Skip to comments.
Hancock - Amendment could 'undo' guns law
The Southeast Missourian
| Jan 28, 2004
| NA
Posted on 01/28/2004 1:28:19 PM PST by neverdem
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
1
posted on
01/28/2004 1:28:21 PM PST
by
neverdem
To: fourdeuce82d; Travis McGee; Joe Brower
BANG
Legal escape and evasion
2
posted on
01/28/2004 1:30:21 PM PST
by
neverdem
(Xin loi min oi)
To: *bang_list; neverdem
BANG!
3
posted on
01/28/2004 1:41:48 PM PST
by
Travis McGee
(----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
To: neverdem
Gunshops sell cheap handguns to inner city youts for five dollars but the background check costs the shop over a hundred dollars. < sarcasm >
4
posted on
01/28/2004 1:47:38 PM PST
by
Shooter 2.5
(Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
To: neverdem
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.
5
posted on
01/28/2004 1:49:21 PM PST
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
To: neverdem
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.
6
posted on
01/28/2004 1:51:31 PM PST
by
TigerTale
(From the streets of Tehran to the Gulf of Oman, let freedom ring.)
To: TigerTale
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.
7
posted on
01/28/2004 2:06:42 PM PST
by
Gorjus
To: justshutupandtakeit
LOL
8
posted on
01/28/2004 2:13:59 PM PST
by
neverdem
(Xin loi min oi)
To: TigerTale
"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.
9
posted on
01/28/2004 2:15:59 PM PST
by
Shooter 2.5
(Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
To: neverdem
Former Rep. Mel Hancock. (
Democrat-Missouri District 7
Democrat. Now how did I know that?
10
posted on
01/28/2004 2:20:45 PM PST
by
Shooter 2.5
(Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
To: Shooter 2.5
11
posted on
01/28/2004 2:36:34 PM PST
by
neverdem
(Xin loi min oi)
To: neverdem
Click here for background on Gun Control.
No stance on record.
12
posted on
01/28/2004 2:59:12 PM PST
by
Shooter 2.5
(Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
To: Shooter 2.5
LOL
13
posted on
01/28/2004 3:30:08 PM PST
by
neverdem
(Xin loi min oi)
To: Shooter 2.5
Mel Hancock is not a 'Rat. He is a Republican.
14
posted on
01/28/2004 4:13:45 PM PST
by
PermaRag
To: PermaRag
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.
15
posted on
01/28/2004 4:23:42 PM PST
by
Shooter 2.5
(Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
To: neverdem
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.
16
posted on
01/28/2004 4:33:12 PM PST
by
El Gato
(Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
To: Gorjus
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.
To: o_zarkman44
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.
18
posted on
01/28/2004 7:08:54 PM PST
by
Gorjus
To: Gorjus
19
posted on
01/28/2004 7:46:07 PM PST
by
Optimist
(I think I'm beginning to see a pattern here.)
To: justshutupandtakeit
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?
20
posted on
01/28/2004 7:51:34 PM PST
by
BOBWADE
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson