order to get Republicans on record as supporting some new “revenue increase” or a new gun law, in the hopes of reopening the door on those two issues for future concessions.

On the tax front, they have gotten many prominent Republicans to agree to the premise of closing “loopholes” for those who already pay 40% of the income tax (even after those  so-called loopholes are factored in).  They also got them to sign onto the Biden/McConnell tax increases.  The irony about these tax hikes is that in order to win the messaging war with Republicans, they must target only the very rich.  However, by only targeting the rich, the amount of revenue they raise is so insignificant that it defeats the original purpose of the tax hikes.

Or does it?

In fact, the real purpose of “closing loopholes” has nothing to do with raising revenue.  Democrats couldn’t care less about the budget.  The purpose is to get Republicans on record as supporting some form of a tax increase – as infinitesimal as that tax increase might be.

Much like raising taxes on the rich fails to raise enough revenue, implementing “minor” expansions of background checks will do nothing to curb gun violence in places like Chicago.  It will do nothing to prevent random mass shootings.  Nothing short of going house to house and melting down every firearm will prevent things like that.  Democrats know this.  Solving a policy issue is not the purpose of the legislation.  It’s to score a political victory.  Why in the world would Republicans help them?  There is never any reason for Republicans to support new taxes, and there is never a legitimate reason for Republicans to support any new gun laws beyond enforcing the existing ones.

Instead of Senate Republicans cutting a backroom deal to sell out on the issue, House Republicans should go on offense and pass a national right to carry bill.  Unfortunately, the House is too busy passing dumb suspension bills with the support of Democrats to buy ....  And with Paul Ryan talking about “closing the gun show loophole,” there’s no guarantee it won’t pass the House either.  Remember that that they just passed a Democrat bill that violated the Hastert Rule yesterday.

The broader point is that with full control of the House and a filibuster strong minority in the Senate, why do Republicans need to give Democrats any political victories to infringe on the Bill of Rights, however small that victory might be?  When do you ever find Chuck Schumer and Barbara Boxer cutting backroom deals with Ted Cruz to pass a watered down version of retirement choice, national right to work, or welfare reform?  You never will.

It’s only Republicans who are willing to shred every leg of the Reagan stool to cut a deal with Democrats.  And now, the last two holdouts – taxes and guns – are no longer untouchable.  Marriage and an insane immigration policy will be next.

It’s hard to imagine that conservatives donated to Republican candidates so they can go to Washington and play follow the leader with Democrats on guns, taxes, and amnesty.  It’s hard to believe that Republican activists volunteered their time to knock on doors for these candidates so they can outsource their policy positions on all major issues to Chuck Schumer.  But that is what we are going to get from them as long as we fail to mount a serious effort to make primaries about choice and competition.  We need to close the incumbent loophole, and close it fast.

http://www.redstate.com/2013/04/10/taxes-guns-and-chuck-schumer-as-...

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

The Toomey-Manchin Proposal Will Allow Doctors to Block Your Right to Guns

By: Erick Erickson  April 10th, 2013 at 12:24 PM

I just talked to someone familiar with the Toomey-Manchin proposal who raises a serious concern based on his understanding of the legislation.

Everyone on all sides agrees that we need better help for those with mental health problems who need treatment.

Unfortunately, the person I talked with is concerned that the Toomey-Manchin proposal could discourage people from getting help.

The proposal will allow a doctor to add a patient to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) without ever telling the patient he or she has been added.

There would be no due process requirement. Not all doctors will be able to do it with the same ease, but many will. Knowing a doctor could add him to a federal database as mentally ill without his knowledge could potentially dissuade a patient from going to the doctor in the first place to get help.

Worse, if the doctor does so and makes a mistake, the patient would have to actively work through the system to get himself removed — guilty before being proven innocent. In some states, should a doctor flag you as having mental illness without your knowledge, you may very well see the state come collect your previously purcha....

Activist mental health providers will probably be overly aggressive in adding people to the list. Give it five years in liberal areas and people who believe in the physical resurrection of Christ will probably get automatic entry onto the list.

Mental health is a serious issue and the Toomey-Manchin legislation could have negative consequences. Worse, it would still not stop a Columbine, a Newtown, or the daily massacres in Chicago.

http://www.redstate.com/2013/04/10/the-toomey-manchin-proposal-will...

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

The Detailed Survey Showing Law Enforcement Personnel Overwhelmingly Oppose Obama’s Gun Control Proposals

Apr. 10, 2013 9:15am Erica Ritz

(Photo: Shutterstock/Gary Blakeley)

Law enforcement personnel in the United States overwhelmingly disagree with the controversial gun control measures being debated in Washington and across the country, according to a new survey released by PoliceOne.

A law enforcement website with more than 1.5 million unique visitors per month and 400,000 registered members, PoliceOne asked more than 15,000 verified active and retired law enforcement personnel more than 20 questions about how they believe stricter gun control will impact the community.

The participants were spread out across the country, and about 80 percent were current law enforcement, 20 percent former/retired.

Here are some of the results of the survey, which was conducted between March 4 and March 13:

• Nearly 96 percent said that a ban on standard capacity magazines with more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime. 

(Photo: PoliceOne)

• More than 81 percent said that “gun buy-backs” do not reduce gun violence. 

• Nearly 80 percent said that a ban on private transfers of firearms between law-abiding citizens would not reduce violent crime. 
• 71 percent said that a ban on “assault weapons” would have no impact on reducing violent crime.  20.5 percent said it would actually have a ​negative ​impact.
  

(Photo: PoliceOne)

• More than 70 percent opposed the idea of a national database of legal gun sales. 
• Nearly 68 percent said magazine capacity restrictions would negatively affect them personally. 
• More than 60 percent said that the passage of Obama’s gun control legislation would do nothing to improve officer safety.  Nearly 25 percent said it would actually have a ​negative​ impact.
  

(Photo: PoliceOne)

On the other hand:

• More than 76 percent responded with either a 4 or 5 when asked on a scale of 1-5 how important legally armed citizens are to reducing overall crime.
• 80 percent believe legally armed citizens can reduce casualties in incidents of mass violence.

(Photo: PoliceOne)

• More than 91 percent stated they supported the Right-to-Carry by law abiding Americans.
• More than 76 percent support the arming of trained and qualified teachers or administrators who volunteer to carry a firearm.

Bottom line:

• Nearly 45 percent said that if they were Sheriff or Chief, they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws, and would vocally join the opposition effort.  Another 17.2 percent said they would not enforce the laws, and “quietly lead the agency in the opposite direction.”  20 percent were unsure of how they would respond.

(Photo: PoliceOne)

Glenn Beck and many others have been saying that Americans need to encourage local sheriffs to stand up against gun control measures.

“I’m telling you the sheriffs are the last line of defense, because the sheriffs don’t answer to the governor, the sheriffs don’t answer to the legislature,” Beck said.  “The sheriffs only answer to two things:  You and the Constitution.”

Executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action Chris Cox weighed in: “The American people, and particularly the members of law enforcement, want politicians in Washington to stop pursuing a failed political agenda and get to work fixing our broken mental health system, improving school security, and getting criminals off the streets.”

–

Related:

• Uproar After Campus Police Respond to Gunman Scare With Pepper Spra...
• Women and Guns: Why Female Gun Ownership Is Rising and Why Many Are...
• 700 Retired Spec Ops Professionals to Congress: Form a Select Commi...

[Gordon Ray Kissinger]

A Form of Gun Confiscation Has Reportedly Begun in New York State — Here’s the Justification Being Used

Apr. 9, 2013 6:30pm Mike Opelka

Update: Hear an interview with the lawyer representing some of  the New Yorkers who were forced to surrender their guns and permits (at the end of this story).

Despite promises from the president and a host of other politicians who are pushing for more gun control that nobody is coming for your guns, the confiscation of guns and gun permits has apparently started in some form in New York State. One attorney representing several people who have been forced to surrender their guns spoke with TheBlaze and alerted us to some disturbing facts:

• Gun owners are losing their 2nd Amendment rights without due process.
• HIPAA Laws are likely being compromised and the 4th and 5th Amendments are being violated in some of these cases

How did confiscation start happening so quickly? Apparently the gun grabbing was triggered by something inside the NY SAFE Act — New York’s new gun law — that has a provision apparently mandating confiscation of weapons and permits if someone has been prescribed psychotropic drugs.

This is curious because in his January 9th address, Cuomo specifically addressed the issue of confiscation:

The Case:

On April 1st, a legal gun owner in upstate New York reportedly received an official notice from the state ordering him to surrender any and all weapons to his local police department. The note said that the person’s permit to own a gun in New York was being suspended as well. The gun owner contacted attorney Jim Tresmond (a specialist in gun laws in New York) and the two visited the local police precinct.

Mr. Tresmond reportedly went into the precinct and informed the officers that his client, waiting in the parking lot, was coming in to voluntarily surrender his weapons as requested. The local police were aware of the letter because they had already been contacted by the State Police. Apparently, if people do not respond to the initial mailing, local law enforcement is authorized to visit the gun owner at their home and demand the surrender of the firearms. In this case, the gun owner followed the request as written. The guns and permits were handed over and a receipt given to the client.

After the guns were turned over, a request for a local hearing was filed and the gun owner is expecting to have his Second Amendment rights restored. But there is more to this story.

In our conversation with lawyer Jim Tresmond, we learned that this client, who has never had a problem with the law — no criminal record and or violent incidents on record — did have a temporary, short term health issue that required medication. But how were his client’s private medical information accessed by the government? This appears to be a violation of HIPAA and Health Information Privacy policies at HHS.gov. If it is declared a violation, this becomes a civil rights issue.

Some claim that a broad interpretation of this statement from HIPAA might allow the government to have instant access to the medical records and gun ownership records of anyone who is prescribed psychotropic drugs.

A major goal of the Privacy Rule is to assure that individuals’ health information is properly protected while allowing the flow of health information needed to provide and promote high quality health care and to protect the public’s health and well being.

That short phrase, “protect the public’s health and well being” is probably going to be cited as the reason governments can require notification of any gun owner who is prescribed a class of drugs used to treat Depression and Anxiety known as SSRI ( Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors).

The Mental Health Law provision of the SAFE Act claims

The NY SAFE Act is designed to remove firearms from those who seek to do harm to themselves or others. This means keeping the minority of individuals with serious mental illness who may be dangerous away from access to firearms. This law should not dissuade any individual from seeking mental health services they need.

The law is clear on what it expects:

MHL 9.46 requires mental health professionals to report to their local director of community services (“DCS”) or his/her designees when, in their reasonable professional judgment, one of their patients is “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others.”

The man who was asked/directed to turn over his guns reportedly did not exhibit any signs of violent or dangerous behavior. According to his attorney, the man’s doctor did not report any danger to the authorities. So, who did report it?

Also known as MHL 9.46, the law talks about who is supposed to report on mental health risks and which patients qualify:

• The reporting requirement extends to “mental health professionals,” defined in the law as four professions – physicians (including psychiatrists), psychologists, registered nurses, or licensed clinical social workers.

In addition to what Mr. Tresmond called “the laughable diminution of our rights,” the lawyer speculated about additional unintended consequences of releasing this confidential patient information to law enforcement.

• What if an employer learns that a worker had their firearms confiscated? Could that person’s employment be put at risk?
• What if your neighbors saw police come to your home and leave with your guns? Could that compromise your safety?
• Could this kind of confiscation also make people think twice about getting treatment for a temporary mental illness?

In an effort to learn how many permits and guns have been rescinded due to this medical exception, TheBlaze has made several attempts to contact the Erie County office over pistol permits where this one incident originated. We have yet to be connected with a real person who can answer these questions.

We have also reached out to the Albany office of the New York State Police, but no official response has been received.

Mr. Tresmond has also agreed to keep us posted on his client’s efforts to have his Second Amendment rights restored and get back his guns.

TheBlaze will continue to monitor this story and we are also interested in hearing from other New Yorkers who may have experienced this type of confiscation. Please send all emails to [e-mail].

Tuesday, Buffalo radio talk show host Tom Bauerle spoke with Jim Tresmond on WBEN radio.