4 ms·

We had an incident in my home state, where despite legal prohibitions to the contrary, a state law enforcement worker provided the government with the entire da

by nkw 10y ago

We had an incident in my home state, where despite legal prohibitions to the contrary, a state law enforcement worker provided the government with the entire database of the identities of all those licensed by the state to carry concealed weapons. The legal process used to accomplish this was essentially "calling up and asking for it". Sources: http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/highway-patrol-gave-feds-missouri-weapon-permits-data/article_266b644e-a235-11e2-a8e7-0019bb30f31a.html http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/highway-patrol-gave-feds... and http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/missouri-highway-patrol-gave-federal-government-list-of-ccw-permit/article_ac670792-d777-5354-9d73-6c87144d526e.html http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/missour...

Spooky23 10y ago
Licensing is different -- that's a persistent relationship.
- hga 10y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean, especially since these licenses do expire if not renewed, whereas a 4473 records an event that doesn't stop being true. However, it's still the case that the legislature sure thought it had made such an information transfer illegal (but it's Republican and the Governor and AG are Democrats, not the first time the AG has refused to do anything about state executive wrongdoing). And the legislature made that even more clear by completely changing the way the physical license is issued, its now through each county's sheriff, with the only renaming common database being MULES (http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/chapters/chapText043.html http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/chapters/chapText043.html): "MULES", Missouri uniform law enforcement system, a statewide-computerized communications system provided by the patrol designed to provide services, information, and capabilities to the law enforcement and criminal justice community in the state of Missouri; Which as I understand has much stricter and long standing protections against the obvious potentials for abuse. And knz's point stands, nope, we don't trust the Feds on this.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    The purpose of a license is to grant a privilege, and use that grant as a lever to enforce desired behavior. That's why we license things like sales tax collection and driving. If you don't tow the line, you lose the privilege. So I think it's completely legitimate and expected that licensure information would be retained for as long as the state's record retention law calls for it to be retained -- potentially an extended or even unlimited period of time. Possession of a license in the past for a license is relevant to future licensing, as is your good or bad conduct with respect to the license. At the Federal level, my understanding is that with respect to firearms purchases, there isn't a way to correlate a transactional background check to a human.
    - hga 10y ago
      Possession of a license in the past for a license is relevant to future licensing That's not the case to my knowledge, as a matter of law or procedure, excluding special cases like someone being a bit late to renew and getting grandfathered. Otherwise, getting a license again requires going through the whole process again, although you won't have to take a new qualification class or the like, as long as your retained your record of it. As for good or bad conduct with respect to the license, the former is inferred from a lack of records of the latter, and those are, indeed, permanent records, aside from various process laden executive or judicial remedies to pardon or otherwise expunge them. So, no, I see no need to keep forever records of CCW licenses. BTW, did you know 10 states have no concealed carry license requirement? And Missouri very possibly will join them this week.
      - Spooky23 10y ago
        In New York, which I'm most familiar with, most licenses, including firearms are required to be kept for a minimum of 6 years after expiration or renewal. (See: http://www.archives.nysed.gov/records/retention_mu-1_public-safety http://www.archives.nysed.gov/records/retention_mu-1_public-... ) To be honest, I don't really care about concealed carry. I personally think that it's a dumb thing to do, but don't have an issue with anyone else doing it. But if licensing is required, you shouldn't have any special privacy right. If my dog license is available to whenever asks via FOIA, so should your carry permit.

by nkw 10y ago

Spooky23 10y ago

Licensing is different -- that's a persistent relationship.

hga 10y ago
I'm not sure what you mean, especially since these licenses do expire if not renewed, whereas a 4473 records an event that doesn't stop being true. However, it's still the case that the legislature sure thought it had made such an information transfer illegal (but it's Republican and the Governor and AG are Democrats, not the first time the AG has refused to do anything about state executive wrongdoing). And the legislature made that even more clear by completely changing the way the physical license is issued, its now through each county's sheriff, with the only renaming common database being MULES (http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/chapters/chapText043.html http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/chapters/chapText043.html): "MULES", Missouri uniform law enforcement system, a statewide-computerized communications system provided by the patrol designed to provide services, information, and capabilities to the law enforcement and criminal justice community in the state of Missouri; Which as I understand has much stricter and long standing protections against the obvious potentials for abuse. And knz's point stands, nope, we don't trust the Feds on this.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  The purpose of a license is to grant a privilege, and use that grant as a lever to enforce desired behavior. That's why we license things like sales tax collection and driving. If you don't tow the line, you lose the privilege. So I think it's completely legitimate and expected that licensure information would be retained for as long as the state's record retention law calls for it to be retained -- potentially an extended or even unlimited period of time. Possession of a license in the past for a license is relevant to future licensing, as is your good or bad conduct with respect to the license. At the Federal level, my understanding is that with respect to firearms purchases, there isn't a way to correlate a transactional background check to a human.
  - hga 10y ago
    Possession of a license in the past for a license is relevant to future licensing That's not the case to my knowledge, as a matter of law or procedure, excluding special cases like someone being a bit late to renew and getting grandfathered. Otherwise, getting a license again requires going through the whole process again, although you won't have to take a new qualification class or the like, as long as your retained your record of it. As for good or bad conduct with respect to the license, the former is inferred from a lack of records of the latter, and those are, indeed, permanent records, aside from various process laden executive or judicial remedies to pardon or otherwise expunge them. So, no, I see no need to keep forever records of CCW licenses. BTW, did you know 10 states have no concealed carry license requirement? And Missouri very possibly will join them this week.
    - Spooky23 10y ago
      In New York, which I'm most familiar with, most licenses, including firearms are required to be kept for a minimum of 6 years after expiration or renewal. (See: http://www.archives.nysed.gov/records/retention_mu-1_public-safety http://www.archives.nysed.gov/records/retention_mu-1_public-... ) To be honest, I don't really care about concealed carry. I personally think that it's a dumb thing to do, but don't have an issue with anyone else doing it. But if licensing is required, you shouldn't have any special privacy right. If my dog license is available to whenever asks via FOIA, so should your carry permit.