NLETS - the private registry of US concealed carry permit holders

[Kevin_NH]

You've probably never heard of NLETS nor their Concealed Weapons Query (CWQ) service. NLETS is the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, a private not for profit corporation, and as such is not subject to Freedom of Information Act disclosures. Most of what is known about NLETS comes from their own publications (e.g. their Wiki) and member agency documents.

CWQ is a database of CCL/CHL/etc holders, it receives data from Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Wyoming and (unconfirmed) Illinois.

If you have a resident or non-resident carry license from any of these states, you have a CWQ/CWR database entry hosted by NLETS in their Phoenix & Kentucky datacenters.

--- UPDATE ---
Massachusetts also participates!

 

[exo]

Wtf, Gestapo much, America?

 

[soloman02]

Now we know how Maryland knew this Florida man had a Florida carry license.

Maryland police officers detained a concealed carry permit holder for more than 90 minutes while looking for a gun he was legally allowed to possess. John Filippidis was traveling through the state with his family, but opted to leave his firearm at home in Florida due to the varying nature of state concealed carry laws.

John Filippidis, a business owner, was on his way to a family wedding in New Jersey when the Maryland Transportation Authority Police (MTAP) pulled him over along I-95. A law enforcement officer in an unmarked car pulled alongside his vehicle and ordered the Filippidis family to sit and wait while the vehicle was searched.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1104930/ma...der-over-an-hour-during-search-for-legal-gun/

Maryland is a member of this "service."

http://www.nlets.org/our-members/members

I just looked, NH is a member as well.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I knew about NLETS but always assumed that it was run as part of a gov't agency, not a private not for profit corp (who wouldn't be restricted from selling data if they set policies allowing it).

 

[drgrant]

Now we know how Maryland knew this Florida man had a Florida carry license.

Not entirely clear, I would bet more likely that they saw his CCW in his wallet or something. Anti cops have hawkeyes for that kind of thing.
That dude's wife ran her mouth when the police started asking her questions, too. That certainly didn't help.

"“I don’t know. Maybe in the glove box. Maybe in the console. I’m scared of it. I don’t want to have anything to do with it. I might shoot right through my foot.”

With "friends" like that, who needs enemies?

No, I'm not justifying the gestapo bs, but I think this incident was a lot more "basic" than it appeared.

-Mike

 

[browncoat]

Not entirely clear, I would bet more likely that they saw his CCW in his wallet or something. Anti cops have hawkeyes for that kind of thing.
That dude's wife ran her mouth when the police started asking her questions, too. That certainly didn't help.

"“I don’t know. Maybe in the glove box. Maybe in the console. I’m scared of it. I don’t want to have anything to do with it. I might shoot right through my foot.”

With "friends" like that, who needs enemies?

No, I'm not justifying the gestapo bs, but I think this incident was a lot more "basic" than it appeared.

-Mike

Sigh. Don't marry stupid.

 

[Kevin_NH]

Now we know how Maryland knew this Florida man had a Florida carry license. http://www.inquisitr.com/1104930/ma...der-over-an-hour-during-search-for-legal-gun/
Maryland is a member of this "service." http://www.nlets.org/our-members/members
I just looked, NH is a member as well.

Florida will answer concealed carry queries, New Hampshire does not. NH only answers for Criminal records, drivers records, and vehicle registration. It looks like Massachusetts does respond to the CWQ query type?

Not all NLETS member states support all types of query; some only use NLETS to share sexual predator, convicted felon, and ANPR data.

 

[soloman02]

NH does not contribute concealed carry information, however Florida does.

Not all NLETS member states provide CWQ records; some only use NLETS to share sexual predator, convicted felon, and ANPR data.

How do you know they don't? It's not like the average citizen can just go lookup the data...

Further, the article linked is from May 2010. That is FIVE years ago now. Who knows how many states have uploaded data to it since then.

 

[drgrant]

How do you know they don't? It's not like the average citizen can just go lookup the data...

Probably some doc somewhere which tells what states provide what data for what category, etc.

-Mike

 

[soloman02]

Probably some doc somewhere which tells what states provide what data for what category, etc.

-Mike

See my edit, the article provided is half a decade old. Many states could have been added since then.

 

[drgrant]

See my edit, the article provided is half a decade old. Many states could have been added since then.

In NH do they have an easy way of looking up P/R license holders? In other words, when the towns issue P/R licenses, do they get put in a state database? If the answer to this is "no" then the state isn't gonna have much to contribute, except for nonresident licenses?

-Mike

 

[soloman02]

In NH do they have an easy way of looking up P/R license holders? In other words, when the towns issue P/R licenses, do they get put in a state database? If the answer to this is "no" then the state isn't gonna have much to contribute, except for nonresident licenses?

-Mike

There is a lot of suspicion that the NHSP have illegally compiled a list of resident license holders. But no there is no "official" database per statute. Only the non-resident would be official since the NHSP administer non-resident licenses.

 

[Kevin_NH]

How do you know they don't? It's not like the average citizen can just go lookup the data... Further, the article linked is from May 2010. That is FIVE years ago now. Who knows how many states have uploaded data to it since then.

Probably some doc somewhere which tells what states provide what data for what category, etc.

How do I know? I know because NLETS publishes a search form on their website. You can pull up individual states and see what queries they respond to, or select a query and get a list of states.

Based on the map and data, yes many additional states will answer CWQ queries, including Massachusetts.

 

[smokey-seven]

I thought it was illegal to distribute LTC and FID info under the recent (a few years old) MA law. MA passed this when the Glob was attempting to access firearms people under the Freedom of Info act. Why is this not an unlawful distribution of info?

 

[Jonny5]

I thought it was illegal to distribute LTC and FID info under the recent (a few years old) MA law. MA passed this when the Glob was attempting to access firearms people under the Freedom of Info act. Why is this not an unlawful distribution of info?

Because government.

 

[browncoat]

.

 

[Darksideblues42]

How do I know? I know because NLETS publishes a search form on their website. You can pull up individual states and see what queries they respond to, or select a query and get a list of states.

Based on the map and data, yes many additional states will answer CWQ queries, including Massachusetts.

This would also lend an explanation as to how a Texas Highway Patrolman knew to ask me if I had MY handgun concealed on me. (I did not since I had flown from NJ) There was no way he could have seen my LTC as it was in my computer bag with the rest of my wallet. When I travel, I keep my corporate card and driver's license in my business card holder and put my wallet in my bag.

Interesting......

 

[Squire]

Why is everyone's panties in a bunch? I've been assured by people on this forum that "there is no list" and that no one is ever going to use it for anything other than giving LEO "courtesy" information at traffic stops.

It's called tinfoil when an arbitrary line is drawn that characterizes hypothetical government overreach on gun control, until it's true.

 

[spcantwell]

But where is the database of people who carry gun illegaly? I mean how else is a LEO supposed to know if he can impose his will on a cars occupents if he dosent know if they are illegaly carrying weapons... oh thats right, current training is for police to consider ALL civilians as criminals/terroists and they should be ready to shoot anyone and everything for any reason at all, because..... they need to go home, peons need to die... thin blue line and all...

 

[Squire]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to spcantwell again.

But where is the database of people who carry gun illegaly? I mean how else is a LEO supposed to know if he can impose his will on a cars occupents if he dosent know if they are illegaly carrying weapons... oh thats right, current training is for police to consider ALL civilians as criminals/terroists and they should be ready to shoot anyone and everything for any reason at all, because..... they need to go home, peons need to die... thin blue line and all...

 

[Len-2A Training]

I thought it was illegal to distribute LTC and FID info under the recent (a few years old) MA law. MA passed this when the Glob was attempting to access firearms people under the Freedom of Info act. Why is this not an unlawful distribution of info?

C. 66 S. 10 (d) has been around for at least 40 years making dissemination of gun ownership/gun license info illegal except to LE agencies for LE purposes ONLY. The memo pointing this out was issued after Newtown when media was hounding FRB and local PDs for lists of gun owners, but it is not something new.

My guess is that NLETS and MA EOPS justifies this info storage by a private company since it is intended for use only by LE orgs. I'll also bet it's never been challenged in court and if ever challenged in a MA court, you can expect the marsupial judges to uphold the legality even if they are wrong.

Here we go again, They claim to be "a private not for profit corporation owned by the States" This more of the same bullshit used by NEMLEC so they are not accountable to public that pays their way. I do not buy that an organization like this is private, not when the states own it and fund it.

"Nlets, is a private not for profit corporation owned by the States that was created over 45 years ago by the 50 state law enforcement agencies. The user population is made up of all of the United States and its territories, all Federal agencies with a justice component, selected international agencies, and a variety of strategic partners that serve the law enforcement community-cooperatively exchanging data."

I'm with you on this. I'm very surprised wrt the corporate status and fully agree it is BS strictly so that FOIA won't apply and there is no oversight.

 

[JohnZ]

"Nlets, is a private not for profit corporation owned by the States that was created over 45 years ago by the 50 state law enforcement agencies. The user population is made up of all of the United States and its territories, all Federal agencies with a justice component, selected international agencies, and a variety of strategic partners that serve the law enforcement community-cooperatively exchanging data."

This is kind of disturbing.

Since they are a private entity not subject to foia, does that also mean that they don't get the same immunity protections that the states do? If they have a data breach, could we sue them out of business?

 

[wiryone1]

That is a valid question. They can not have it both ways. Think about this a bit, The Constitution of The United States "Restricts" the actions of the Government ( Will not discuss they don't obey it now comments) So this "Private Corporation" is not restricted by The Constitution. Yet government agencies own it and fund it.

Hmm.. . Might this be a good area for Mr Gottlieb and SAF to explore leagally?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I'm not actually sure that MA sends LTC data on NLETS. The flip side is this: NLETS is the key to some state's willingness to recognize your LTC without a bi-lateral reciprocity agreement.

 

[nhpoke]

There is a lot of suspicion that the NHSP have illegally compiled a list of resident license holders. But no there is no "official" database per statute. Only the non-resident would be official since the NHSP administer non-resident licenses.

I've seen a print out from the non-existent NH database.

 

[Lcstyle]

the reason databases like this shouldn't exist except under intense public scrutiny is because when their databases are breached, and they will eventually get breached (they all will at some point) all (your) information will be leaked to unknown parties out there on the Internets.

but who cares right, they aren't accountable to us peasants anyways.

I'd like to see their audit reports done by third party computer security firms that says all our data is stored encrypted and not in plaintext.

What do you think the odds are that they went through the trouble and expense?

 

[righteousbarbarian]

This "private" organization beyond the reach of governmental restrictions is a lot like Google collecting information from individuals that would otherwise be protected by the 4th amendment and then giving it to the government. Seems like we need legislation to protect natural rights violations from private and international organizations too.

No gun registry means no gun registry.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I'm not actually sure that MA sends LTC data on NLETS. The flip side is this: NLETS is the key to some state's willingness to recognize your LTC without a bi-lateral reciprocity agreement.

I hope not because if they aren't a gov't LE org, possession of that info would be a violation of C. 66 S. 10(d), that keeps our info confidential and LEAs only and only for LE purposes.

 

[dcmdon]

call me ignorant.

But doesn't MA had some kind of law that makes the names and addresses of LTC holders not subject to sunshine laws or FOIA requests?

Don

 

[NHAtHeart]

Why is everyone's panties in a bunch? I've been assured by people on this forum that "there is no list" and that no one is ever going to use it for anything other than giving LEO "courtesy" information at traffic stops.

It's called tinfoil when an arbitrary line is drawn that characterizes hypothetical government overreach on gun control, until it's true.

That's funny, I've been assuring everyone there IS a list, and everyone on this forum (except maybe the gestapo agents) are on it.

Our government is not "for the people" it is "for control", people need to get that through their heads.