WHAT OTHERS SAY: Privacy, politics, permits and procedures

Thursday, April 18, 2013 | 6:00 a.m. CDT

Combine privacy concerns, politics and the “supremacy clause,” shake vigorously and the result may resemble the controversy over Missouri driver’s license processing.

And Gov. Jay Nixon’s announcement Tuesday, ending the Revenue Department’s copying of concealed weapons permits, may not put the matter to rest.

The dust-up began in early March after state lawmakers received a complaint that, as part of the procedure for issuing driver’s licenses, the Department of Revenue was recording concealed-carry permits and sharing the information with federal authorities.

Some Missouri Republicans are outraged; they contend members of the Democratic governor’s administration have exceeded their authority. GOP critics cite a 2009 state decision to protect privacy through noncompliance with provisions of the 2005 federal Real ID measure.

The dispute has escalated in recent weeks, with legislative time devoted to subjecting Revenue officials to questioning. One consequence is the abrupt resignation Monday of agency director Brian Long, who cited the “toll on me and my family.”

This entire issue is a briar patch.

At the moment, perhaps the least thorny issue is the U.S. Constitution’s “supremacy clause,” which provides that federal law takes precedence over state law when the two clash.

The federal government has provided additional time for noncompliant states, including Missouri, to conform or face airline travel restrictions imposed by the Homeland Security Department’s Transportation Safety Administration.

More thorny is the privacy issue.

Some people fiercely oppose government encroachments on personal privacy. An irony is some of those same people voluntarily surrender private information on the Internet or through other forms of social media.

Nevertheless, personal privacy is a right that deserves maximum protection, when not in conflict with reasonable public protections aboard airlines flights, in courtrooms, etc.

Which brings us to the complication that is politics.

Republican House Speaker Tim Jones, R-Eureka, has called on Democratic Attorney General Chris Koster to appoint a committee to investigate the breach.

Koster has announced he will attempt to succeed Nixon in 2016, and Jones has been mentioned as a possible contender for Koster’s office. A recent news conference called by Jones was held not at his Capitol office but in front of Koster’s office in the Supreme Court Building.

How can Missouri find its way out of the thicket?

First, respect the Missouri directive of noncompliance with Real ID. Unless and until the federal government insists on compliance or invokes sanctions, the supremacy clause is not at issue.

Second, establish an administrative procedure consistent with Missouri law. Whether that procedure is handled by the state Revenue Department or by county sheriffs, who issue concealed-carry permits, is a topic for discussion among policy-makers.

Last, save the politics for a later date. There’s plenty of time to jockey for positions before 2016.

The legislative session will end in mid-May and numerous proposals, including a budget, await action.

The privacy dispute is important, but it would be a mistake to allow it to overshadow other legislative priorities.

Copyright Jefferson City News Tribune. Reprinted with permission.

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Michael Williams April 18, 2013 | 9:08 a.m.

"...perhaps the least thorny issue is the U.S. Constitution’s “supremacy clause,” which provides that federal law takes precedence over state law when the two clash."

The Supremacy Clause says this.....

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

Please note the phrase "and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof". What does this mean?

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.