Concealed gun rule unfunded

The bill doesn’t say how sheriffs will pay for mandated background checks.

Thursday, March 4, 2004 | 12:00 a.m. CST; updated 10:28 p.m. CDT, Monday, July 21, 2008

JEFFERSON CITY (AP)— Sheriffs who are baffled by how to implement Missouri’s concealed guns law following a state Supreme Court ruling may have themselves to thank for the confusion.

That’s because the language cited by the court as triggering an illegal unfunded mandate was added to last year’s concealed weapons legislation at the behest of the sheriffs’ lobbyist.

“I guess it’s ironic,” Jorgen Schlemeier, the lobbyist for the Missouri Sheriffs’ Association, said Wednesday when asked about the language.

The Missouri Supreme Court last week upheld the legislature’s right to legalize concealed guns but said the law imposed new duties on sheriffs without covering their full costs. The law therefore violated the so-called Hancock Amendment to the Missouri Constitution, the court found.

As such, the court said four counties that presented trial evidence about costs did not have to implement the law. But the court essentially laid out a roadmap for similar cost challenges to be raised in Missouri’s 110 other counties.

At issue in the Supreme Court’s ruling is a provision requiring sheriffs to charge applicants for concealed gun permits a nonrefundable processing fee of up to $100. The law directs the money to local accounts that can only be used for law enforcement equipment and training.

Sheriffs therefore cannot use the money to pay for the required fingerprint and background checks or for the personnel needed to handle the applications, the court said.

Yet the language limiting the money to being spent on law enforcement equipment and training was not in the original bill filed last year by Rep. Larry Crawford, R-California. He said it was added at the request of Schlemeier.

Schlemeier said his fear was that county officials would try to tap into the fund for roads or other uses, or that some people would use the money for pay raises or new patrol cars. The intent was to limit only the use of any extra money not needed for background checks or processing costs, Schlemeier said.

“I didn’t contemplate the Supreme Court would read it quite the way they did,” Schlemeier said.

Crawford recalled that the sheriffs wanted to have the potential to make money on the concealed weapons applications — and to keep what they made.

“They said, ‘We need money for equipment and training,’” Crawford said, “and I said, ‘conceal-carry would be more than happy to donate any overage to that.’”

To try to comply with the court’s ruling, Crawford is sponsoring legislation this year that would allow the funds to be spent on any costs reasonably associated with processing the permits. His bill is awaiting a House committee hearing — the first step in the legislative process.

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.