1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

The plot thickens on MO giving Feds CHL info

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by Brian in Oregon, Apr 11, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    Excerpts. More at link.

    "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"

    "Under state law, concealed weapon permit holders are confidential."

    “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,” (State Sen. Kurt Schaefer) explained. “What I am told is there is no written request for that information.”

    Now you know why the Obama Administration is asking doctors to ask you if you own guns during your office visits. It's to red flag your federally accessible electronic medical file for special attention. And not content to stop there, they have no compunction about getting state officials to violate state laws to provide them with private information about gun owners.
     
  2. 548

    548 Guest

    It sounds like my government is trying to keep me and my family safe from homicidal nut jobs. Keeping it's citizens safe is it's core function. So for that, I say thank you to my government.
     
  3. trapperwads

    trapperwads Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,868
    548...If you are not on that list well maybe you should be. ed
     
  4. Ahab

    Ahab Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,650
    As they say ... Liberalism is a mental disease!
     
  5. Catpower

    Catpower Molon Labe TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    10,230
    Location:
    In the Cabana
    Ahab it is and they all need to turn in their guns, almost all of the mass shooters have been Dem's or their parents were

    It is a bad trend
     
  6. 548

    548 Guest


    548_2008_030375.jpg



    Catpower ^^^^^^ = Republican
     
  7. Lyle

    Lyle Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    652
    Some months ago I went to see the marriage counselor. The counselor said that in order for my insurance to pay they had to give me a "diagnosis".......HA!

    This was before Sandy Hook and all the gun control crap and thankfully I was wise enough to tell the counselor that I would pay cash! So, 548, there is one guy out here who didn't get diagnosed. I guess I might be dangerous.

    Lyle
     
  8. darr

    darr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,986
    548 it is illegal to own a bomb.It certainly didn't stop McVeigh.

    On a related note fertilizer control is alive and well.


    Darr
     
  9. 548

    548 Guest

    BIO says you can have bombs
     
  10. chuckie68

    chuckie68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,839
    Location:
    Royal Oak, Michigan
    548,

    After reading all your liberal posts for some time now I have come to the conclusion that;

    You are Ignorant, Stupid and Lying; That make you fit right into the Obama profile. It also make you a big part of the problem, and NOT the solution. As with most cops your EGO is way bigger than your brain and more often than not directs and affects your decision making process. When you finally wake up and discover that your go along with the crowd liberal thinking propaganda has gotten this country where it is today, it will be to late. But I truly doubt that you will ever reach the point of thinking in terms of public liberty. So you just keep doing what you are doing and us freedom without the government intervention crowd will work to move around you. But please until you can offer some kind of intelligent and thoughtful conversation just STFU!!!

    Chuck
     
  11. noknock1

    noknock1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,399
    Location:
    Stranger in a Strange Land
    Right or wrong, the feds most likely would still have received a copy of the list even if state officials would have refused to comply with the request. The feds would have gotten a grand jury subpoena which then could be challenged and ultimately a federal judge would decide... Still sucks that POTUS will put hundreds of federal judges on the bench over the next three years. It is a very big deal, exactly for these kinds of instances.
     
  12. drgondog

    drgondog Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2012
    Messages:
    942
    I'm not sure the Feds have 'probable cause' to compel the State to release confidential information. There is an important case coming up next week in front of Supremes that will have a lot to say about this.
     
  13. 548

    548 Guest

    Well Chuck, that was an intelligent post. How will I ever compete with such intellect?
     
  14. chuckie68

    chuckie68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,839
    Location:
    Royal Oak, Michigan
    you can't
     
  15. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    548, let me ask you an honest question. If, as a cop, "your government" ever orders you to confiscate firearms from the citizenry for no reason other than they have decided on this course of action, will you or will you not comply? Please don't side step the question. Will you comply or will you refuse if given the order?
     
  16. Chichay

    Chichay TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    May 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,864
    548,

    It is perhaps worth remembering that the federal government, in whom you apparently have such great trust, once sent AMERICAN CITIZENS to a concentration camp. It took a half century for it to apologize for its mistake. Meanwhile, many of those it has wronged had since passed away. I'm referring to Japanese Americans in World War II, MANY OF WHOM HAD SONS FIGHTING THE NAZIS IN EUROPE WITH EXCEPTIONAL DISTINCTION.

    To paraphrase a wit, "those who forget their history, are doomed to repeat it".

    I understand the role of government, but I also acknowledge its potential for great harm. Many of the genocides in history were perpetrated by a government on its own people.

    Chichay
     
  17. R.Kipling

    R.Kipling Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,765
    548, is this you?


    STATE OF MINNESOTA

    IN COURT OF APPEALS

    C0-02-1996



    State of Minnesota,

    Respondent,


    vs.


    Lon Syhavong,

    Appellant.


    Filed May 20, 2003

    *Reversed*

    Robert H. Schumacher, Judge



    Rock County District Court

    File No. K701115
     
  18. noknock1

    noknock1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,399
    Location:
    Stranger in a Strange Land
    There is not a "probable cause" threshold to overcome when it comes to grand jury subpoenas, different story with search warrants, arrest warrants, etc., signed by a judge whether local or federal.

    <!DOCTYPE html>
    <html>
    <body>


    Federal criminal investigation by Social Security Administration


    </body>
    </html>


    Either a person is mental enough to get "free" cash because they can not work, in which case they should not have a permit to carry a firearm or even possess one, etc. or they are committing fraud because they are not actually mentally ill and are just ripping off the tax payers.

    Interesting investigation, should a person receiving disability compensation (paid for by "us" the tax payers) for mental illness be allowed to maintain a carry license? Seems like it should be one or the other, right?

    In most if not all states, one of many conditions of carrying a firearm in public is (from MISSOURI):

    <i>Is not adjudged mentally incompetent at the time of application or for five years prior to application, or has not been committed to a mental health facility, as defined in section 632.005, or a similar institution located in another state following a hearing at which the defendant was represented by counsel or a representative; </i>

    To get free cash for being mentally ill, one has to be adjudged mentally ill.
     
  19. drgondog

    drgondog Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2012
    Messages:
    942
    @noknock (and 548) - the first question is the definition of 'mental illness'. The second question is the certification process to place such individual on a 'mental illness which makes the person, in the opinion of at least two competent authorities (one of which to be chosen by the individual or his family), dangerous. The third question is whether there is a process to adjudicate the finding and restore the Right to protect himself.

    The next question is ANY process in which a citizen can be denied the Right to self defence, including a felon who has served his time and proceded to live an otherwise exemplary life, or a Private Citizen that somehow finds themselves on a secret 'Terrorist' List.

    The last question - should ANY citizen enjoy a 'greater Right to self defense', including bodyguards armed with weapons of superior lethality, including law enforcement officers, including Federal law enforcement officers'??

    In other words if Law enforcement, including Secret Service, FBI, DHS believe they need fully automatic weapons to defend themselves against the 'Bad guy', why shouldn't you and I have the same Right.

    In other words if ANY restrictions apply, they should apply to ALL including Congress, Secret Service, Law enforcement and Private citizen.
     
  20. noknock1

    noknock1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,399
    Location:
    Stranger in a Strange Land
    drgondog, so as to my specific question, if a person is receiving social security disability money for the sole reason they are mentally ill enough that they can not otherwise be gainfully employed, should they be carrying a weapon? Should they own a weapon?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.