Fiscal Note - SB 0159 - Permits For Concealed Firearms
L.R. NO. 0661-01
BILL NO. SB 159
SUBJECT: Permits for Concealed Firearms
TYPE: Original
DATE: January 27, 1997
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
General Revenue ($67,661) ($71,114) ($72,925)
POST Commission $2,170,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000
Total Estimated
Net Effect on All
State Funds $2,102,339 $1,328,886 $1,327,075
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
None
Total Estimated
Net Effect on All
Federal Funds $0 $0 $0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS
FUND AFFECTED FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
Local Government $1,305,000 $395,625 $365,516
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
Officials of the Departments of Social Services and Revenue, Missouri Police
Chiefs' Association, Office of the Attorney General, and Department of Public
Safety - Missouri State Water Patrol assume this proposal would have no
fiscal impact to their agencies.
Officials of the Department of Mental Health (DMH) have not responded to the
request for fiscal impact. However, in response to a similar proposal in the
previous legislative session the DMH assumed there would be no fiscal impact
to their agency.
Officials of the Department of Corrections (DOC) have also not responded to
the request for fiscal impact. However, in response to a similar proposal in
a previous legislative session DOC officials stated that there would be
additional costs incurred as a result of the proposal, but were unable to
accurately determine what the total cost would be. DOC staff assumed that
any impact to their department as a result of the proposal would have to be
absorbed, with funding requested by way of regular and customary budgetary
methods as reflected by increased population.
Officials of the Office of Prosecution Services (OPS) assume that this
proposal may lead to prosecutions for the violations of permit laws.
Although it could impact the caseloads of prosecutors, OPS staff assume the
impact to a given office would be minimal.
Officials of the Office of the State Public Defender (SPD) assume they would
request an additional 2.50 FTE, plus related equipment and expenses, to
implement the additional duties outlined in this proposal. SPD staff assume
250 new C/D felonies for carrying weapons onto school grounds and 250 new
cases from lying on an application to obtain a permit to carry a concealed
weapon. SPD officials also assume the first year this proposal would be
implemented would result in a greater number of cases due to the heavy influx
of applications. SPD staff assume that this blimp in caseload would be
absorbed by their system.
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 ($32,256) 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 as a result of this proposal would be in the
potential appeals of permit denials. While CTS staff could not predict the
number of appeals, they would not expect the number to be large. Present law
provides for such an appeal for denial of a permit to purchase a concealable
weapon, and there does not appear to be a significant volume of those cases.
CTS officials would expect a few cases to be appealed through small claims
court, trial de novo and go to appellate review regarding the standards used
for denial. After a period of adjustment, CTS officials would expect the
ongoing volume of appeals of permit denials would be relatively small.
Officials of the Department of Public Safety - Missouri State Highway Patrol
(MSHP) stated that their Information Systems Division (ISD) assumed that this
proposal would cause the creation of a new system to maintain concealed
weapon permit and revocation information, creation of a new system to record
individuals qualifying as juvenile offenders, creation of new system to track
training and approval of instructors as described in the proposal.
Additionally, this proposal would require the installation of circuits and
terminal devices in all county sheriffs' offices as the proposal mandated the
use of Missouri uniform law enforcement system (MULES) for the reporting of
concealed weapon permits and revocation information. The circuit cost
estimates reflect actual costs currently paid for circuits and equipment.
ISD officials also assumed that the application design, development, and
support for the proposed Training Tracking System would become the
responsibility of the MSHP.
MSHP's Criminal Records Division (CRD) stated that the total impact on MSHP
would vary depending on how the proposal would be implemented. MSHP could
have to establish and maintain the guidelines for the firearms course. MSHP
would have to support the records in MULES for the list of applicants for
permits. If a central database of juvenile records was established for the
sheriffs to check, the MSHP would have to provide access to the database
through MULES. Upon the request of the sheriff processing a permit
application, the CRD would have to run a criminal record check. To handle
these increases in workload, the CRD would request one Fingerprint
Technician, two Data Entry Operators, one AFIS operator, one Quality Control
Clerk, and one Clerk Typist. MSHP would also request one Computer
Information Specialist I to design the application; development, maintenance,
training, and support for Permit, Juvenile and Training systems; interface
support; and Circuit Implementation Support.
Oversight assumes that there would some duplication in doing background
checks for permits to purchase handguns and other background checks requested
by local law enforcement agencies currently being performed and those that
would be required in relation to the concealed firearms permitting process.
Oversight therefore assumes that MSHP would require one Data Entry Operator
to review the fingerprints of applicants received, obtain any information
needed which is not submitted, search the criminal records database for a
criminal history, and process the applications. Some overtime could be
required to manage the initial flow of applications. Oversight also assumes
that connecting the Sheriffs' to the MULES system would not be required, as
all information necessary to process a permit application should be available
through existing police information systems. The proposal only requires the
sheriff to report the issuance of permits and any revocation/suspensions to
MULES.
Officials of the Missouri Sheriffs' Association assume county sheriffs'
departments would request 150 new FTEs ($22,000), plus fringe benefits, to
process concealed weapons permits for a cost of $3,750,000. They also
assumed they would also incur administrative costs of paying for the criminal
background checks at approximately $20 each. Assuming there would be 100,000
applicants annually, the administrative costs for criminal background checks
alone would be $2,000,000. Missouri Sheriffs' Association assumed the
combined fiscal impact would be $5,750,000 annually to implement this
proposal.
Texas passed concealed firearms legislation which went into effect January 1,
1996. Texas has an estimated population of 18,000,000, and received
approximately 200,000 applications in the first year. Missouri has a
population of 5,500,000; therefore, applying the same ratio, Oversight
assumed that Missouri would have 62,000 applications in the first year.
After the initial rush, Oversight assumed the number of new applications
would drop to approximately 40,000 annually for the second and third years.
This proposal sets the fee for a concealed weapons permit at $75; $40 of the
$75 fee would be paid to the treasury of the county or City of St. Louis
while $35 would go to the Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST)
Commission Fund. The permit fee should generate an estimated $4,650,000 in
FY98, $3,000,000 in both FY99 and FY2000. Of the revenue generated, the
county treasuries and the City of St. Louis would receive $2,480,000 in FY98,
and $1,600,000 in FY99 and FY2000 and the POST Commission Fund would receive
$2,170,000 in FY98 and $1,400,000 in both FY99 and FY2000. Oversight
officials spoke with MSHP staff to confirm that local law enforcement
agencies are not charged a fee for running criminal background checks.
Therefore, Oversight assumes that local law enforcement agencies would not
incur $2,000,000 in administrative costs to pay for background checks.
Oversight assumes that there would be long-term impact to the state as well
as to local law enforcement agencies as the new concealed firearm permit
applications diminished and those permitted individuals renewed their permit
every three year. Renewed permit fees would be $35 and would go to the POST
Commission Fund as outlined in this proposal. Ongoing costs to the local law
enforcement agencies to process permit applications and renewals could exceed
revenue generated from new permit applications.
Oversight officials spoke with a Public Information Officer (PIO) from the
Texas Department of Public Safety regarding their concealed firearms
legislation. The PIO stated that initially there was a glut of applications
which resulted in some backlogs. As of 5:00 p.m. on December 30, 1996, the
Texas Department of Public Safety had issued 114,717 licenses, had denied
1,321 applications and had less than 4,000 pending applications. Officials
from the Texas DPS expect that their concealed firearm program will fund
itself.
Oversight assumes that local law enforcement agencies could streamline the
concealed firearms permitting process by following those procedures used to
issue a permit to own a handgun in Missouri. Because the anticipated 62,000
applications in Missouri would be distributed over the entire state,
Oversight assumes that most third and fourth class county law enforcement
agencies would be able to handle any additional duties which resulted from
this proposal with existing staff. Oversight further assumes that first
class counties and the City of St. Louis could have a more concentrated
number of concealed firearms applications and would therefore need an
additional 3 FTEs in each county and the City of St. Louis or 39 FTEs.
Oversight assumes that second class counties would also need an additional
two FTEs in each county or 8 FTEs. Oversight assumes that local law
enforcement agencies would need a total of 47 FTEs at $22,000, plus $3,000
each for fringe benefits, as estimated by Missouri Sheriffs' Association due
to this proposal.
Oversight assumes that this proposal would result in a net gain to Total
State Revenues.
FISCAL IMPACT - State Government FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
(10 Mo.)
GENERAL REVENUE FUND
Cost-Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP)
Personal Service (1 FTE) ($13,125) ($16,150) ($16,554)
Fringe Benefits (3,745) (4,608) (4,723)
Expense and Equipment (5,215) (618) (637)
Total Cost-MSHP ($22,085) ($21,376) ($21,914)
Cost-State Public Defender (SPD)
Personal Service (1 FTE) ($27,541) ($33,889) ($34,736)
Fringe Benefits (7,857) (9,669) (9,910)
Expense and Equipment (10,178) (6,180) (6,365)
Total Cost-SPD ($45,576) ($49,738) ($51,011)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT TO
GENERAL REVENUE FUND ($67,661) ($71,114) ($72,925)
PEACE OFFICERS STANDARDS AND
TRAINING (POST) COMMISSION FUND
Income-Department of Public Safety
Permit fees $2,170,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT TO
POST COMMISSION FUND $2,170,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000
FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000
(10 Mo.)
Income-Counties and City of St. Louis
Permit fees $2,480,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000
Cost-Counties and City of St. Louis
Personal services/
fringe benefits (47 FTE) ($1,175,000) ($1,204,375) ($1,234,484)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT TO
COUNTIES AND CITY OF ST. LOUIS $1,305,000 $395,625 $365,516
FISCAL IMPACT - Small Business
No direct fiscal impact to small businesses would be expected as a result of
this proposal.
DESCRIPTION
This proposal would allow a person to obtain a permit to carry a concealed
firearm if he meets certain requirements. The county sheriff would be the
permitting agency. Retired judges, police officers, and prosecutors would be
allowed to carry concealed firearms without a permit.
A person who: 1) possesses and discharges; or 2) brandishes a firearm while
intoxicated is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor. Under current law,
possession of a firearm while intoxicated is a crime.
A person who carries a firearm onto school property or carries a concealed
firearm without a permit commits a Class D felony.
A person who was adjudicated in juvenile court of any offense constituting a
dangerous felony, where a concealable firearm was used in the crime, and who
later carries a concealable firearm commits a Class C felony. A person who
has been adjudicated of such offense may not obtain a permit to carry a
concealable firearm.
A section parallel to Section 571.090, RSMo, is created for obtaining a
permit to carry concealed (571.091). The requirements to obtain a permit are
the same as those for obtaining a permit to carry a concealable firearm
(571.090) and the following requirements are added: 1) the applicant has not
exhibited violent behavior in the past five years; and 2) the applicant has
taken at least sixteen hours of firearms training. Applications shall be
made to the sheriff where the applicant resides. Any person who forges or
alters a permit or obtains a permit by false representation is guilty of a
Class A misdemeanor. A permit costs $75 and is valid for three years. Of
the $75 fee, $40 shall be paid to the county treasury or the treasury of the
City of St. Louis to the credit of the general revenue fund and $35 shall be
paid to the Police Officers Standards and Training (POST) fund. If a permit
application is denied, a person may appeal such denial to the small claims
court.
This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other
program and would not require additional capital improvements or rental
space. This proposal would affect Total State Revenues.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Department of Public Safety - Missouri State Water Patrol
Department of Public Safety - Missouri State Highway Patrol
Office of Prosecution Services
State Public Defender
State Courts Administrator
Office of the Attorney General
Department of Social Services
Department of Revenue
Missouri Sheriffs' Association
Missouri Police Chiefs' Association
NOT RESPONDING - Department of Mental Health and Department of Corrections
This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.