County License Office shennanigans and hijinx.

Well I certainly hope you're ready to be flogged at the stake on this issue, you earned after all.

1. You entered an establishment affiliated with the DOR (contract affiliation) while OC'ing. Bad move on your end. You're act of OC'ing is not private...it's public. (duh)

2. You made the fatal error of engaging in conversation with one of their employees on a matter unrelated to your business there. Bad move again.

3. You made an even more fatal error by disclosing your employer. (do you see a pattern yet?) That information is no longer private when you disclose it!

4. When that employee made efforts to utilize your personal information to contact your employer, you should have immediately contacted the Sheriff and filed a harrassment complaint. Because you failed to do just that you may no longer have grounds for a lawsuit, so you had better get moving fast on #5.

5. If your job is in jeopardy now or punishment may be in the future, you MUST lawyer up.


So I'll say it again as I have before. There is a time and place for OC and a time and place for CCW. If you choose to OC, you had better be prepared for the reactions of others and the consequences that may follow. :banghead:

Good luck with this and I certainly hope it turns out for the better for you...worse for that particular employee.

heresyourdipstickjimmy said:

Well I certainly hope you're ready to be flogged at the stake on this issue, you earned after all.

1. You entered an establishment affiliated with the DOR (contract affiliation) while OC'ing. Bad move on your end. You're act of OC'ing is not private...it's public. (duh)

Click to expand...

I've also entered private establishments affiliated with Wal-Mart. Is that also a bad move? How about private establishments affiliated with Starbucks? Taco Bell? I'm a little foggy on why a private establishment is different because of their contractor. Please direct me to "heresyourdipstickjimmy's list of approved places to open carry". After I check state and local laws, I'll make sure to get your approval to OC since you're obviously are the authority on where it's appropriate. Where, exactly, do you consider OC'ing a "good move"? From what I've seen, the only place you'd probably put on that list is my own bathroom (but only with the light off).

2. You made the fatal error of engaging in conversation with one of their employees on a matter unrelated to your business there. Bad move again.

Click to expand...

I'll keep this in mind. From now on, when approached by strangers in Denny's, I'll keep conversations directly related to scrambled eggs and the crispyness of my toast. While I agree with the general idea of avoiding the mention of personal information, HOW DO I FILL OUT A FORM TO BE HANDED TO THE GUY IN ORDER TO GET MY I.D. WITHOUT FILLING OUT ANY OF THE LINES REQUIRING NAME, ADDRESS, HEIGHT, WEIGHT, ETC.? Yes, you are correct. In hindsight I should have refused to answer the question. I usually do. But two points interfered with my usual avoidance of the topic: 1) I was unable to tell he was going to be a &$%# until afterward. 2) He was already looking at a screen with my personal info, he is in a position of "semi" authority: the person contracted to interact between the DOR and me in order to give me my license. In this case a non-driver I.D. with CCW endorsement. (He wasn't handling my license at first, merely looking over the shoulder of Office Employee B. But, after the computer went bonkers, he was called back out of his office and took over her place.)

3. You made an even more fatal error by disclosing your employer. (do you see a pattern yet?) That information is no longer private when you disclose it!

Click to expand...

This I can agree 100% with you on. Hindsight is 20/20. This incident has taken something I rarely talk about, and moved it into the "never talk about" category.

4. When that employee made efforts to utilize your personal information to contact your employer, you should have immediately contacted the Sheriff and filed a harrassment complaint. Because you failed to do just that you may no longer have grounds for a lawsuit, so you had better get moving fast on #5.

Click to expand...

How was I supposed to know until he did so? I am not prescient. My crystal ball only tells me when my truck needs an oil change.

Because you failed to do just that

Click to expand...

What's the statute of limitation? Three days? Yesterday I talked to attorneys about it. No dice. Now I'm going to contact his superiors by writing a letter and sending it certified mail. As LMTD said, I'll most likely get glad-handed, but this isn't going to stop me from doing so. I have a meeting with the Sheriff on Monday concerning another matter. It is a good opportunity to discuss the whole shebang with him then.

[QUOTE}5. If your job is in jeopardy now or punishment may be in the future, you MUST lawyer up.[/QUOTE]

My job is nowhere near "in jeopardy". Boss was just mad, but no longer, now that he knows the deal.

So I'll say it again as I have before. There is a time and place for OC and a time and place for CCW. If you choose to OC, you had better be prepared for the reactions of others and the consequences that may follow. :banghead:

Good luck with this and I certainly hope it turns out for the better for you...worse for that particular employee.

Click to expand...

I agree with this, as well. Thanks for the well wishes, but most likely, nothing will come of this. Other than a few ruffled feathers on my part, it will probably become Missouri's next greatest non-event. I'll post any replies from the DOR, and the Sheriff if I receive any.

heresyourdipstickjimmy said:

Well I certainly hope you're ready to be flogged at the stake on this issue, you earned after all.

1. You entered an establishment affiliated with the DOR (contract affiliation) while OC'ing. Bad move on your end. You're act of OC'ing is not private...it's public. (duh)

2. You made the fatal error of engaging in conversation with one of their employees on a matter unrelated to your business there. Bad move again.

3. You made an even more fatal error by disclosing your employer. (do you see a pattern yet?) That information is no longer private when you disclose it!

4. When that employee made efforts to utilize your personal information to contact your employer, you should have immediately contacted the Sheriff and filed a harrassment complaint. Because you failed to do just that you may no longer have grounds for a lawsuit, so you had better get moving fast on #5.

5. If your job is in jeopardy now or punishment may be in the future, you MUST lawyer up.


So I'll say it again as I have before. There is a time and place for OC and a time and place for CCW. If you choose to OC, you had better be prepared for the reactions of others and the consequences that may follow. :banghead:

Good luck with this and I certainly hope it turns out for the better for you...worse for that particular employee.

Click to expand...

NO !! You are dead wrong, the Laws of the state specifically demand proper Signage !! That trumps every argument that you can dream up.

If it's not against your character Superlite, I'd like to know the owner of the DMV contract you're referring to, because I'll check it against the business owner who runs 2 DMV offices in my area, I have one 5 miles north of my location and 5 miles south of my location.

Carnivore said:

NO !! You are dead wrong, the Laws of the state specifically demand proper Signage !! That trumps every argument that you can dream up.

Click to expand...

Actually, as it applies to open carry without a CCW endorsement, proper signage would not be necessary. Under RSMO 571.030.1(8), it would be unlawful to carry any firearm in any manner "....into any building owned or occupied by any agency of the federal government, state government, or political subdivision thereof....".

Now, in Superlite's case, he apparently DOES possess a valid CCW endorsement and, as stated in RSMO 571.030.4, Subdivision 8 of RSMO 571.030.1 would NOT apply to him. In that case, the building would have to be posted as per RSMO 571.107.1(6).

SO CShoff you're telling me that the Federal subdivision of this business aspect trumps all argument as far as the presence of a firearm on this specific location, so the sinage requirement is irrelevent, and the only argument is that Superlites personal info was Pirated/hijacked if you will.?

Carnivore said:

SO CShoff you're telling me that the Federal subdivision of this business aspect trumps all argument as far as the presence of a firearm on this specific location, so the sinage requirement is irrelevent, and the only argument is that Superlites personal info was Pirated/hijacked if you will.?

Click to expand...

I'm saying that, according to State Law (RSMO 571.030.1(8) ) it is unlawful to carry any firearm in any manner, or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use, into any building owned or occupied by any agency of the federal government, state government, or political subdivision thereof. That statute has no signage standard that must be met. You walk in, it's unlawful, period.

The exception to that statute is if you possess a valid CCW endorsement. If you have a valid CCW endorsement issued pursuant to RSMO 571.101 to 571.121, then the above statute does not apply to you. And in the case of CCW endorsement holders, the premises must be "clearly identified by signs posted at the entrance to the restricted area" if they do not want CCW permit holders to enter with their firearms.

cshoff said:

Actually, as it applies to open carry without a CCW endorsement, proper signage would not be necessary. Under RSMO 571.030.1(8), it would be unlawful to carry any firearm in any manner "....into any building owned or occupied by any agency of the federal government, state government, or political subdivision thereof....".

Now, in Superlite's case, he apparently DOES possess a valid CCW endorsement and, as stated in RSMO 571.030.4, Subdivision 8 of RSMO 571.030.1 would NOT apply to him. In that case, the building would have to be posted as per RSMO 571.107.1(6).

Click to expand...

Wow I love how knowledgeable you are. I'm coming to take some courses with you when I get some money and downtime from football.

cash50 said:

Wow I love how knowledgeable you are. I'm coming to take some courses with you when I get some money and downtime from football.

Click to expand...

Thanks, cash. Really, I'm not posting anything that anyone else couldn't post. It's just that I've been through these statutes so many times, that I know where to find things in a hurry, and usually have a good understanding of how one statute affects another and/or applies to different cicumstances.

I seem to remember Missourri's corruption-breeding license office contracts being one of the subplots in "Unintended Consequences".

There you go: call John Ross!

As a reminder, it is posted on the front of the building that the office is a private business under contract. I can go down to the local post office and sign a contract to mow their grass.....

...this does not make my lawn care business federal, nor myself a federal employee.

Since the license office is NOT a government entity (plainly stated on the front of the building) my carrying with or without a CCW is irrellevant. It is a private business.

Superlite27 said:

As a reminder, it is posted on the front of the building that the office is a private business under contract. I can go down to the local post office and sign a contract to mow their grass.....

...this does not make my lawn care business federal, nor myself a federal employee.

Since the license office is NOT a government entity (plainly stated on the front of the building) my carrying with or without a CCW is irrellevant. It is a private business.

Click to expand...

That is correct. However, not every license fee office is privately run. In the case of those buildings, one would be well advised to know the difference.

Heck Superlight at the contacted license office near me. The owners open carry. I on the other hand do not, but I do carry.

Proper posting / improper posting only affects Supers legality of entry into the building's legal status.

His violation of law/signage is ultimately unimportant to the release of his personal information by the agent of the government. His demeanor, behavior are completely irreverent, the employee never gets an excuse beyond a subpoena from court to release that information.

Super's business was with the state and the state must remain in compliance with the laws irregardless of whether super chooses to or not, they may take only the actions prescribed by law which in the case of a violation of the sign is to ask him to leave, not release his personal information.

Citizens are not required to follow the law, only to pay the penalties for not doing so. The state and its agents are held to a higher standard, when they fail to uphold the law, it is tyranny through abuse of power and impacts us all. If allowed to continue, it only grows and a citizen is supposed to be free of such things in this country without regard for their own behavior, he is supposed to have power above and beyond the state, his rights being more important than the states.

As an update:

I crafted a polite and professional business letter to Alana M. Barrigan-Scott, the Director of the Missouri Department of Revenue simply informing her, in a little more detail, of the situation that happened above. The only "highly flammable" comments I made were my outrage at Office Worker C using my personal information to contact my supervisor, and the fact that the only reason I could think for him to do so was malevolence.
I did not "demand" or even ask for any specific action on her part, I simply thanked her for taking the time to read my complaint and asked her to be so kind as to reply with an answer to "what will be done to guarantee that Office Worker C does not use the public's protected personal information to conduct his own malevolent business in the future?".

It cost me damn near $6.00 to send an envelope certified with a return receipt. Although expensive for a three page letter, it hopefully guarantees that it is opened and read by the Director herself instead of lesser minions in the mailroom. I am unsure, but I figured a certified letter would probably work. Anyone familiar with this?

The way I look at it: The door has been opened. I simply walked through. If Office Worker C feels it is appropriate to contact my supervisor, it should be perfectly acceptable for me to contact his. (Of course, my legs are a little sore as I have jumped quite a bit higher than he has, but hey, that's my perogative.)

I'm curious if I will receive a response, and what it will be. I'm guessing "yes" on the former as I haven't demanded a long list of actions, merely asked kindly for a response, and "who knows?" on the latter.

I'll post details if and when.

Superlite27 said:

As an update:

I crafted a polite and professional business letter to Alana M. Barrigan-Scott, the Director of the Missouri Department of Revenue simply informing her, in a little more detail, of the situation that happened above. The only "highly flammable" comments I made were my outrage at Office Worker C using my personal information to contact my supervisor, and the fact that the only reason I could think for him to do so was malevolence.
I did not "demand" or even ask for any specific action on her part, I simply thanked her for taking the time to read my complaint and asked her to be so kind as to reply with an answer to "what will be done to guarantee that Office Worker C does not use the public's protected personal information to conduct his own malevolent business in the future?".

It cost me damn near $6.00 to send an envelope certified with a return receipt. Although expensive for a three page letter, it hopefully guarantees that it is opened and read by the Director herself instead of lesser minions in the mailroom. I am unsure, but I figured a certified letter would probably work. Anyone familiar with this?

The way I look at it: The door has been opened. I simply walked through. If Office Worker C feels it is appropriate to contact my supervisor, it should be perfectly acceptable for me to contact his. (Of course, my legs are a little sore as I have jumped quite a bit higher than he has, but hey, that's my perogative.)

I'm curious if I will receive a response, and what it will be. I'm guessing "yes" on the former as I haven't demanded a long list of actions, merely asked kindly for a response, and "who knows?" on the latter.

I'll post details if and when.

Click to expand...

That jump you made also put you on the higher ground Super. Well done and I hope you get a quick response. I think all the MO members support you and hope this is settled in manner that is satisfactory to you.

Superlite27 said:

As an update:

I crafted a polite and professional business letter to Alana M. Barrigan-Scott, the Director of the Missouri Department of Revenue simply informing her, in a little more detail, of the situation that happened above. The only "highly flammable" comments I made were my outrage at Office Worker C using my personal information to contact my supervisor, and the fact that the only reason I could think for him to do so was malevolence.
I did not "demand" or even ask for any specific action on her part, I simply thanked her for taking the time to read my complaint and asked her to be so kind as to reply with an answer to "what will be done to guarantee that Office Worker C does not use the public's protected personal information to conduct his own malevolent business in the future?".

It cost me damn near $6.00 to send an envelope certified with a return receipt. Although expensive for a three page letter, it hopefully guarantees that it is opened and read by the Director herself instead of lesser minions in the mailroom. I am unsure, but I figured a certified letter would probably work. Anyone familiar with this?

The way I look at it: The door has been opened. I simply walked through. If Office Worker C feels it is appropriate to contact my supervisor, it should be perfectly acceptable for me to contact his. (Of course, my legs are a little sore as I have jumped quite a bit higher than he has, but hey, that's my perogative.)

I'm curious if I will receive a response, and what it will be. I'm guessing "yes" on the former as I haven't demanded a long list of actions, merely asked kindly for a response, and "who knows?" on the latter.

I'll post details if and when.

Click to expand...

A certified letter should indeed guarantee receipt by it's intended recipient. If it gets opened by someone else, they will be in violation of postal law and guilty of a felony. When I get them, I receive a green card that requires me to go to my post office and produce ID and sign for it. A similar process would likely happen within the internal mail system of the DOR. So it is extremely unlikely anyone would have the motivation, actually quite the opposite, to retrieve and open someone else's certified mail.

Can't wait to hear what happens. Thanks for updating us.

Superlite27 said:

As an update:

I crafted a polite and professional business letter to Alana M. Barrigan-Scott, the Director of the Missouri Department of Revenue simply informing her, in a little more detail, of the situation that happened above. The only "highly flammable" comments I made were my outrage at Office Worker C using my personal information to contact my supervisor, and the fact that the only reason I could think for him to do so was malevolence.
I did not "demand" or even ask for any specific action on her part, I simply thanked her for taking the time to read my complaint and asked her to be so kind as to reply with an answer to "what will be done to guarantee that Office Worker C does not use the public's protected personal information to conduct his own malevolent business in the future?".

It cost me damn near $6.00 to send an envelope certified with a return receipt. Although expensive for a three page letter, it hopefully guarantees that it is opened and read by the Director herself instead of lesser minions in the mailroom. I am unsure, but I figured a certified letter would probably work. Anyone familiar with this?

The way I look at it: The door has been opened. I simply walked through. If Office Worker C feels it is appropriate to contact my supervisor, it should be perfectly acceptable for me to contact his. (Of course, my legs are a little sore as I have jumped quite a bit higher than he has, but hey, that's my perogative.)

I'm curious if I will receive a response, and what it will be. I'm guessing "yes" on the former as I haven't demanded a long list of actions, merely asked kindly for a response, and "who knows?" on the latter.

I'll post details if and when.

Click to expand...

Sheesh, you need to be schooled on issues such as this. You did great by going to their employer, however you need to remember that they are a contracted facility and are not the DOR, thus it is not a government building and as such the DOR does not have any direct control over the behavior of those contract facility's employees.

If you have not done so already, you MUST contact your local LEO and file a harrassment complaint and privacy act violation at a minimum. Failure to complete this step means that you still may not get the desired answer and if you get told there's nothing the DOR can or will do, you'll be back to this step. This should have been done prior to your letter and should have been included in the body of that letter.

That office worker should have already been fired and denied unemployment benefits for such violations. Fail on your part.

heresyourdipstickjimmy said:

Sheesh, you need to be schooled on issues such as this. You did great by going to their employer, however you need to remember that they are a contracted facility and are not the DOR, thus it is not a government building and as such the DOR does not have any direct control over the behavior of those contract facility's employees.

Click to expand...

Really? I need to be schooled, huh?

Maybe you can educate me, on how contracts with government agencies work. After all, I can guarantee you that one of us is definately well versed in government contract operations. It must be you.

If you read several posts above yours, maybe you will notice where I reminded everyone that THIS IS NOT A GOVERNMENT BUILDING, so reminding me that it not a government building is fairly moronic as you wouldn't know this IF I HAD NOT TOLD YOU.

As a contracting agency, the government retains full responsibility for the individuals it employs through contract. When contractors enter a government contract, they are required to meet tons and tons of guidelines covering all sorts of things. Training requirements, safety guidelines, inspection schedules, empoyee vetting, equipment, the serviceability of this equipment, you name it. Illegal behavior by contracted employees will almost always result in forfeiture of the contract. Most contractors will almost always gladly part with these employees rather than suffer the loss of a lucrative contract.

As in above scenario about mowing a post office lawn, If the Postmaster that has contracted my lawn care business to mow the post office grounds finds out one of my laborers failed his urinalyses and it is in the contract I signed that all my workers will have successfully passed a drug test, the stoned weedeater operator has nothing to fear from the Postmaster.

I, however, may be out of a job when the terms of my contract have been violated.

Now what do you think I'm going to do with Joe Weedeater?

By proxy, the government has perfect control over who it employs under contract.

Now.....who's schooling who?

heresyourdipstickjimmy said:

Sheesh, you need to be schooled on issues such as this. You did great by going to their employer, however you need to remember that they are a contracted facility and are not the DOR, thus it is not a government building and as such the DOR does not have any direct control over the behavior of those contract facility's employees.

If you have not done so already, you MUST contact your local LEO and file a harrassment complaint and privacy act violation at a minimum. Failure to complete this step means that you still may not get the desired answer and if you get told there's nothing the DOR can or will do, you'll be back to this step. This should have been done prior to your letter and should have been included in the body of that letter.

That office worker should have already been fired and denied unemployment benefits for such violations. Fail on your part.

Click to expand...

And just what are you basing all this blathering on? Are you a lawyer or just opinionated?