3244
Comments (280)
sorted by:
305
MAGA_MyPillow 305 points ago +310 / -5

The reason the FBI wants an updated list of CCW permits is to be able to combine the permit holder to cell phone tracking(Think 2000mules). This way FBI can map out where each CCW holder is at in real time. So if the Feds want to plan another false flag, they can look at their tracking data and see if there is any private citizens with a gun in the area to stop their mass shootings. (for example, see Indianapolis mall hero)

108
Songofsixpence 108 points ago +110 / -2

Totally this.

38
rayrax 38 points ago +38 / -0

"just following orders" - the hollow words of evil mean to justify their evil deeds.

50
User_X 50 points ago +51 / -1

Keeping any list, of any gun owners... is illegal.

The Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA): No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

29
gunteh 29 points ago +29 / -0

Since when did the government follow their own laws? Didn’t you see states violating their own constitutions during the 2020 election?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
3
BeNotAfraid 3 points ago +4 / -1

This gun is not unregistered, it's constitutional carry...

16
Skogin 16 points ago +16 / -0

Defeat GPS tracking by wrapping your phone in mylar foil. Escape the system while improving situational awareness.

5
Amaroq64 5 points ago +5 / -0

I don't even own a phone. Not one that has service anyway.

You can get a Skype subscription and phone number for $60 a year.

1
PROBE 1 point ago +2 / -1

It doesn't matter if it has service or not, or even if it's turned on or off. We can still track it as long as it has battery power and isn't covered by a proper Ferriday cage.

2
Amaroq64 2 points ago +2 / -0

True. I don't take my mobile devices anywhere though.

I have a tablet and I don't even use it except sometimes on weekends.

0
PROBE 0 points ago +1 / -1

Good. They should be left home as much as possible, if you insist on having them at all. And not spoken around when they are around.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
4
MasklessMarvel 4 points ago +4 / -0

two metallic chip bags, one inside the other

3
Skogin 3 points ago +3 / -0

Oh Yeah

-10
Ricky_CIA -10 points ago +1 / -11

Doesn't work unless the conductive foil is grounded.

13
SecedeNOW 13 points ago +13 / -0

Grounding is needed for it to protect from emp, not for blocking signal.

2
WinnieThePede 2 points ago +2 / -0

All that's needed is something to keep the signal from reaching the electronic unit which is conductive, like metal.

1
MarxhatedJews 1 point ago +3 / -2

You can't block the signal, Mal

7
Dallasguy 7 points ago +7 / -0

I have a faraday bag for my phone. Works perfectly. If it requires grounding, it’s such a low amount that holding it while standing is sufficient.

3
GentleSlayer 3 points ago +3 / -0

I have a fraday bag snd if the end isnt sealed and rolled the call goes through.

2
80960KA 2 points ago +3 / -1

If you ever need to have a really sensitive conversation, put all parties phones in the microwave.

It's a faraday cage rated to contain a few kW of RF power.

Don't turn it on with phones inside unless you want to demonstrate how retarded you are.

1
Dallasguy 1 point ago +2 / -1

Nope. Doesn’t work.

0
80960KA 0 points ago +1 / -1

Bull shit it doesn't. It's simple physics. Inside of a microwave oven is the most RF shielded thing in a typical home, and it's verified to be so from the factory. Microwave oven also operates in approximately the same frequency regime as cell phones too.

5
liveinlove 5 points ago +7 / -2

Yeah that’s false. Try wrapping your phone in a single layer of aluminum foil and use another phone to call it. Call doesn’t go through..

3
User_X 3 points ago +6 / -3

Aluminum foil is between 0.006mm (0.24 mils) and 0.2 mm (8 mils).

Shielding your phone from signal using foil is like using a coffee filter as curtains. Its not thick enough nor porous enough... if anything, you'd be amplifying the signal... FED.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/barrycollins/2020/07/14/does-wrapping-your-phone-in-tin-foil-make-it-untraceable-no-ghislaine-maxwell-it-doesnt/?sh=63b3baa87e08

Could you imagine how bad signal would be for Iphones? their entire phone body is billet aluminum.

0
80960KA 0 points ago +1 / -1

Could you imagine how bad signal would be for Iphones? their entire phone body is billet aluminum.

Apple had problems with this in one of the earlier gens of iPhone. Aluminum itself is a perfectly fine shielding metal, but a single layer of foil is going to have tons of parasitics that might let signal out. Aluminum box of the same thickness material (assuming force fields to keep it rigid), with the phone inside insulated from contact, should be quite effective. Very thin layers of metal evaporated onto plastic are routinely used for shielding, and that's at least 10 times thinner than foil, if not 100.

-1
User_X -1 points ago +1 / -2

Aaaand you just proved my point. "a single layer of foil is going to have tons of parasitics that might let signal out"

0
posedgeclk 0 points ago +1 / -1

Go study Maxwell's equations, retard. You are too ignorant for any more of a response than that.

0
User_X 0 points ago +1 / -1

let me speak slowly so you understand... "Maxwell got caught... Foil is an amplifier." Maxwell was caught peddling children, why are you taking math classes from a pedophile?

3
Ricky_CIA 3 points ago +4 / -1

Call went through just fine.

1
liveinlove 1 point ago +1 / -0

Just did the experiment again. And you’re right, with a single layer, the call still went through. For me a 2nd layer did the trick. Point was it doesn’t need to be grounded. If it was grounded maybe 1 layer would work, but I don’t feel like peeling apart an extension cord right now. Last time I tried this was like 5+ years ago. Phones do have better tech these days..

1
WinnieThePede 1 point ago +1 / -0

Then it wasn't wrapped fully and kept from touching the foil.

0
MasklessMarvel 0 points ago +1 / -1

two metallic chip bags, one inside the other

4
Skogin 4 points ago +5 / -1

Seems like you haven’t tried it.

3
zooty 3 points ago +3 / -0

I wonder if there would be a market in adding off switches to phones that don't have them.

8
Ricky_CIA 8 points ago +8 / -0

It's why I was always a fan of removable batteries.

6
iouybiy 6 points ago +7 / -1

And that is why phones don't have off switches or removable batteries anymore

5
Bidens_shitty_Diaper 5 points ago +5 / -0

No the sealed battery ensures you buy a new phone when the battery's life is decreased. The tracking is an added benefit. Having the latest phone with a more accessible back door is far more useful than just simple tracking.

3
TexasFox 3 points ago +3 / -0

I give you the Pine phone 64. https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/

3
zooty 3 points ago +3 / -0

Same. It was with reluctance I gave up my S5. I have a Pinephone now but I'm navigating the path to getting my service moved to it is proving tricky. It looks like only t-mobile sims work with it and I'm currently on the Verizon network with a tracfone sim and I've been hearing horror stories of people switching over their network in the wake of Verizon's acquisition of Tracfone. Hopefully that's mostly teething troubles.

1
logicallyevil 1 point ago +1 / -0

Pine phone

1
zooty 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yep. I have one. Haven't got a SIM that works with it yet tho. I was thinking of adding them to other phones tho. Open them up, put them inline with the battery.

54
BeefyBelisarius 54 points ago +55 / -1

Too bad for them, Indiana is constitutional carry and the hero didn't have a permit.

39
xBigCoffinHunter 39 points ago +39 / -0

So is Missouri. Eat a dick Feds.

12
MasklessMarvel 12 points ago +12 / -0

MO has gun law nullification and anyone complying with this type of request can be fined up to $50K

3
Cyer6 3 points ago +3 / -0

So what's their big hard-on for Missouri?

5
xBigCoffinHunter 5 points ago +5 / -0

We haven’t submitted electors for a Democrat since LBJ. Maybe that’s part of it.

2
Junionthepipeline 2 points ago +2 / -0

Mapping ccw people so the next false flag murder is not interrupted

26
Dontstopbelieving 26 points ago +26 / -0

They just revealed that they are planning a Fedstooge event in mo

7
Amaroq64 7 points ago +7 / -0

How many sheriffs have already cucked out and turned over our info without announcing that the FBI is after it?

4
WinnieThePede 4 points ago +5 / -1

I think the correct answer is pretty much all of em, or there'd be others making statements like this.

6
crazychicken132 6 points ago +6 / -0

They confirmed their desire to continue building their database of ccw holders along with the 4473s they take from closed gun shops and don’t discard when they are supposed to.

12
berserker212 12 points ago +12 / -0

Indiana is constitutional carry, but I believe the 22 year old good citizen also had a permit from what I've read about it.

Many people I. CC states go the extra mile to get the permit, for a lot of reasons.

Now though, maybe one big reason against getting them.

12
Vox_Dobad 12 points ago +12 / -0

I think most of those get the permit so they can carry legally in neighboring states.

8
bosticetudis 8 points ago +9 / -1

Let them charge me. I'm getting a lawyer that agrees to take it all the way to Clarence Thomas. Then he can finally restore constitutional carry as the law of the land.

6
Vox_Dobad 6 points ago +6 / -0

Agreed

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
2
MarxhatedJews 2 points ago +2 / -0

Feds claim you need one to bring a loaded gun across state lines.

To my knowledge, they've never tried to enforce this.

4
Concerned__Citizen 4 points ago +4 / -0

FOPA law allows you to bring a gun across state lines, if you're traveling from an area that allows it, to an area that allows it.

That doesn't mean they won't try to arrest and prosecute you however. You must assert your right under this law if you're arrested.

Keep your firearm away from the ammunition, keep your firearm in a locked container. Do not handle the firearm or stop in a state, that prohibits. Bring all documentation for your firearm, copies of state law that exhibit it's legality, and a copy of the FOPA.

1
MarxhatedJews 1 point ago +2 / -1

That's the deal I'm talking about. Constitutional carry on both sides of the border but it needs to be unloaded and ammo separate to cross state lines unless you have a permit. It's insane.

1
Concerned__Citizen 1 point ago +1 / -0

I wouldn't expect that if it's constituional carry on both sides.. I'm saying for say someone passing through NY or Conneticutt.

If you're coming from a place that it's legal, and going to a place that's legal, the in-betweens can fuck off, but you have to be careful for those in-betweens.

5
aangler100 5 points ago +5 / -0

One reason is to be able to carry when traveling, some states require a permit/license

2
Herooftheday2019 2 points ago +2 / -0

22 year old did not have vac permit but was legal to carry because of Constitutional Carry law. They raised a fuss over him having a gun in the mall which had a no gun policy.

-1
MasklessMarvel -1 points ago +1 / -2

the 22 y/o good citizen was also in a no gun zone

2
MarxhatedJews 2 points ago +3 / -1

Aren't those usually a misdemeanor at worst?

4
Pissed_American 4 points ago +4 / -0

I think the only thing that can happen is the property owner can accuse you of trespassing. But then again I think you have to be asked to leave before it's criminal.

2
MasklessMarvel 2 points ago +2 / -0

i don't even know if it's a crime since it more policy than law

29
Lady_MaGa 29 points ago +29 / -0

I guess they are showing us which state will be hit with the next mass shooting. Keep your eyes open, Missouri.

6
MasklessMarvel 6 points ago +6 / -0

yeah, right

MO is constitutional carry

anyone who tries that shit there will be vaporized

5
TenaciousDT 5 points ago +5 / -0

' >60% of the patrons in any suburban store are packing at any given time. Good luck with that feds, and may god have mercy on your soul before throwing you in the fiery pits of hell where you came from faggots!

16
TheB3ast 16 points ago +16 / -0

Updoot for visibility

4
Spicemustfiow 4 points ago +5 / -1

Yeah but you don’t know if that cell phone holder is right next to you or 50 feet away! 😂

2
War_Hamster 2 points ago +2 / -0

Except for when my Maps app tells me I'm in the wrong lane.

3
Spicemustfiow 3 points ago +4 / -1

Isn’t that crazy though. They think people actually believe their crap.

2
War_Hamster 2 points ago +2 / -0

They lack the intellectual integrity to have principles. Whatever serves their narrative must be true, even if it wasn't true 10 minutes ago when it served a different narrative.

78
deleted 78 points ago +79 / -1
49
MarxhatedJews 49 points ago +49 / -0

It's only necessary for reciprocity to states that infringe on the 2nd amendment.

Feds don't enforce the 1000 foot rule for schools because that already almost got Biden 's law tossed when it criminalized the 2nd amendment within private property that is within the 1000 ft radius from the edge of school property. Something that cannot be determined and is not posted, anywhere.

So they don't enforce it. Just like how they couldn't come down on state legal cannabis. Feds don't have jurisdiction over this shit within a state.

4
victory2024 4 points ago +5 / -1

That was a bullshit law but it did exclude private property outside school grounds:

7
2
victory2024 2 points ago +2 / -0

The 1990 Act had the private property exemption too:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

2
MarxhatedJews 2 points ago +2 / -0

Please read what you're posting.

"Following a 1995 Supreme Court ruling, United States v. Lopez, which stuck down the original law, the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1990 was amended so prosecution would only occur for crimes involving guns linked to either interstate or foreign commerce.[2][3][4]"

I already corrected the false claim. The law had to be amended.

5
trump4045 5 points ago +5 / -0

Doesnt exclude the street though. Youre violating federal law right each time you drive by. Its not enforced, but its just another book (or bullet) they can throw at you when the time comes.

2
MarxhatedJews 2 points ago +3 / -1

I don't think they enforce it because it's a law waiting to be thrown out.

"Following a 1995 Supreme Court ruling, United States v. Lopez, which stuck down the original law, the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1990 was amended so prosecution would only occur for crimes involving guns linked to either interstate or foreign commerce.[2][3][4]"

Also, I think it's like primary vs secondary infractions. They can't just stop you and drop a case on you.

2
loveyourbabies 2 points ago +2 / -0

Will be thrown out right after they use it to jail a bunch of people for walking through open doors.

1
trump4045 1 point ago +2 / -1

they can enforce the shool proximity rule if they want. As the matter of fact all those "they wont get my guns" tough guy larpers will get snagged that way. Feds will just wait for them to ride their lifted trucks passed a school, then charge him with that violation and snag him on the road.

5
Major_Nutt 5 points ago +5 / -0

Snag him on the road

At this point, no one should allow themselves to be taken. Do what you must.

3
MarxhatedJews 3 points ago +4 / -1

I think there's a reason this isn't enforced. Commerce clause as a way to stop freedom of assembly within a state by mere fact we are in possession of objects that crossed state line is a huge, glaring fucking lie.

20
SaltyKrakenBalls 20 points ago +22 / -2

A sea creature of monstrous proportions ate every firearm....a boating accident unlike any other...

16
fakthemods3 16 points ago +17 / -1

If it's time to lose them it's time to use them.

13
FeddieVanHalen 13 points ago +13 / -0

2A is all the permit you need.

6
Snoman 6 points ago +7 / -1

I was told just a couple days ago this was a non issue, that my skepticism was overblown and here we are https://patriots.win/p/15Ir6rngLl/missouri-sheriffs-told-fbi-would/

1
Henry_Cuntmantle 1 point ago +1 / -0

Here we are what?? Are you seeing something here we're not? So far we have two elected officials stating no government agent is auditing the ccw records. The sheriff and the DA. How are you interpreting this? Do you just pick an article on TheDonald and comment the opposite of what's portrayed?

2
realPhantomFuck 2 points ago +2 / -0

I didn't. Haven't had an issue

62
TrueTemper2 62 points ago +62 / -0

FBI = STASI

It is an exact 1:1 comparison

We live in the new east germany now

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
49
MarxhatedJews 49 points ago +49 / -0

Dems have done this before.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/missouri-highway-patrol-gave-federal-government-list-of-ccw-permit-holders/article_ac670792-d777-5354-9d73-6c87144d526e.html

"The Missouri Highway Patrol admitted on Thursday that it released the names of more than 163,000 Missourians who have concealed weapons permits to a federal agent twice in the past two years.

Gov. Jay Nixon’s administration maintains that the releases were legal and done to aid an investigation, but that has done little to calm Republicans’ concerns over what they see as a breach of privacy rights and potential evidence of intrusive gun tactics from the federal government."

Never trust dems with your data. Assumed breach mentality.

11
xBigCoffinHunter 11 points ago +11 / -0

Fucking Jay Nixon. Hopefully the last Dem to hold that position in Missouri.

4
ShowMeState90 4 points ago +4 / -0

I voted for him and Claire McCaskill in 2012 when I was a semi-liberal college dumbass. Couldn’t bring myself to vote for Zero.

I fell for the “OMG the stoopid Republican said wHaT?” propaganda about Todd Akin, the GOP senate candidate who ran against Claire.

I was foolish, naive, and had little to no understanding about my state, my country, our world, our constitution. My mindset was pretty similar to Democrats.

6
xBigCoffinHunter 6 points ago +6 / -0

Todd Akin went full retard. There’s no denying that. Either way, we ended up with Hawley and some pretty strong candidates to replace that POS Blunt.

3
MasklessMarvel 3 points ago +3 / -0

you have Mark McCloskey running this year

https://www.mccloskeyforsenate.com/

2
ShowMeState90 2 points ago +2 / -0

Definitely. Our attorney general was also the first to make the trigger law banning abortion go into effect after Roe was overturned.

2
MarxhatedJews 2 points ago +2 / -0

Agreed on both counts.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
9
SwedishChainsaw2 9 points ago +9 / -0

I would have told them to fuck off and come back with a warrant and that motherfucker had better not be overly broad. I want specific names of the ccw holders you are reviewing. They'd back off that shit real quick when a judge won't sign off on a wide-net warrant or it gets challenged in court.

5
MasklessMarvel 5 points ago +5 / -0

no need

the request is against the law

5
weme06 5 points ago +5 / -0

I think this is why Missouri resisted RealID and gives you the option to decline one when renewing

3
MasklessMarvel 3 points ago +3 / -0

that was nine years ago

now releasing that info is a $50K fine

2
MarxhatedJews 2 points ago +3 / -1

Yes, the database is looking to be updated. Fucking feds.

2
Train_w_no_brakes 2 points ago +4 / -2

Missouri GOP is fucking useless

6
Rudy_DankMemer 6 points ago +6 / -0

GOP is fucking useless

closet fags gonna faggot

3
MarxhatedJews 3 points ago +3 / -0

Dooming sucks.

Constitutional Carry, STL and KC put in their prog places. I think that's enough to prove your claim isn't true. There's a ton of other reasons this doom take is false.

32
MythArcana 32 points ago +32 / -0

So it begins. Yet another list to be on in the Biden era.

12
MarxhatedJews 12 points ago +12 / -0

*Updated list Feds created under Obama on Missouri CCW permit holders.

25
chockle 25 points ago +25 / -0

It is likely every state. Missouri is just the one we know about.

22
dykstra89 22 points ago +22 / -0

arrest those faggot feds when they cross the county line

21
PotatusHead 21 points ago +22 / -1

FBI already has that info. They just need an excuse for how they got it.

3
Pepper2 3 points ago +3 / -0

Don't they get it when you apply? As part of the background check?

13
Ballind 13 points ago +13 / -0

It's illegal for them to use it to create a registry, which they've already done

2
Pepper2 2 points ago +2 / -0

So that's exactly what this letter is, it's just a back door registry

5
Ballind 5 points ago +5 / -0

Correct. It's also illegal for them to create a registry from the nics background check when you buy any gun. They just happen to open an investigation on every single one so they can maintain a database of investigations (around 1B open investigations now).

1
PotatusHead 1 point ago +2 / -1

I'm sure.

19
dykstra89 19 points ago +19 / -0

thought you didn't need a faggot permit in missouri anyway

19
Darthrift 19 points ago +19 / -0

You don't, but many keep one for the fag states that require one to carry in their faggy state.

16
FeddieVanHalen 16 points ago +16 / -0

Just stay out of the faggy states. You don't need anything from the faggy states.

4
Phillyberto 4 points ago +4 / -0

This, move the fuck out, stay out.

Conservatives who live in leftist shitholes provide the enemy with financial support with their state taxes, and even worse electoral support through their census numbers.

Prior to 2020 the "CA is going to flip red" shit was unbearable, that's never going to happen.

4
You-Aint-Black 4 points ago +4 / -0

Exactly, we all need to live in red states. Anyone living in a blue state is just supporting the enemy at this point

12
Taz_Edwards 12 points ago +12 / -0

You don't but the potato's DOJ doesn't give a shit.

15
B_Lawless 15 points ago +15 / -0

FBI is ASSHOE.

15
journalist 15 points ago +15 / -0

Where are all those 2A loving people in Congress that are always begging me for money?

3
Duster_340 3 points ago +3 / -0

hedging their office to stay in power for those that are in power now.

12
Ienjoywearingcrocs 12 points ago +12 / -0

I recently read on the news how “iNtErEsT iN fIrEaRm PuRcHaSeS dOwN!” bit AT THE SAME TIME, there was like hundreds of thousands of delays with the fbi and background checks.

Clown world.

1
The_Emperor 1 point ago +1 / -0

Maybe it's down from MASSIVE, and is now only TONS of interest.

12
vongregormench 12 points ago +12 / -0

Of course the state of California will do whatever it can to harass CCW holders including doxing them. The only bright side of that doxing fiasco is that most of the CCW holders in San Francisco were judges and politicians.

2
Pissed_American 2 points ago +2 / -0

They doxxed everyone who filled out the application too. So I got doxxed even though I got denied for not having "good cause". Nvm the fact I was involved in a defensive shooting during that time period of waiting over 1 year to get denied. The time I used my gun was to defend myself and my baby son from a Rottwieler attack. I have been carrying for 6 years in California now. I don't give a shit about getting caught anymore.

10
Cantshadowbanthemall 10 points ago +10 / -0

Meanwhile CA just publishes it online

8
PROCIsAsshoe 8 points ago +8 / -0

Why Missouri?

16
JustHereForTheSalmon 16 points ago +16 / -0

Next false flag location being planned.

0
MasklessMarvel 0 points ago +2 / -2

you need antipsychotic medication

0
IForgotToAddAnEmail 0 points ago +1 / -1

You need to fuck off.

1
MasklessMarvel 1 point ago +1 / -0

you need to go bend over for daddy in the shower

11
MarxhatedJews 11 points ago +11 / -0

They think they can turn it blue.

11
justinkayz 11 points ago +11 / -0

Missouri is basically a 2A sanctuary iirc. So of course the Xiden regime is going to challenge it

4
PhilosoGuido 4 points ago +4 / -0

They're probably doing it everywhere. This is the first official to stand up to them and publicize it. The rest have either complied or at best are quietly looking for a way to avoid compliance.

2
MasklessMarvel 2 points ago +2 / -0

Because MO enacted federal gun law nullification which includes forbidding providing any information to a registry

the feds are going to challenge it

and lose

8
NeverNotTrump 8 points ago +8 / -0

Wait until they start cross-referencing "legal" weed buyers...

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
8
EJay_Scott 8 points ago +8 / -0

It will be a shame about his tragic car accident. Wonder if the feds will blow him up like they did Kemps previously future son-in-law.

1
FreedomFromGovt 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hijacked onboard computer controls? But, your way does get the point across more pointedly...and graphically

8
ManlyFirmness 8 points ago +8 / -0

I never saw the need to get government permission to exercise my rights.

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
7
FrontTowardLeft 7 points ago +7 / -0

I would imagine this is a nationwide request. Missouri is probably the only one we're hearing about. So far.

2
TehAgent 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is what I came to say. Theres almost no way this was just one state.

6
Merica4EVER 6 points ago +6 / -0

Fuck the fbi, why cant one of their unhuinged shooters shoot up their hq lol

6
deleted 6 points ago +7 / -1
5
WonderBread 5 points ago +6 / -1

Take every deputy in the state, raid the f.b.i, and lock them up.

5
IcedCovfefe 5 points ago +5 / -0

Too bad the county’s CCW records were lost in a boating accident

5
Benwa1985-2 5 points ago +5 / -0

Sheriffs are our last defense against our tyrannical government.

5
mobgrazer 5 points ago +5 / -0

Sent a copy of the letter to my county sheriff urging him to follow suit...

5
Texaspanhandler 5 points ago +5 / -0

this is why i never licensed. they want to see my license? i hand them a pocket constitution.

5
rauschman 5 points ago +5 / -0

I grew up in Camden County!

1
MasklessMarvel 1 point ago +1 / -0

do you watch that show Ozark?

it's filmed there

2
rauschman 2 points ago +2 / -0

No, it's not. It's filmed in northern Georgia, which is why I boycott the show and refuse to watch.

The resort in the show is based on Alhonna Resort, which was also my first job when I was 12 years old. I grew up like a mile and a half from Alhonna Resort.

0
MasklessMarvel 0 points ago +0 / -0

Camden County is also the primary setting of the Netflix show Ozark.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camden_County,_Missouri

2
rauschman 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'm not seeing my earlier response, so apologies if this appears twice.

There is a difference between setting and filming locations.

1
rauschman 1 point ago +1 / -0

Setting and filming location are two different things.

5
mickusa1 5 points ago +5 / -0

Trying to get a handle on all the guns before they attempt a confiscation

4
NvJohansson 4 points ago +4 / -0

I don't know this guy but I would buy him a beer.

4
FrankWisner 4 points ago +5 / -1

PROTIP: Parallel Construction, Press <<RWND for GayGB "why?"

4
TheBangoSkank 4 points ago +4 / -0

Missouri is a constitutional carry state a lot of people still take the class for travel and just because its a good class to take.

2
RoosterRaiser 2 points ago +2 / -0

I would guess the records would extend back several years before we became A CC state. They can kick rocks.

3
Patriots_Spike 3 points ago +3 / -0

Constitutional carry should be law everywhere by now

2
RoosterRaiser 2 points ago +2 / -0

It is in MO. For many years. But, you can get a CCW if you want one.

1
Patriots_Spike 1 point ago +1 / -0

Oh nice, so it's the same as Maine. I don't have my CCW anymore, but a lot of people in the gun club I'm in still pay yearly for some reason. Will have to bring this up and see if any change their minds.

2
Don-O-Mite 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's to carry in other states when you travel. ;)

3
Schroeder09 3 points ago +4 / -1

Missouri State legislature, executive, and judicial branches should tell them to go F themselves

2
RoosterRaiser 2 points ago +2 / -0

It is actually against MO law to help the feds with unconstitutional 2nd A laws. These Sheriffs are following the MO Constitution.

2
MasklessMarvel 2 points ago +2 / -0

they already have

3
charlesthehammer 3 points ago +3 / -0

Ohh FBI never change you commie fucks

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
3
magapotus 3 points ago +3 / -0

FBI Fags, go blow yourselves.

3
BillionsAndBillions 3 points ago +3 / -0

All licensing is registration. All registration is for confiscation.

3
MrBrrrrrrrrt 3 points ago +4 / -1

I saw something about trying to get customer data from holster manufacturers too.

2
Carolinareaper 2 points ago +2 / -0

Christ

Good heads up tho thx

1
Pepper2 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes, I saw that too. Can't figure out why

2
RoosterRaiser 2 points ago +2 / -0

My county sheriff issued a similar statement. FBI get fucked, in much nicer words. Love my Constitutional state.

2
rcstl 2 points ago +2 / -0

A lot of early skirmishes in first Civil War started in Missouri. Just historical fact. See Wilson's Creek.

2
fr33d0mTruck 2 points ago +2 / -0

America will soon have to make some hardcore decisions

2
Badradness 2 points ago +2 / -0

Fuck FBI traitor faggots. They are Demokrat stasi terrorist cunts

2
leadfarmer1776 2 points ago +2 / -0

Wouldnt even have to ask NY. They prolly have been already handing that information over all along.

2
Stlpoolguy 2 points ago +2 / -0

I love my fuckin state!!! Show me deep red, show them the middle finger.

2
lash 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is why needing permits to bear arms is an INFRINGEMENT!

2
Ekiph 2 points ago +2 / -0

Missouri has constitutional carry, why haven't those records been destroyed?

2
RoosterRaiser 2 points ago +2 / -0

If you want to carry in another state, you need a CCW so we still offer them. Not required.

1
MasklessMarvel 1 point ago +1 / -0

next best thing: it is illegal to provide them

2
glow-operator-2-0 2 points ago +2 / -0

ccw

permit

Nope. I'd rather carry illegally than give the government more documentation. Fuck the cops.

2
GnarlyDoug 2 points ago +2 / -0

They want these lists so they know who to target in the future. Wonder how many places quietly gave this away and we don't know?

2
NOsoyTIMmcg 2 points ago +2 / -0

Why is the FBI involved in this? MO has fairly lax gun laws on a state level, and the Governor last year was threatening to nullify federal gun laws; but even in that context, what business is this to the FBI? If any federal agency has a "legitimate" right to pry in this manner, shouldn't it be ATF (regardless of what one thinks of ATF's legitimacy)?