May 21, 2004

We all know that the St. Louis County Police Department improperly, and in violation of State Statute, for many years, required a right thumbprint on all permits to purchase a concealable weapon. They also allowed only five approved "Reasons for Purchase" to be listed on the application and none of them were "self-defense." The City of St. Louis required two letters of reference on letterhead paper before a permit to purchase was "granted" and this too was not a part of the statute. It took years to correct this abuse and left "a bad taste in all of our mouths."

And now SACMO has discovered something akin to those earlier violations and took definite steps to "nip it in the bud." Late in April it was found that the St. Louis County Police Department had added a new question to the application for "Permit to Purchase a Concealable Firearm". The question states in item b. "Is the weapon currently located or being purchased outside the state of Missouri?" As many of you know, the State statute states in regard to this purchase permit that the application, "shall state only the following." It then lists all the things that can be asked and it DOES NOT INCLUDE anything about where the gun you want is located. Additionally, and as a practical matter, many people acquire the permit before they go shopping for a gun. They couldn't possibly know where the gun is because they don't know what it is that they are actually going to buy. It is both an illogical and a non-permitted question that the St. Louis County Police department placed on the application and feels a little like gun owners being pushed around again. But SACMO saw it.

Knowing all this, on April 30th 2004, SACMO President Dale Schmid trekked to Clayton Missouri and applied for a pistol purchase permit. He deliberately left the non-permitted question blank. When told to fill it out, he refused, politely but bluntly, stating that this question was not permitted. He asked to speak with the department Commander, whom he knew from the previous attempted lawsuit over LTC, and then outlined the problem with the question to him. Schmid was warned that he would be refused a permit if the application was left incomplete but he held fast. A week later he received a declination letter. He then asked for a copy of his original application in preparation for a small claims lawsuit, which, since SACMO's credibility is pretty high, both the Commander and Schmid knew was coming. That copy arrived several days later.

Then several days later another letter arrived stating that his permit was approved. Schmid went to Clayton and, sure enough, received his permit to purchase, with the non-permitted question noticeably and starkly blank. When he returned home later, a nice message was waiting from the Commander of the Bureau of Central Police Records saying that, "He had reviewed this situation with the St. Louis County Counselor and that SACMO was correct. The question is not permitted and is being removed as soon as the current supply of permits runs out and that no one will be refused for either not answering it or answering it incorrectly. He further went on to say that it was not a proper State question but that it had to do with a Federal law.

A victory? You bet! SACMO recognized that something wrong was being used in the permit process, brought it to the County's attention in a professional manner and it has now been resolved in our favor. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" but it also requires strength of character to stand up for your rights.

Now, a note of warning to all would-be pistol permit purchasers in St. Louis. You do not have to fill in "b" under Section C: Certification Of Buyer, "Is the weapon currently located or being purchased outside the state of Missouri?"

Furthermore, in Section A under the question "Reason For Purchase" President Schmid wrote "Carrying Concealed/self-defense." He was not asked it he had a permit from another state and, of course, St. Louis County is not issuing permits yet. The point is, you don't have to phony up some "proper" reason and be made to misrepresent your true reason for buying the gun if this were the case. The state statute does not make a list of "proper" or "approved" answers.

You can call it self-congratulations if you want to, but the fact remains and all of you can take pride in it; SACMO keeps chugging right along with one smooth move after another, month after month, year after year, and all of them are good for our gun rights. Thank you for your continued financial support and good thoughts.

Your Friends in SACMO

517 Connie Lane

Manchester, Mo. 63021

(636) 227-9989