Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: Gorjus
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.

19 posted on 01/28/2004 7:46:07 PM PST by Optimist (I think I'm beginning to see a pattern here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: Gorjus
But as I said in my earlier post, issuing a CCW permit is only an EXTENSION of the duties of the Sheriff,s Dept. since they are already engaged in doing criminal background checks for handgun ownership. So money is already budgeted for criminal background checks and paperwork related to handgun possession. If processing a CCW permit costs the Dept an additional $2.98, the Department still pockets $97.02. Looks like some pretty healthy revenue to me. Unfunded mandate? BS!
26 posted on 01/29/2004 5:49:48 PM PST by o_zarkman44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson