Hancock - Amendment could 'undo' guns law

The Southeast Missourian | Jan 28, 2004 | NA

[neverdem]

Hancock - Amendment could 'undo' guns law

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- Former U.S. Rep. Mel Hancock believes Missourians should have the right to carry concealed guns, but also thinks the state amendment bearing his name that forbids unfunded mandates "very well could undo" the law. Enacted when legislators overrode Democratic Gov. Bob Holden's veto Sept. 11, the law allows Missourians age 23 and older to receive concealed gun permits from their local sheriffs after passing criminal background checks, firearms training courses and paying a fee of up to $100. The law also entitles Missourians age 21 and older to conceal guns in their vehicles without need of a permit.

St. Louis Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer blocked the law on Oct. 10 -- one day before its effective date -- on grounds it violated a section of the state constitutional that states the right to bear arms "shall not justify" the wearing of concealed weapons.

Supporters of the law appealed Ohmer's decision, and during arguments before the Missouri Supreme Court last week, the judges focused on the Hancock issue more than on questions about the constitution banning concealed weapons.

The amendment, adopted in 1980, states that state government revenues cannot grow faster than the income of Missourians. It prohibits the state from "requiring any new or expanded activities by counties and other political subdivisions without full state financing, or from shifting the tax burdens to counties and other political subdivisions."

The concealed guns law allows sheriffs to charge as much as $100 for each application for a concealed gun permit. But attorneys for the law's opponents -- Richard Miller, of Kansas City, and Burton Newman, of St. Louis -- told the court the law imposes an unfunded mandate because the law states the $100 "shall only be used by law enforcement agencies for the purchase of equipment and training."

That means sheriffs can't use the money to cover the $38 cost of conducting background checks and the cost of paying staff to process the applications, Miller and Newman argued.

Several sheriffs have said they plan to use money normally spent on training and equipment to pay for the additional costs imposed by the law, and then pay for training and equipment with the money from the concealed handgun applications.

Newman and Miller said this also violates the Hancock amendment, and Hancock agreed.

"As soon as they say the cost of providing that service is $38 and then X amount of dollars will be spent over here in the general fund to be used for training and equipment, then it becomes a tax," he said.

Concealed weapons supporters said they would be much better off if the law is tossed out on Hancock grounds. If the state's high court decides the constitution prohibits concealed weapons, gun-rights supporters would have to mount an effort to amend the constitution. But if the law is declared in violation of the Hancock amendment, lawmakers need only to pass a revised version of the law to fix the problem.

"I support the conceal-carry law, but I also support the fact that the state can't mandate additional costs at the local level," Hancock said.

[neverdem]

BANG

Legal escape and evasion

[Travis McGee]

BANG!

[Shooter 2.5]

Gunshops sell cheap handguns to inner city youts for five dollars but the background check costs the shop over a hundred dollars. < sarcasm >

[justshutupandtakeit]

I guess it never occurred to these dumbasses that the money from the permits would allow the money formerly spent on training and equipment to be spent on the permits program.

Only RATS can claim with a straight face that MORE money flowing into the government coffers is an "unfunded mandate." Meanwhile any cockamayme idea they have has no accountability in terms of its actual costs.

[TigerTale]

Legal escape and evasion

On the contrary--it looks like conservative interpretation of existing law. The Hancock Amendment says "no unfunded mandates," and that means no unfunded mandates. Legislators should either have permitted the use of the $100 fee to cover all costs of implementation, or they should have allocated additional funding to cover those costs. Any other interpretation of the amendment would be selective application--judicial activism, if you will. Courts should follow the law as written.

Fix the law. It doesn't appear that the Missouri SC is particularly interested in finding a non-existant prohibition againsts CC in the Missouri constitution. Not this go-round, at least.

[Gorjus]

Legislators should either have permitted the use of the $100 fee to cover all costs of implementation,...

Exactly. By over-constraining the use of the fees for concealed licenses, they did indeed create an unfunded mandate. A better law would set the fee to cover the reasonable costs of processing the license - in other words, to be revenue neutral - and then use that as a template for all provided services. Let those who want a service pay for it instead of extorting money by force (called, 'taxes') to pay for a service not wanted by everyone, even if the service is a good idea like processing concealed handgun licenses.

[neverdem]

LOL

[Shooter 2.5]

"The state contends that, under the Hancock amendment, the only relief available is not injunctive relief but rather a suspension of a political subdivision's obligation to perform new or expanded duties until adequate funds are provided. It asserts that any "unfunded mandate" claim under the Hancock amendment are not presently capable of review because it is based solely on speculative future duties and expenses and because Brooks and the other plaintiffs lack standing to bring such a claim. The state responds that Brooks' second amended petition failed to raise any allegations of a Hancock amendment violation. The state argues that Brooks and the other plaintiffs lack standing to claim the 2003 amendments are void for vagueness and that such an argument lacks merit because the amendments give adequate notice of the conduct being regulated. The state further responds that the 2003 amendments do not violate article I, section 1 because the general assembly, as the duly elected representatives of the people, passed the amendments by properly using political power derived from the people.

Bull's Eye responds that the 2003 amendments do not violate the Hancock amendment because no appropriate party has demonstrated any damages because of the new legislation. It argues the court properly found the 2003 legislation is not void for vagueness because the legislation is susceptible to a reasonable and practical construction that supports it. Bull's Eye contends that article I, section 1 was not violated because the general assembly exercised its constitutional authority in passing the 2003 legislation. Bull's Eye asserts that the court acted within its discretion when it considered and then denied Brooks' and the other plaintiffs' motions to amend their pleadings."

The state also argued that the police investigate crimes as per law. It would mean that every time a criminal law was passed, more funding would have to be approved to the state.

[Shooter 2.5]

Former Rep. Mel Hancock. (Democrat-Missouri District 7

Democrat. Now how did I know that?

[neverdem]

This site says otherwise, and a gander at a number of his positions on various issues seems conservative.

http://www.issues2000.org/House/Mel_Hancock.htm

[Shooter 2.5]

Click here for background on Gun Control.

No stance on record.

[neverdem]

LOL

[PermaRag]

Mel Hancock is not a 'Rat. He is a Republican.

[Shooter 2.5]

Correct. Mel Hancock is a Republican. I don't know how that happened because I copied and pasted the information from that website. Thanks for the correction. Sorry.

[El Gato]

The concealed guns law allows sheriffs to charge as much as $100 for each application for a concealed gun permit. But attorneys for the law's opponents -- Richard Miller, of Kansas City, and Burton Newman, of St. Louis -- told the court the law imposes an unfunded mandate because the law states the $100 "shall only be used by law enforcement agencies for the purchase of equipment and training."

That means sheriffs can't use the money to cover the $38 cost of conducting background checks and the cost of paying staff to process the applications, Miller and Newman argued.

They are able to get $62 above the cost of issuing each permit to exercise a Constitutional right, and they are complaining? When a bureaucrat turns down money, it's a "Man Bites Dog" type of event. I guess that shows that they really don't think the peons should be armed ... well the law abiding peons anyway.

[o_zarkman44]

What is the cost of a form paper and a pen, and a deputy time of 5 or 10 minutes to process and file the paperwork? The way some people are sounding is that there will be long lines of people every day consuming considerable hours of the department personnel. After the initial rush of applications, say for 30 days, just exactly how many applications for ccw permits will be processed?

Perhaps the initial rush of applications will take some time. But again, each county will have varying amounts of applicants. So how can the cost be calculated? And for each application the Sheriff will collect 100 bucks. That will be 100 bucks more than the dept had. Chances are there would have been a Deputy or a clerk on duty anyhow, so no additional employees would be necessary. How can CCW be viewed as an unfunded mandate when a Sheriff already provides the process for background checks for handgun permits? The CCW permit is just an extension of that duty. And the Sheriff gets to keep the money collected. Not the state, the county, the BATF or whoever.
If the anti gunners had their way, a CCW permit would cost $10,000.00. And to think of the considerable waste of money fighting for the right to Carry concealed Weapons because some people believe freedom of choice is one sided.

[Gorjus]

What is the cost...?

That's the point. Whatever it cost should be covered by the fee. If it's $1.98, fine. If it's $100, okay. But the law as written prohibits any of the fee to be used to cover whatever the processing costs are. That's the problem. It's a law with an unfunded mandate. If they said that the sheriff could cover the procesessing costs, and keep the rest for training and equipment, there wouldn't be any problem.

[Optimist]

Whatever it cost should be covered by the fee

I dont see what the problem is since Sheriffs have been processing background checks on initial purchases anyway(at a cost of about $5 - so much for this unfunded mandate). As I understand it many departments were anticipating as much as a 30 day period to process application/background checks($100 isnt cheap for a premit)....doesnt sound like they were working overtime or adding staff. In addition, the requirements for training by "certified" trainers was going to slow down the flow anyway (figure another $100 in training expense for the applicant). It's not like they were going to work overtime to punch all these applications through within a specific period of time. The idea that this "extra workload" is ADDING cost is ludicrous.

In Missouri, permits were already required for pistols and it is a misdemeanor to obtain such a concealable firearm without the permit. The $5 permit also requires the signature of the seller or the lender of weapon. --- The new law allows these concealable weapons to now be carried out of plain sight with the additional permit, but Scott County Sheriff Bill Ferrell doesn’t anticipate any significant increase in the number of permitted guns in the county.

Let there be NO doubt, this was NEVER about unfunded mandates, unless we want to accept the idea that deputies were maxed out on their current activities and couldnt possibly do more work....and if that was the case, it would only mean a shift in prioities of activities that were performed.

[BOBWADE]

As it is now, the county sheriff charges $10 to issue a permit to transfer a handgun in Mo. That $10 fee is 1/10 that of the fee they will now charge for the same background check for the 3 year CCW permit. How can they do it for $10 but not afford to do it for $100? Doesn't it stand to reason that they are allowed to issue pistol permits in exchange for a $10 fee that they should be able to do the same background check for $100?