Sheriff Warns Gun Permit Owners That Newspaper Is Seeking Their Identities


Kudos to the Sheriff. The nasty rag is trying to do a dox job, probably by leaking permit holder data to an “activist”.


Before I even clicked the link to look at this post I thought, California.


Good for the sheriff for at least trying. I wonder if folks who have their info shared, and then have break ins where the bad guys are going after firearms, can sue the reporter and the paper?

In Missouri, the law prevents someone from publishing that information.

1 Like

WI list is not accessible to the public.


Once again the hypocrisy of the main stream media is disgusting!!!

They’re upset…that the citizens who would be the target of their FOI request…were notified that their information was being requested!? Why the sam hill shouldn’t they be told!!? They are not law enforcement conducting an investigation, they are the media. Experian and the rest of the credit reporting agencies, must notify us anytime an credit inquiry is made…how is this any different?

If a private citizen is having their public information requested, why shouldn’t that private citizen be able to know the name of the person (journalist or otherwise) making the request?

If that private citizen is unhappy about a request of their information being made and chooses to reach out and inform the person that is making the request that they are unhappy (assuming they are not making any types of threats) shouldn’t they also have that right?

Seems only fair especially since the newspaper has significant resources to do harm to the citizens with this information, that the citizens be able to be given some sort of alert prior to the damage being done and enable them to potentially prepare for any legal actions they deem necessary.


Oh and in addition to my above statements, kudos to the Sheriff!!! :+1:


There’s plenty of laws but no one is following them. Now it’s time for some type of decisive action!

@Scott52 Missouri is going to get this through this time. We almost did in 2014. This time there’s a lot more backing … I think it’s pretty decisive… read the bill :slight_smile:

This is just harassment from a far left wing newspaper that I would regard as leftist as Mother Earth.

I beg to differ, it’s decisive when passed.
Virginia, New York etc, are pretty decisive laws, don’t you agree? Laws that usurp our rights are passed into law and are decisive. We have no recourse but to submit.
How much more backing does the constitution need? It’s always been pretty clear to me since I started reading “shall not be infringed”. Means exactly what it says. I’m no constitutional scholar but it is written in black and white, I’ll also consider it written in stone. Am I wrong here or did I read it wrong. No law should be enforceable if it goes against the law of the land. Isn’t that the whole point of the constitution?
The sign says SPEED LIMIT 55MPH, (not speed limit 55, shall not be infringed) why do I keep getting stopped and ticketed for 65MPH? Is it decisive law? Maybe it’s being read wrong! Maybe it’s being interpreted wrong. I have a clear and concise right to keep and bear arms, the sign is just a recommendation for my safety.
I don’t mean to be argumentative here but they keep passing unconstitutional laws that we have to submit to. The Jews submitted to their laws at the time. Bet they won’t do that again.
Furthermore the 2A is delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Especially the last four words.

1 Like

I really wish I was a scholar, deep in my bones I would love to debate this freedom of the 2A and the Constitution, I’m just not as smart as a governor, mayor or presidential candidate, I’m a mere subject in their world.
My mom always said, if I had half a brain that I would be dangerous, AOC has half a brain. And these people are sitting in our House disrespecting our laws and heritage, and mean to destroy our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

1 Like

… I think we were talking about taking decisive action… and working on getting this bill passed (which is something I spend time on every day in one capacity or another) is decisive action. It’s not a done deal yet, but we’re not done acting yet.

I’d love it if people would just go “well there it is in the constitution, so we’ll just stop now” but since we know that’s not happening, the decisive action I’m taking is to be an active player in getting a bigger fatter state line drawn that says “look it’s there in the constitution and we WILL be honoring that.”

My hubby and I get in this argument all the time:
Him: They can’t DO that.
Me: They ARE doing it.
Him: It’s not constitutional!
Me: And yet, there they are, doing it.

For me, “infringing” comes in the “they can’t do that” bucket… yep, it says they can’t, and they shouldn’t be able to, but since they ARE, we intend to draw a bigger fatter line right around our state, and say “NOT HERE”.

Anyway, that’s my decisive action - every day doing something that moves MO SB588 an inch or a foot forward.

There are many things in this world I can’t control, and few enough I can influence. I can’t make people in office or legislators in other states, or even in my own state, do the right thing. I can’t undo all the infringing that’s already been done. But I can put my shoulder to the wheel of SB588 and that I’m doing.

Thank you for your response, dedication and determination in getting bills passed. I think we can all agree that all of us in this community have that same argument daily, unfortunately.
We should be arguing about how our spouses drive and 9mm vs 45acp.
Those were the good old days. Thank you again.

1 Like

Totally agree with you. I’m really glad we’re on the same team.

It’s my understanding that the Sheriff released as little as possible to the newspaper. Our permit number, when it was issued, when it expires, and who it was issued too. Our addresses were not released, but a simple google search will reveal that info. Waiting to see if anything becomes of it.

1 Like

welcome to the group @bill42!
I think the sheriff is really trying to do the best the law allows… and the law, that really should be changed.
Have you heard anything about the reporter, now that they’ve been outed? or what was done with the information?

According to the newspaper, the reporter’s name was used on the info request. Evidently the reporter has claimed that they are receiving threats. The name on the official request was changed to the editor’s name to protect the reporter. I haven’t heard what will become of the info as of yet. My guess it will show up in legislation that will attempt to take the permit issuance process away from the county sheriffs.

1 Like

I think I should be shocked by that idea, but not much shocks me any more :confused:
That would suck.