This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.
Fiscal Note - SB 0679 - Permits for Concealed Firearms
L.R. NO. 2754-07
BILL NO. SCS for SB 679
SUBJECT: Concealed Weapons
TYPE: Original
DATE: January 30, 1996
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
General Revenue ($43,748) ($378,820) ($412,780)
Peace Officer
Standards and
Training
Commission $6,200,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000
Partial Estimated
Net Effect on All
State Funds $6,156,252 $3,621,180 $3,587,220
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
None
Total Estimated
Net Effect on All
Federal Funds $0 $0 $0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
Local Government $0 $0 $0
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
Officials of the Departments of Revenue, Social Services, Corrections and the
Office of Administration assume that this proposal would have no fiscal
impact to their agencies.
Officials of the Department of Mental Health stated verbally in response to a
similar proposal that there would be no fiscal impact to their agency.
Officials of the Missouri Sheriffs Association, Police Chiefs Association and
Office of Prosecution Services assumed in response to a similar proposal that
there would be no fiscal impact to their offices.
Officials of the Office of the State Public Defender (SPD) assumed in
response to a similar proposal that they would request an additional 3.75
FTE, plus related equipment and expenses, to implement the additional duties
outlined in this proposal.
Oversight assumes that the only effect of this proposal would be that cases
would become more protracted because SPD would already be defending the
people affected by this legislation on other charges. Oversight assumes for
purposes of this fiscal note that one (1) FTE, plus related equipment and
expenses, would be sufficient to implement the duties of this proposal. One
Assistant Public Defender ($31,620) would represent the indigent accused of
carrying a firearm or weapon into a school or onto a school bus. Equipment
would include office furniture. Expenses would include travel, office
supplies and communications expenses.
Officials of the State Courts Administrator (CTS) assume that the principal
impact to the judiciary would be in the potential appeals of permit denials.
CTS officials would not expect the number of appeals to be large based on the
current volume of such cases. Therefore, after a period of adjustment, CTS
officials assume that there would be minimal fiscal impact to their agency.
Officials of the Office of the Attorney General (AGO) assume that they would
request one (1) Assistant Attorney General I to provide legal interpretation
to the Missouri State Highway Patrol pursuant to Section 571.091.11. The AGO
would anticipate in excess of 100 cases based on historical data.
Officials of the Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) stated that Texas
passed a similar proposal last year. Texas has an estimated population of
18,000,000, and has received approximately 200,000 applications in the first
year. Missouri has a population of 5,500,000; therefore, applying the same
ratio, MSHP officials assumed there would be approximately 62,000
applications in the first year. The total fee for processing a permit is
$150, with $100 of that going to the Peace Officers Service and Training
(POST) Commission Fund and $50 going to the MSHP. MSHP officials estimate
their revenue in the first year at $3,100,000 (62,000 permits x $50). After
the initial rush, MSHP officials assumed the number of new applicants would
drop to 40,000 annually for the second and third years. Revenue in each of
those years would therefore be $2,000,000 (40,000 permits x $50).
MSHP officials stated that the cost to train and equip a new patrolman is
$35,882.57 for the first year and $1,896.83 each year thereafter. The cost
to equip a new civilian is $1,660 the first year, and $600 each year
thereafter. Annual maintenance for computer system upgrades is 18%.
MSHP officials assumed the number of revocations and suspensions would be
approximately 5% of the total permits processed annually, which would amount
to 3,100 the first year and 2,000 in each of the second and third years.
This proposal would also require that revocations and suspensions be sent to
the permit holder by certified letter which is a cost of $2.20 per mailing.
MSHP officials assume they would request the following seventy-five (75)
total FTE to implement this proposal: thirty-three (33) Patrolmen ($25,956)
to replace experienced officers who would be assigned to handle the caseload
associated with background investigations, perform follow-up on
investigations and pickup orders on revoked permits, act as a Carrying
Concealed Weapons (CCW) manager for the program and supervise new officers
and act as instructors for the required training of new employees; four (4)
Data Entry Operator I's ($14,808) to process initial fingerprint cards; four
(4) Terminal Technician I's ($14,316) to enter and process fingerprint cards
through AFIS system; two (2) Quality Control Clerk I's ($15,900) to verify
criminal records information; two (2) Clerk I's to prepare and retrieve CCW
records; one (1) Data Entry Operator Supervisor ($18,228) to oversee the CCW
records process; two (2) Account Clerk I's ($14,808) to handle and process
registration fees; twenty (20) Clerk Typist I's ($14,316) to process
notification notices, appeal requests, and responses for Criminal Records
Division, process and fingerprint applicants at troop level for Field
Operations and Criminal Investigations Bureaus (2 Clerk Typist I's at each of
the 9 troops and 2 Clerk Typist I's at headquarters); three (3) Computer
Information Specialist I's ($22,704) for application, design development, and
maintenance of interface support, to run image system dedicated to
implementation, development, and workflow of system; one (1) Auditor I
($23,616) to audit funds and accounts associated with the program; one (1)
Personnel Analyst I ($21,060) to process new employment postings and
applications; one (1) Personnel Records Clerk ($18,888) to process and
maintain files and records of new personnel; and one (1) Mobile Radio
Installer ($17,724) to install radios and perform maintenance on the new
patrolmen's cars.
MSHP officials requested expense and equipment and capital improvements of
$5,191,832 in FY97, $1,369,448 in FY98 and $1,372,275 in FY99.
MSHP officials assume that this proposal would result in the need for a total
of $802,175 in capital improvements which include: 5,400 sq. ft. accessible
to the public at troop headquarters (30 ft. x 30 ft. at six of nine troops);
892.5 sq. ft. in the Criminal Records Division for 17 new FTEs ; another
1,000 sq. ft. for files, storage, etc. Total square footage would equal
7,292.5. MSHP officials stated that COMAP recommends $110 per sq. ft.
MSHP officials stated that all projections were made for the first three
years. After five years, MSHP officials assume that the individuals from the
first year would return for renewal in addition to new applicants resulting
in long-term fiscal impact.
For purposes of this fiscal note, Oversight assumes that the same ratio MSHP
used to project the anticipated number of permits would be processed should
be applied the number of FTEs requested. Texas officials requested 116 FTEs
to implement a "concealed weapons" proposal. They estimate that they will
process 200,000 permit applications the first year. 200,000/116 = 1724.14
applications processed per FTE. MSHP anticipated 62,000 permit applications
/ 1724 applications = 36 FTEs. Oversight used MSHP's projections for the
number of permit applications for the next three fiscal years.
Oversight assumes that MSHP could implement this proposal with the following
FTEs: Seventeen (17) Patrolmen ($25,956); two (2) Data Entry Operator I's
($14,808); two (2) Terminal Technician I's ($14,316); one (1) Data Entry
Operator Supervisor ($18,228); two (2) Account Clerk I's ($14,808); eleven
(11) Clerk Typist I's ($14,316); and one (1) Computer Information Specialist
I ($22,704). Oversight assumed that the patrolmen's duties would mainly be
associated with background investigations and follow-up investigations as
MSHP stated and would therefore not require the purchase of a new
fully-equipped vehicle for each new patrolman. In response to another
proposal MSHP outlined costs for new a car and standard equipment that goes
with each car for patrolmen which equalled $25,829 per car. The MSHP
equipment request to "train/equip a patrolman" was $35,883 per patrolman.
$35,883 - $25,829 = $10,054/FTE to train/equip 17 patrolmen, or $170,918
one-time costs associated with the patrolmen FTEs. Equipment for the
additional personnel would be a one- time cost of $250,153 in FY97. MSHP
officials requested nine Livescan computers @ $50,000, or $450,000 and one
Store/Forward computer @ $50,000. Oversight has not reflected these costs in
equipment costs because it is assumed that all information necessary to
process a permit application is currently available through existing police
information systems. On-going expenses would include supplies/costs for
producing permits, FBI card processing, an Imaging System Upgrade, paper and
postage expenses associated with permits, patrolmen's uniform allowance and
certified mailings of revoked/suspended permits and capital improvements.
Oversight estimated total MSHP costs associated with this proposal to be
$3,050,356 in FY97, $2,278,461 in FY98 and $2,309,828 in FY99. MSHP
officials assumed that the Criminal Records Division would need 892.5 sq. ft.
for 17 new FTEs and COMAP recommends $110 per square foot (892.5 x $110 =
$98,175). Oversight has shown $98,175 in capital improvements costs.
Oversight assumes that the other FTEs would be in the nine troop headquarters
and could be located in existing facilities. Oversight assumes that there
would be $150 revenue for each permit processed. Fifty dollars of the
one-hundred and fifty dollar permit application fee would be paid to the MSHP
to offset the cost of processing the application and permit. One hundred
dollars for each permit application processed would be deposited into the
Police Officer Standards and Training Commission Fund which would be used to
defray the costs charged to peace officers for their own training pursuant to
section 590.115, RSMo. Based on MSHP's estimate of 62,000 applications,
Oversight assumes that there would be $6,200,000 deposited in the POST
Commission Fund in FY97, $4,000,000 in FY98 and $4,000,000 in FY99.
Oversight assumes that long-term revenues would drop dramatically to both
General Revenue Fund and POST Commission Fund when the majority of permit
applications processed would be renewals at $20 each.
FISCAL IMPACT - State Government FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
(10 Mo.)
GENERAL REVENUE FUND
Income-Missouri State Highway Patrol
Permit application fees $3,100,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000
Cost-Missouri State Highway Patrol
Personal Service (36 FTE) ($621,178) ($764,355) ($783,464)
Fringe Benefits (329,174) (405,046) (415,172)
Expense and Equipment (2,100,005) (1,109,061) (1,111,192)
Total Cost-MSHP ($3,050,356) ($2,278,461) ($2,309,828)
Cost-State Public Defender (SPD)
Personal Service (1 FTE) ($26,998) ($33,221) ($34,051)
Fringe Benefits (8,299) (10,212) (10,467)
Expense and Equipment (8,668) (4,313) (4,442)
Total Cost-SPD ($43,965) ($47,745) ($48,961)
Cost-Office of the Attorney General (AGO)
Personal Service (1 FTE) ($25,000) ($30,750) ($31,519)
Fringe Benefits (7,685) (9,453) (9,689)
Expense and Equipment (16,742) (12,412) (12,784)
Total Cost-AGO ($49,427) ($52,614) ($53,991)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT
TO GENERAL REVENUE FUND ($43,748) ($378,820) ($412,780)
POLICE OFFICER STANDARDS AND
TRAINING COMMISSION FUND
Income-Missouri State Highway Patrol
Permit fees $6,200,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT TO POLICE
OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING
COMMISSION FUND $6,200,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000
FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999
(10 Mo.)
0 0 0
DESCRIPTION
This proposal would establish an application procedure to obtain a permit to
carry concealed firearms.
This legislation would make the carrying of any firearm or other weapon, into
any school or onto any school bus without written permission from the
supervising official of the school, an unlawful use of a weapon. It would
also be unlawful to carry a concealed firearm, unless that person had a valid
permit. A person who possessed a concealed firearm and had been formally
adjudicated in juvenile court for an offense that would be a dangerous felony
if committed by an adult, would be guilty of unlawful possession of a
concealable firearm. This offense would be a class C felony.
This proposal would prohibit the forging, transferring, altering or changing
of a permit or making a false notation on the permit or obtaining a permit
under false representation or use or attempt to use a permit issued to
another. Violations would be a class A misdemeanor.
This proposal would allow the Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) access to
the juvenile records of any applicant for a concealable firearm permit. MSHP
would issue a permit if the applicant had met the specific requirements
outlined in this proposal. The MSHP would be allowed to deny, suspend or
revoke a permit if any of the requirements had not been met, or if it was
believed the applicant had made a false statement. Refusal would required to
be put in writing and could be appealed. Revocation or suspension would
have to be mailed by certified mail to the permit holder. The permit holder
would have ten days to surrender the permit to MSHP troop headquarters where
the permit had been issued. When the ten day period had expired a highway
patrol officer would be required to report the revocation or suspension to
the Missouri Uniform Law Enforcement System (MULES). If the permit holder
failed to surrender the permit, MSHP officer could request the court to order
the surrender of the permit. Once issued, a permit would be valid for five
years and could be renewed. MSHP would keep a record of all applications for
permits, and would report the issuance of permits to the MULES. The MSHP
would submit a copy of the permit along with fingerprints of the applicant
for filing in the central repository.
For processing of the permit, a fee of one hundred and fifty dollars would be
assessed by MSHP. Fifty dollars of the fee would be paid to General Revenue
for use by MSHP for the cost of processing the application and permit and one
hundred dollars would be placed in the Peace Officers Standards and Training
Commission (POSTC) Fund. Monies placed in the POSTC Fund would be used to
defray the costs charged to peace officers for their own training pursuant to
section 590.115, RSMo. The permittee would pay a fee of twenty dollars to
MSHP to renew a permit.
Any successful claim made against the MSHP or any patrol officer for
wrongfully issuing, failing to issue, or revoking or suspending a permit to
carry a concealed firearm would be paid out of the State Legal Expense Fund.
No permit issued would authorize any person to carry a concealed firearm or
any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any church or place where
people had assembled for worship, or into any school, or into any election
precinct on any election day, or into any building owned or occupied by any
agency of the federal government, state government or political subdivision
thereof. MSHP would have access to any juvenile court records of any person
who had applied for a permit to carry a concealed firearm. Any information
obtained pursuant to this subsection could be shared with the applicant, but
could not be disclosed to others without court authorization.
This proposal would require MSHP to submit to MULES by the twenty-fifth day
of the months of April, July, October and January, reports on the number of
concealed carry permits processed, denied, suspended or revoked as well as
the number of permit appeals filed from the previous calendar year quarter
information relating to permits to carry concealed firearms. MSHP would also
be required to compile information as to the number of permittees who are
convicted of crimes. An annual report of this information would be presented
to the Governor and the General Assembly each year.
This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other
program, but would require additional capital improvements.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Office of Prosecution Services
Office of the State Public Defender
State Courts Administrator
Office of the Attorney General
Department of Social Service
Department of Revenue
Department of Mental Health
Missouri Sheriff's Association
Police Chief's Association