A place for sharing news stories related to armed citizens, law enforcement & 2A/CCW topics.
Please note that when linking to an article you must cite the source URL and provide no more than a brief preview of the article to ensure fair-use standards are met.
NO DOCUMENT DUMPING.
Posts in violation of these rules are subject to immediate deletion without warning.
Missouri Law specifically prohibits the sharing of this confidential list with the federal Government
--In light of all these facts, Missourians have concluded that the FBI leadership in Washington D.C. has been weaponized for political gain. You have lost our trust and you seem to be completely indifferent toward trying to rebuild it. Instead, you announce that you will show up at the offices of our elected Missouri sheriffs in open and blatant violation of our state law and seek to find out who in Missouri holds a legal CCW permit. This is not going to happen. I will fight you tooth and nail with all the resources that the people of Missouri have given me as their Attorney General.
Very Truly Yours, Eric S. Schmitt AG.
Under Ohios law a court order would be needed under 4b ? or am I reading more protection into that, than is actually there ?
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
- Thomas Paine
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."
I'm not sure it's obvious that Section 2923.129 addresses the question of how to respond to a Federal inquiry for information they may not be entitled to.
If the Feds came to Dave Yost with that sort of thing, and he believed that they had a legal right to the information, he would cooperate with them. If he did not believe they had a legal right to it, I think he would be inclined to push back.
The proper question at this juncture is probably to determine what legal theory or statute the Feds believe would entitle them to that info.
-
I identify as Supreme Emperor of the 20 known Universes.
My preferred pronouns are: My Lord and Your Grace.
EricTheBald wrote:I'm not sure it's obvious that Section 2923.129 addresses the question of how to respond to a Federal inquiry for information they may not be entitled to.
If the Feds came to Dave Yost with that sort of thing, and he believed that they had a legal right to the information, he would cooperate with them. If he did not believe they had a legal right to it, I think he would be inclined to push back.
The proper question at this juncture is probably to determine what legal theory or statute the Feds believe would entitle them to that info.
They are probably operating under the, "Because I said so" legal theory... that being said, it does almost make one want to make a public records request to the feds asking for copies of all letters they've sent requesting similar info to see how widespread this "request" is.
EricTheBald wrote:I'm not sure it's obvious that Section 2923.129 addresses the question of how to respond to a Federal inquiry for information they may not be entitled to.
If the Feds came to Dave Yost with that sort of thing, and he believed that they had a legal right to the information, he would cooperate with them. If he did not believe they had a legal right to it, I think he would be inclined to push back.
The proper question at this juncture is probably to determine what legal theory or statute the Feds believe would entitle them to that info.
They are probably operating under the, "Because I said so" legal theory... that being said, it does almost make one want to make a public records request to the feds asking for copies of all letters they've sent requesting similar info to see how widespread this "request" is.
Hope you're not planning on seeing a response until long after the election. 2028, that is.....