Feds Reverse Position on Missouri CCW List
The Office of the Inspector General for Social Security Administration now says the list was unreadable
The Office of the Inspector General for Social Security Administration has reversed an earlier statement given to the Post-Dispatch, and now says that its fraud investigator was never able to open the second list of Missouri concealed weapons permit holders he received.
"We have since learned that this latter information was incorrect. What was provided to our agent in January 2013 was also a single encrypted disk, and, as with the 2011 disk, our agent was unable to open it or view the data it contained, and it was destroyed. In sum, although this office twice received disks containing data identifying Missouri concealed carry permitholders, we were never successful in opening the files or viewing this data. We have a long and mutually beneficial working relationship with the MSHP, and we regret any confusion our earlier statement might have caused," Jonathan L. Lasher, spokesman for the Office of the Inspector General for the Social Security Administration, wrote in an email to the Post-Dispatch today.
H/T Mark Sletten
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I'm sorry we're supposed to believe that they got this information, couldn't open it, and just gave up?
"Had we decided to pursue the project, more formal communication with the state would have followed, with the preparation of appropriate agreements,"
So they would have made agreements AFTER the information was handed over? Why? Basic bureaucratic procedure is to get agreements BEFORE you do something. Otherwise the other guy can just do whatever he wants. I mean how stupid do these guys think we are?
Oh and FIRST!